1965-05-27

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on May 6 the hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg asked me if I would be in a position to say something about the urgent need for larger and properly equipped coast guard ships on the east coast. I indicated I hoped to make a statement very shortly. This statement is a little longer than an appropriate answer to a question, so I thought I should make it on motions.
The statement is regarding an increase in the facilities and equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard of the Department of Transport for marine search and rescue work in Atlantic waters.
General co-ordination of search and rescue activities is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence which has established search and rescue co-ordination centres for this purpose. Traditionally and by law, all vessels available, whether owned by the Government or privately owned, must assist when needed under the direction of the search and rescue co-ordination officers. At the search and rescue co-ordination centres the Canadian Coast Guard provides special marine advisers to assist in matters relating to marine operations. In addition the Coast Guard some years ago put into service three small and five medium sized cutters solely for the purpose of providing search and rescue competence and doing general patrol work in this connection. Two of the medium sized cutters, which were designed for coastal and sheltered waters work rather than either deep sea or close inshore work, have been stationed in the Atlantic area.
As a result of continuing study of requirements in the Atlantic area, it has been decided that the Canadian Coast Guard capability will now be expanded by the provision of four large new cutters, possessing full capabilities for deep sea work. These cutters will be approximately 200 feet in length and will cost around $4 million each to build. They
will operate primarily in the offshore areas frequented by our deep sea fishermen.
In addition, to meet conditions in which neither the large nor medium sized cutters can operate, several shore based lifeboat stations will be developed. It is planned to develop five new stations of this sort in addition to the one that already exists in the Bay of Fundy. The Canadian Coast Guard will provide the lifeboat, but it is intended that the manning will be based on the voluntary part time support of the local community, possibly somewhat similar to the system which applies in Great Britain. These lifeboats will cost about $150,000 each.
No decision has as yet been taken on the location of the lifeboat stations. Further field investigation will be necessary, including consultation with local groups as to how best the voluntary type of organization mentioned can be set up under Canadian Coast Guard supervision.
The full implementation of the program which I have mentioned in Atlantic waters will probably take four to five years. It will do a great deal to strengthen and improve our ability to provide patrol and assistance for search and rescue work not only in our immediate coastal waters but even farther afield, and will be of great benefit to fishermen and other marine operators in the Atlantic provinces as well as to international shipping.
Similar studies of requirements with regard to both the Pacific coast and the Great Lakes are to be carried out to see what further expansion of Coast Guard capabilities in these areas is required.
I should emphasize that it is not intended that the provision of these vessels should in any way imply that marine rescue should become solely a Government responsibility, or should weaken the prime responsibility for rescue at sea which traditionally and in law is a matter of mutual help among seafarers of all kinds.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I am
sure the House listened with interest to the announcement the Minister has just made. I think I can say on behalf of my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg, who will shortly be

May 27, 1965
Proposed Legislation
in his place, that all hon. Members who represent coastal areas are happy to hear of this further step toward the improvement of Coast Guard facilities of this country.
Certain measures were taken by the former Government in this regard, but the provision of four additional large cutters will certainly be of much assistance, as will the lifeboat stations. In the course of the past year a series of storms cost the lives of a number of our seamen and fishermen. I am sure the measures indicated in the hon. gentleman's announcement are welcome in so far as they provide further facilities to those who each and every day put considerations of safety behind them and go down to the sea in ships.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: The only comment we would like to make is this. What about the Great Lakes?



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964, (duration of House of Commons).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: It has long been my contention and it is, I think, the contention of many members of the Canadian public that elections should not take place every year or so in the federal field. This bill would provide, with certain safeguards and guarantees, for a four year term. It would mean that the responsibilities of Government could be exercised by any Government which had the support of the House of Commons, except in extreme emergency. Provision is made for the amendment of the British North America Act which now limits the duration of a Parliament to five years so as to allow, with some exceptions, four year terms free of elections and free of campaigning in the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the bill which has just been presented. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre was not in his own seat and did not particularly wish to second the motion, but I will be happy to second it.



SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a Science Council of Canada and to define the duties thereof; to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the Council and for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman, the travelling and living expenses of the members and associate members of the Council and the remuneration of members performing duties in addition to their regular duties; and to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of the said measure shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Research Council Act to change the formal title of the National Research Council; to provide that members of the Council, other than the President or a Vice President may, during any period in which they perform duties on behalf of the Council in addition to their ordinary duties, be paid such remuneration therefor as the Council may authorize; to authorize the appointment of persons to perform duties of a temporary nature for a period of not more than six months; to authorize the Council to operate and maintain a national science library; and to provide further for certain changes in consequence thereof and also in connection with the administration of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. On May 12 last I asked him some information concerning the officials of the centennial commission who had tendered their resignation. I also asked him to give a list of the projects approved up to that time by the centennial commission.
May 27. 1965

I have not yet received answers to those questions. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell me when those answers will be provided. Could he also give us today a progress report on the operations of the commission, in view of the interest taken in that matter and especially in view of the concern prevailing because of recent disclosures?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible, during the question period, to give the very impressive list of projects now being carried out by the centennial commission.
Once again, as I have already done on two different occasions, I ask the party whips to make known to me the names of hon. members who might be interested in attending a meeting where we could discuss those plans and projects. Unfortunately, I have not yet received the names of Conservative members.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Secretary of State answer the question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) about Mr. Fisher and give us the formal assurance that the latter will remain as head of the commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the question of Mr. Fisher's resignation was never raised, as far as I can remember.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether, if Mr. Fisher stays on with the title of Commissioner, he will in fact be able to exercise that function and will occasionally be able to see the Minister.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Fisher will be able to see the Minister whenever he wishes.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. In view of the Minister's answer yesterday to the effect that Mr. Fisher is in full charge of the Commission, may I ask him whether this extends to employment of personnel within the Centennial Commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker, because the Act provides that these appointments have to be approved by the Governor in Council.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is it not a fact that the cause of the trouble is employment of persons behind Mr. Fisher's back, he not being given any opportunity to comment thereon?


Maurice Lamontagne: I believe there has been full co-operation in this respect, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appeile):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that addressed to the Secretary of State. I am intrigued by his answer because of the fact that the Commissioner of the Centennial Commission has had very little to say about appointments. What assurances did the Minister give the Commissioner that political interference in the handling of appointments and dismissals would cease?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any political interference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my second question is this. Is it not true that the Commissioner and the members of the board decided to dispense with the services of one member of the staff, and that this man is now back at work? Who is responsible for bringing him back?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that situation, but I do know that at one stage Mr. Fisher wanted a man moved from the position he held, and that this man was moved within the last five months.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED POSTPONEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I should not like to comment on that, Mr. Speaker, until we get all the information from our representative as to the extent of the damage. If there is anything more we should do I am sure the Government would be glad to do it.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether there is any truth to the report that the Federal-Provincial Conference between the Prime Minister and the Provincial Premiers has been further postponed and is to be replaced by a meeting of Government officials. I ask the Prime Minister whether this report is correct and, if so, is the Federal-Provincial Conference to be postponed indefinitely or to a specific date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that report is not accurate. There is to be a meeting on May 31, the date set for the original ministerial meeting, of high officials of the Provincial and Federal Governments to discuss matters and perhaps

May 27, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry also discuss the agenda of the forthcoming Conference at the ministerial level. There has been no change in the other situation regarding the ministerial conference. I have written to the heads of the Provincial Governments suggesting a date in July for the postponed meetings and I am awaiting replies from them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister had time to receive replies from any of the Provincial Premiers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think three replies have come in.

Mr. Speaker, I did tell the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that I thought there were three replies received. On further consideration I think there are more than that; I think there may be five.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All favourable? Are all accepting the invitation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no rejection of the postponement, but there has been disappointment evidenced in at least one reply that the postponement was necessary.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It concerns the recent tragedy which occurred in a sister Commonwealth nation through the devastating storm we have heard so much about. I am referring to Pakistan, whose Queen is also the Queen of Canada. This storm, reports say, took the lives of some 20,000 people and left at least five million people without homes, crops, livestock or means of existence. What assistance is planned by the Canadian Government to meet this critical and urgent need, over and above the token gift provided through the Canadian Red Cross?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government's assistance to the victims of this tragedy has been given through the Red Cross. I am not at the moment certain of the actual amount, but that is the form which our assistance took.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, and it is in relation to the size of this gift. Reports say it amounted to $15,000. Does the Prime Minister consider

this an adequate indication of our responsibility, in a tragedy like this, to a country which is a sister Commonwealth nation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should not like to comment on that, Mr. Speaker, until we get all the information from our representative as to the extent of the damage. If there is anything more we should do I am sure the Government would be glad to do it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Could the minister tell us what is the present state of negotiations between his department and letter carriers, at least those from the province of Quebec? Will those negotiations soon be brought to a happy conclusion?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any particular
negotiations between the authorities of the Post Office Department and the Quebec letter carriers' association, but I could get the information for the hon. member.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY REVISIONS FOR GROUP &quot;B&quot; EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister inform the House when the Government intends to take action concerning pay revisions for group "B" employees in order to restore civil service morale, which according to a statement by the President of the Treasury Staff Association of Canada at a conference in Toronto has never been at a lower ebb?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I cannot accept the general comment which was attached to that question, but I will be glad to take the question as notice and reply to the hon. Member at an early date.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY NEW BRUNSWICK-PROPOSED CHANGE IN ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to
May 27. 1965



the Minister of Public Works. Has the Minister received a telegram from the Bath Chamber of Commerce stating that the general public interest renders it imperative that he send a top level official of his Department to investigate the suggested change in routing of the trans-Canada highway from Florence-ville to Perth, New Brunswick, to the west side of the St. John River due to the fact that it involves several million dollars excess expenditure over the east side route, and because the ordinary traffic and convenience regarding the heavily populated area on the east side, as well as through traffic to eastern counties of New Brunswick, will suffer as a consequence?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While this is undoubtedly a very interesting and informative question, it seems to me it should be placed on the order paper.


Hugh John Flemming: I should like to debate the matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. 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?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely that is a question for the order paper.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to debate it at ten o'clock.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in relation to the Minister's very welcome announcement today concerning the search and rescue organization for the Atlantic coast. Can the Minister tell the House how
Inquiries of the Ministry soon a similar arrangement can be made in respect of the Great Lakes, now that the summer season is here and boating accidents are daily on the increase? I realize that he may have alluded to this in his announcement. Can the Minister also tell the House what co-ordinating arrangements presently exist in this regard in the Great Lakes area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the last part of the question, if the hon. gentleman refers to co-ordination between Canada and the United States I do not think I can give an offhand answer, but if he refers simply to Canadian co-ordination let me state that it is exactly the same in respect of the Great Lakes and Pacific coast as in respect of the Atlantic coast. I did say when I made the statement that we are making a survey of the needs of the Great Lakes and Pacific coast areas. I hope that survey can be completed as quickly as possible so it will be possible to meet the needs as quickly as possible.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question. Can I take it from the Minister's answer that the Minister of National Defence is responsible for co-ordinating search and rescue operations on the Great Lakes, and I have in mind municipal and voluntary organizations and the like.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume that is correct, Sir. If I am wrong I will correct that tomorrow.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
During the last session the former minister of public works stated that he would soon announce the construction of public buildings in the city of Hull. My question is this. Does the present Minister of Public Works intend to announce soon the construction of federal buildings in the city of Hull?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This also is a very interesting question, but I do not think it contains that element of urgency which would demand an immediate answer. In any

May 27. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
event I am sure the Minister, in order to Mr. Pickersgill: The decision will be an-give an answer, will have to make an inves- nounced as soon as possible alter it is made tigation in his Department.	in order to satisfy the curiosity of the hon.
Member for Pictou; I can understand his TRANSPORT	curiosity.



SUGGESTED FRENCH NAME FOR NEW ICEBREAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport following the statement he made yesterday to the effect that a Canadian icebreaker would be named "John Cabot".
Could the minister tell the house why this icebreaker will be named "John Cabot", whereas it is probably named after Jean Cabot-a fine French name-a Venetian navigator at the service of England, who, with his son Sebastian, discovered part of the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador and Florida in 1497?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, Sir, this calls for a lengthy reply.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down; order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the general interest, perhaps we should clean up this historical fact right now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, Sir, it requires more historical research than I have had the opportunity to give at this time to clear it up right now. I should like to think about it over the week end.



NOVA SCOTIA-WINTER TERMINAL FOR SERVICE WITH NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Perhaps I should direct it to the Minister of Transport, since he is also concerned with this subject. Has a decision yet been made with regard to the provision of alternative port facilities either at Mulgrave or Port Hastings?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this is a matter which comes under my jurisdiction. I am giving this question the most earnest consideration.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Will a decision be made before the next election, after redistribution?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask the Minister whether he is now in a position to advise us who is in greater favour, the hon. Member for In-verness-Richmond or the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would say that the hon. Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria is in the greatest jeopardy of all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am going to call upon the hon. Member for Cape Breton South, and I hope we will keep clear of this type of question.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question on the same subject to address to the Minister of Labour. I would ask the Minister of Labour what success he has had with the pressure he is putting forward on behalf of the Cape Breton side of the question. I should like an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it does seem to me that the last three questions were out of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would ask the Minister of Labour one further question. Is he so ignorant of the facts that he cannot supply an answer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: A further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It may strike hon. Members as rather funny, but it is clear that questions of this type do not help the House make much progress with its business.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, this question certainly does not strike me as being very funny. The question I wish to ask the Minister is this. Is he now admitting by the reply he made to a supplementary question asked a few moments ago that he intends to further reduce employment at the port of North Sydney? This is why I pressed the question in the first place. Does he intend to hand all the freight handling to the constituency of the Minister of Labour? Will he continue to reduce employment at North Sydney, which he said would
May 27. 1965

not be reduced, though everybody knows it will be reduced if this course is followed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not accept any of the implications in the hon. Member's statement, but I think one point should be cleared up. All that is being discussed with regard to an alternate landing place in the Straits of Canso is a place for use in the winter time, when it is not possible to use North Sydney. Whenever it is possible to use North Sydney that port will be used, because the distance is much shorter. The whole purpose of these installations is to carry out the terms of union and provide the best and most efficient way of transporting goods and people between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. If it had not been for the union between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada this employment would not have existed in North Sydney or anywhere else, and I think we should rejoice in this fruit of the union between the two countries instead of trying to make petty politics out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



TEXTILES-RESTRICTION ON JAPANESE EXPORTS TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and its urgency is based on the desire of the textile industry, especially in the man-made textile field, to make long term plans. Is the Government about to make an announcement relating to the self imposed restrictions by Japan with regard to the export of Japanese textiles to Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. If the Government is not going to make an announcement in this regard, I should like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that in 1964 Japanese exports in this field were held to a reasonable level.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: These matters are under continuous study by the officials of my Department in the closest co-operation with the appropriate people in the textile industry. I think I can assure my hon. friend that nothing is being overlooked. I could tell him also that I hope to have the pleasure of speaking to the Textile Institute next week, and I fancy a lot of matters will be cleared up.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the Minister of Finance, when he looks into this matter, would check out if there has not been an application of dumping duties on Chinese textiles coming into Canada within the last six weeks that rather discriminates against China as compared with Japan.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to refer this question to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, and I will make inquiries myself.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, having been a fruit grower for over 40 years and interested in the welfare of British Columbia fruit growers, I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, whoever that may be.
Has the Minister held an investigation into the circumstances that exist with respect to the losses suffered from frost by certain fruit growers in British Columbia this year? Is consideration being given to amendment to the Farm Credit Corporation legislation to cover this unexpected and unfortunate situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member was kind enough to send me notice yesterday, so I have had the time to consider the question very carefully. It does seem to be interesting, important and well expressed, but it should be on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will have another go at ten o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of National Defence is back in his seat, so I wonder if he would answer the question I asked the Prime Minister in his absence on Tuesday, relating to the two anti-missile systems which are to be removed from joint Canadian-U.S. control and put under sole United States control. Can he bring the House up to date and report on this matter; or perhaps the Prime Minister has the answer?

May 27, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon, Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, consultations between the Canadian and United States Governments on all matters affecting their joint interest in the defence of North America is at all times full and effective. The Canadian Government has been aware of the development of the weapons systems referred to in the press. I may say at this point that this is not a removal, as stated in my hon. friend's question, but is a matter of assignment.
The assignment of forces to the operational command of NORAD has been and remains a matter for national decision. In accordance with this arrangement the systems referred to are a national, defensive measure by the United States to make provision for countering possible threats from orbiting satellites. These systems were at no time assigned to NORAD.
There is absolutely no basis for the speculative suggestion that this is indicative of any decline in support on the part of either Government for our joint NORAD command. Although the requirements of North America defence are changing with the development of new weapons, both offensive and defensive, Canada and the United States will continue to co-operate closely to provide jointly and effectively for the defence of the continent.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the developments to which the Minister has just referred, can he say if he considers that the usefulness or future usefulness of NORAD is coming to an end?


Mr. Hellyer:: I would not say so, Mr. Speaker. It could be that in time there may be changes in the relationship due to changes in weapons systems. Nevertheless there will continue to be a requirement for close cooperation and co-ordination between the two countries as there has been in the past.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I
ask a supplementary question. The Minister will be aware that there are a number of small communities across Canada that are dependant economically upon the radar bases that are part of the NORAD system. I wonder if he can give assurance that he will let these communities know as soon as possible when these bases are likely to be phased out, in view of some of the policy changes that seem to be in prospect following the opinions expressed by the United States Defence Secretary.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will give as much notice as we can, as is our policy. Perhaps I can reassure my hon. friend at the

moment in respect of the stations on the Pine Tree Line, which are the important ones remaining, that there is every indication these will be continued in operation for some time to come, perhaps a number of years.


Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: May I
ask a supplementary question in relation to the possible phasing out of some of the NORAD system. The Minister assured the House, as I understood it, that there are no plans at present for phasing out the Pine Tree Line. Can he say whether there are plans he knows of at present for the phasing out of any of the weather stations located in Canada as part of the NORAD system?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which stations my hon. friend is referring to, but if he will be good enough to let me know I will find out for him.



USE OF FORMER FLAGS IN PRIVATE MILITARY FUNERALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Victoria, B.C., asked for a statement of Government policy in respect to service participation at military funerals. A supplementary related question was asked by the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and I took the question as notice.
First of all, in respect of private funerals, officers and men may request and receive time off from their duties to attend and participate if they wish, either in or out of uniform. Attendance and participation, however, are on a strictly voluntary basis. In the case of official military funerals, details of servicemen may be required to attend and participate, as authorized by the Department of National Defence. In the case of official military funerals, the practice continues to be for the casket to be suitably draped with the national flag of Canada.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: With regard to official honour guards, do I take it that if the family of the deceased requests an official guard of honour and at the same time requests that the casket be draped with other than the official flag of Canada, the request for the honour guard will be refused? Also, if the request is for the Union Jack to drape the casket, will the honour guard be refused?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated, there are no restrictions whatever in respect of a private
May 27, 1965

funeral. If the request is for an official, military funeral then the official flag of Canada is used.


Mr. Nugent:: Which official flag of Canada?


George Louis Chatterton: The Minister did not reply to the part of my question regarding the draping of the Union Jack over the casket.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the statement speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. The flag of Canada was approved by this Parliament. Although the Union Jack is used and flown from time to time as an indication of our connection with the Commonwealth, it is not the official flag of Canada.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in connection with the use of flags at military funerals, which I would like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the policy which has apparently been adopted by the Department of National Defence is, in the opinion of a very large number of Canadians, unduly restrictive, would the Government give further consideration to this matter with a view to allowing the flags under which people had served to be used at their funerals?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the policy that has been referred to is the one that has been in effect for many years, and the regulations are those that have been in effect for many years. I do not think there is any necessity to change that policy, but I quite agree that in the application of policies of this kind regard should be taken for sentimental considerations.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have a supplementary question in connection with this question. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether arrangements have been completed for all public buildings in Canada to have two flag poles so that both our national flags can be flown at the same time on appropriate occasions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are only two national flags in my hon. friend's mind.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would like to have an answer to that question.


An hon. Member:: You got it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Parliament said there were two official flags.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member is arguing.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary to the Prime Minister, do I take from the statement he just made that further consideration will be given to allowing the flag under which deceased fought to be draped over the casket, even at an official military funeral?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am afraid I will have to ask my hon. friend to repeat his question. I did not get it entirely.


George Louis Chatterton: Do I take it the Prime Minister will give further consideration to allowing the flag under which a deceased fought to be draped over the casket, even in the case of an official military funeral?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I said the regulations are those that have been in effect for many years, and I do not think they should be changed just because the official national flag of Canada is now, by parliamentary decision, a different one than it was. But I did say, and I am sure hon. Members will agree, that in the application of regulations of all kinds humanitarian and sentimental considerations are of some importance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. I want to ask him whether the family of the late Admiral Grant requested an official funeral and had this request rejected because the late Admiral stipulated in his will that he wanted a white ensign on his casket?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know they did not request an official military funeral. I think that question is being answered separately in reply to a written question.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary, may I ask the Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Quiet.


George Louis Chatterton: I see this is a sensitive subject, Mr. Speaker. Was it indicated to the Grant family that if they submitted a formal request for a military funeral it would be declined because they requested that the white ensign be draped over the casket?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.

May 27. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry



NOVA SCOTIA-ASSISTANCE IN FIGHTING FOREST FIRES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the very serious forest fire situation existing in Nova Scotia, arising from the fact that summertime there, as usual, is more advanced than in the rest of Canada, has the Minister made the facilities of the Department available to provincial authorities to assist in combating the forest fires?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is an understanding between the local and military authorities. The military authorities are ready to intervene as soon as requested to do so, but no request has yet been made.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he advise if the Atlantic Development Board has in contemplation or under study any projects which would increase significantly the share of $100 million, beyond the minuscule amount of 1.8 per cent now allocated to the province of Prince Edward Island?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. gentleman the Director of the Board has just been carrying on discussions with the government of P.E.I. about the offer of the Board to grant $6 million to that province for a cable across Northumberland Strait, to bring in electricity at a lower price than that at which it is now available in P.E.I., and I hope those negotiations are reaching a favourable conclusion.



NOVA SCOTIA-USE OF DEVELOPMENT BOARD FUNDS FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: As a supplementary question may I ask the Minister if he is in a position to provide a report to the House on any progress that is being made in negotiations between the Atlantic Development Board and the government of Nova Scotia with reference io the $20 million that has been allocated for industrial development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I answered that question when asked by the hon. Member for Cumberland, I think about two days ago.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has she taken note of the Prime Minister's reply to my question of two days ago concerning the desirability of introducing the Canada Assistance Plan at an early date so that additional pension benefits for persons on old age security might soon be made available to them? Can she say when this legislation will be introduced?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question was brought to my attention. However, I think my hon. friend should realize that while provincial ministers of welfare have had an opportunity to discuss thoroughly the proposed Canada Assistance Plan, and now have the opportunity to write me regarding their own positions, there has been no opportunity for the heads of the provinces and the head of this Government to discuss it at a dominion-provincial meeting. It is my understanding that this is one of the items to be discussed when next they meet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the public statements the Minister is making concerning the benefits to flow from this plan, does she not think an effort should be made to get it into effect earlier than the date that has been publicly forecast?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I shall do the best I can, but this is an example of co-operative federalism and the heads of the 11 governments have to consider it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we should pursue this matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question to ask the Minister. Is her Department aware of the complaints, notably from B.C., of social welfare recipients and some old age pensioners, concerning the reported major increases in rentals which they are being asked to pay following the recent increase
May 27, 1965

in pension grants. If so, would her Department look into this matter?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have seen some clippings regarding this matter. I think most hon. Members realize it is not a matter for which the Federal Government has any responsibility. Obviously when the Federal Government proposes to pay half the amounts which are disbursed by provincial governments it hopes that money will remain in the hands of the welfare recipients. That is what Parliament votes the money for, and it is to be hoped those dealing with such recipients will not take any increase as a signal to increase service, rental or food costs to them.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I wonder if he has any information about efforts to ascertain the present whereabouts of the hon. Member for Yukon and the hon. Member for Bow River. Does he intend to use Telestar to find these hon. gentlemen?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: What about finding
Rivard?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Mr. Crouse:: Where is Dupuis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagol):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: There is surely no supplementary question arising on a question which was not a question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to ask the Prime Minister where is the hon. Member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville; also, where is the Minister of Agriculture?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are away with the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is one of those statements far from the truth.


An hon. Member:: Misleading the House as usual.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really must ask for a little co-operation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: My
question is for the Minister of Justice. Has the Canadian Government taken action to have Georges Lemay returned to Canada to face the criminal charges he has evaded for three years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I did not hear the hon. Member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Churchill:: It was a question for the Minister of Justice.


Robert Carman Coates: The question was for the Minister of Justice. I am asking whether extradition proceedings have been taken by the Canadian Government to bring Georges Lemay back to Canada to face the criminal charges he has evaded.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Presently the police authorities of the City of Montreal and the Province of Quebec are pursuing activities toward obtaining the return of Georges Lemay to Montreal. This would be the normal course of action, the administration of justice under the Criminal Code being within the jurisdiction of the provincial and local authorities.


Robert Carman Coates: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a press release which states that Lemay is heading for Haiti; and is the Canadian Government certain that he will not escape the United States law enforcement authorities in the way Rivard escaped from Canada?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: A supplementary question on that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. These are detailed questions. It seems to me they are very interesting, but they are not exactly urgent.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: This is urgent at the moment because the question involves a possible escape by this man. Has the Federal Government co-operated with the Provincial Government to make sure this man is brought to justice in Canada?


Guy Favreau: All the necessary co-operation is, of course, lent to the provincial and municipal authorities, and any further par-

May 27, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry tieular assistance which is requested by the authorities have jurisdiction will be given.



QUEBEC CITY-APPREHENSION OF PERSONS DEFACING MONUMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. I trust he received the notice I sent him yesterday. Has the Minister, through the R.C.M.P., taken any steps or is he planning to take any steps to apprehend those who defaced the monuments of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, General Wolfe and the Boer War Memorial in Quebec City on Monday?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this again is a matter of the administration of justice and the application of the Criminal Code within the Province. I must answer this question by saying I am advised that at the present time the municipal police of Montreal are active in this direction.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Government has excused its indifferent support of Canadian universities on the ground that it was waiting for the recommendations of a committee on financing of higher education under the chairmanship of Professor Bladen, appointed last year by the Canadian Universities Foundation, will the Minister tell the House when he expects to receive the report?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The introduction to that question included an allegation which I cannot accept. The Canadian Universities Foundation set up this Commission, and I would think common sense would suggest that the Government should await the findings of this Commission before prejudging the situation. My information is that the Commission's report should be ready by the early fall, and the Government will look forward to reviewing the report with the university authorities at that time.


Arnold Alexander Webster: Always tomorrow.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-PETITION RESPECTING CHANGE IN PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Quebec legislative assembly yesterday approved the text of the address it will send to Her Majesty concerning the Legislative Council, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house whether he has received from the government of the province of Quebec the text of that address with a request to consider it favourably?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; the text has not yet been received.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether he has received a communication from the Legislative Council itself asking not to consider the request of the government of the province of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such request has been received. I assume that either request would be received by the Governor General via the Lieutenant Governor, and submitted to the Government by the Governor General.


Mr. Georges Valade (Saint-Marie):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether before any decision is reached by the Cabinet in this matter this whole question will be referred to the House. Will it be referred to the House before a decision is taken as to whether the Government prefers the petition of the Legislative Assembly or that of the Legislative Council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the normal procedure, as I have already indicated, will be followed in this matter. I think we should wait until we see the actual address when it is received by the Federal Government.
May 27, 1965


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question deals with the one raised earlier by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux).
In view of the fact that the address to the queen will be authorized by the Canadian parliament, could the Prime Minister tell us whether the legislative council has priority over the legislative assembly, as regards an address of this kind?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this Government receives addresses of this kind from the Government of a Province, not from the Legislature of a Province.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It has been announced that Princess Margaret and her husband, Lord Snowdon, have accepted an invitation to visit the United States this fall. I am wondering whether an invitation will be extended by the Canadian Government for the royal couple to visit this country at that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the invitation to which my hon. friend refers, but I will be glad to look into it.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. First I would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming his announcement of an extension of the Canadian coast guard service, which will undoubtedly be helpful to our east coast fishermen.
My question is on another matter. Would the Minister of Transport indicate to the House when we might expect the Government's announcement concerning the long awaited commercial aviation policy covering the division of international air routes be-
Inquiries of the Ministry tween Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am almost inclined to think the hon. Member must be telepathic, because I believe it is going to be quite soon.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister of Justice if he has a reply to a question I put last week regarding the circumstances which led the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to write the rather odd letter to the C.B.C. in connection with the program "Viewpoint" that featured Mr. Anthony Wright of the West German press.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a proper question for the order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I cannot protest and argue, because the rules do not permit me to do so; but I would just like to point out to the Minister that the question was accepted, notice was given, and I expected a reply. I spoke to the Minister personally and understood from him-although he and I may have been at cross purposes-that there was to be a reply. I consider the question important, and I will have to debate it at ten o'clock some evening, but I think just in simple courtesy the Minister should look up the record and give a reply.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to be unfair to the hon. Member; it might be that in a casual conversation we happened, just for once, to be talking at cross purposes. If that is the case I will undertake to answer the question here.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Over a period of several weeks I have asked him questions concerning the bankruptcy of Walsh Advertising Company Limited. The Minister of Justice gave a technical answer concerning the superintendent of bankruptcy, and so forth. At that time

May 27, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Justice said he was not prepared to answer the principal questions concerning the misleading of creditors into believing they were dealing with the Government, and the financial reliability of the company when it was employed. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to having these questions answered by someone in the Government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to follow up that aspect of the question. I realize that my hon. friend's original question has not yet been answered, and I will look into it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether, in view of reports today of the gravity of the Viet Nam war situation and the possibility of an extension of that war, the Minister would bring us up to date as to his views on the situation, and particularly with regard to Canada's commitments or involvement in that area.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will soon have had an opportunity for a discussion of the Government's foreign policy. It would obviously not be possible to answer the first part of this question on the orders of the day. However, so there will be no misunderstanding let me repeat that the Government from the beginning has taken the view that a purely military solution in this situation was neither desirable nor practicable. We have urged a cease fire, and we have urged that negotiations be undertaken.
We noted with satisfaction that the President of the United States has offered to enter into negotiations without any pre-conditions. We also noted with satisfaction that the bombing in the north stopped for a time, and we believe this was in response to the suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Canada, to afford an opportunity to those in the north to give careful consideration to the proposal for negotiations designed to lead toward peace. We regret that there has been no response of a favourable character.
With respect to the second and more specific part of the question concerning Canadian

commitments, I wish to repeat what I have already said in the House that Canada's only commitments in the area relate to our membership in the three international commissions in Indochina, and in more general terms to our membership in the United Nations.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister, when the proper time comes for him to make a statement in the debate to which he has referred, would take particular care to answer the charges of former R.C.A.F. Squadron Leader H. H. Campbell, who has charged the Canadian handling of its responsibilities as "weak-kneed and jelly-spined". He says that successive Canadian Governments have kept the true facts of Viet Nam from the Canadian public. I think charges like this should be answered if the public are to have the information which I feel they deserve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of dealing with this question, not in the debate but right now. The comments attributed to former Squadron Leader Campbell over the week end represent the personal views of a former member of the Canadian delegation. They do not appear to be essentially different from the views he has been expressing for some time now in the press and elsewhere ever since his retirement from the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Within the limits of the Official Secrets Act there is, of course, no objection to a former member of the Canadian armed services or a Government employee expressing his own personal opinions. It is, however, useful to keep in mind that during his service in Viet Nam Squadron Leader Campbell was a relatively junior member of the delegation, and as a team site officer he may not have formed as comprehensive a view of the Commission's operations as would be desirable before making sweeping judgments of the Commission.
I find it difficult to understand, for example, how an officer who served with the delegation at the time when the special report of June 1962 was released, could claim that Canada had not taken a balanced view of the situation in Viet Nam. That report, as hon. Members will recall, calls attention to the activities of both sides in violation of the Geneva Agreement. Equally important, in paragraph 21 and Annexure I attention is called to the unsatisfactory nature of controls in both halves of Viet Nam. These facts are on record for anyone who cares to read them.
May 27, 1965

I do not believe that the personal observations of a former member of the delegation add anything useful to a report which was accepted and signed by the representative of the Government of Canada.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has been a member of the Commission for almost 11 years, under two different Governments. I believe our record on the Commission is one that has commended itself to the people of Asia, and has commended itself to most people in Canada who have looked at this problem objectively. As Secretary of State for External Affairs I say, and I say with pride, that the officers of this Department and the officers of the Department of National Defence who have served on these commissions have rendered to Canada and as well to the cause of peace, a distinct service.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us if it is true that officials of his department gave the French ambassador to Canada, Mr. Francois Leduc, the text of a draft framework agreement on exchanges between the provinces and other countries? If so, would he table that document so that every hon. member interested in this matter can examine it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I talked with Mr. Basdevant, director of cultural affairs, at the Quai d'Orsay. I discussed with him the arrangements I had made with his foreign affairs minister last December. I showed him the proposal which had been discussed in December and the framework agreement we had suggested for cultural exchanges between our two countries.
Of course, Mr. Basdevant and his colleagues must be given the opportunity to consider our suggestions. That is what they are doing now, and I am confident that we will be making progress in this regard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer the second part of my question and would he be willing to table the text given to Mr. Basdevant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, I shall have to show this framework agreement once
Inquiries of the Ministry it has been signed by both parties, but, while the negotiations are going on, it is naturally impossible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that last evening when the House adjourned we were unable to get a definite commitment from the Government as to its intentions regarding the business for Friday, I wonder whether the House Leader at this time, in order that we may have sufficient notice, could advise the House as to what are the intentions of the Government with respect to the business for tomorrow.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will call interim supply; then estimates, calling the first item of the Department of External Affairs so there can be the debate on external affairs that has been requested.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of her statement to me on May 18 that the Federal Government is taking all appropriate steps to establish medicare in Canada on a universal basis, will she at an early date make a statement to the House indicating the precise steps which the Government is taking toward this end?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the Minister whether the Government is planning to introduce any legislation respecting medicare at this session of Parliament?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, a long list of legislation has already been put before the House, which seems to be very busy at the moment. As my hon. friend knows, this is a most important matter, which will be announced no doubt by the head of the Government before I would make any such announcement myself.
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Mr. Knowles: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister not realize that if we get the procedural reforms through there will be lots of time to deal with important legislation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps my hon. friend will ask me this question just as soon as we do get the procedural reforms through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Translation\
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Can the minister tell us whether during the past 18 months changes have been made to the regulation governing the construction of post offices with revenue less than $3,000 a year?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will put his question on the order paper I shall be glad to answer it.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Olson:
That this House recognize the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1. That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial

year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as 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-
Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It seems that we are now discussing a subamendment moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). Yesterday afternoon, at the end of the sitting, the hon.
May 27, 1965	COMMONS
member for Medicine Hat spoke again-it was the second time-on his subamendment. Therefore, I wonder whether, under standing orders, he did not then close the debate on the subamendment itself, which would bring us this afternoon to vote immediately on that subamendment?


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I would draw to your attention that late yesterday afternoon, as reported at page 1693 of Hansard, when I rose I addressed myself to Your Honour by saying:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-
Then I went on to say a few words in response to the request of the Minister of Transport that the subamendment perhaps be withdrawn. Then five o'clock was called so I could not continue with my remarks, o (3:50 p.m.)
I really do not believe I was recognized as speaking again during the same debate, or even as closing the debate, because at that time the Speaker did not advise the House that if the hon. Member for Medicine Hat spoke again he would close the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I have taken some advice on this matter and I believe the hon. Member for Medicine Hat has made a correct statement of the circumstances at that time; that he had risen on a point of order, and was not closing the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the French version of Hansard does not have that sentence of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).
On the contrary, he seems to have started speaking just after the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) gave a reply to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). The hon. member for Medicine Hat started with these words:
Mr. Speaker, several minutes ago, in fact well over an hour ago, I was prepared to get up and respond to the suggestion made by the Minister of Transport.
That is when he replied and he did not raise any point of order.


An hon. Member:: Read at the top of the
page.
DEBATES	1721
House of Commons Procedures


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that we get on with the business now before the House.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate because of the extreme importance of the subject matter. It is important for more than one reason. It is important because this is one occasion when Parliament can do the nation a service by clarifying in the minds of many people what we are trying to do and what this resolution really proposes.
We have read and heard a great deal from commentators in the press, on television and on radio, and have heard a great deal of discussion in other circles about the need for reforming Parliament. Many of these statements in my opinion are loose and unjustified. One only reforms something that is delinquent, and I do not believe this institution is delinquent in respect of any important matter.
Parliament is representative of all the people, and I suppose the people feel they can justifiably criticize Parliament as much and as often as they like because they believe in reality they are criticizing themselves. This is to some extent true because Parliament is a reflection of the people of Canada.
This criticism of Parliament is not limited to outsiders. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at Parliament by the press and others, and in many cases one would almost think the writers had never so much as paid a visit to Parliament. That is not representative of the press generally. Many very fine editorials and comments have been made in the press on this subject, and I refer particularly to the lead editorial in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday.
Much of this criticism is made by the Members of this House of Commons, and I notice that the most extreme views expressed in respect of the so-called reform of Parliament usually emanate from Members of this House with the least parliamentary experience. As time passes those Members gain a greater insight into the functions of Parliament and the history of our present rules.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport, with his usual frankness, admitted that after having been a Member of the Government, as a Member of the Opposition he learned a great deal in that role in regard to the rules of Parliament. I believe that to be a true state-
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures ment if only because he made it, and I congratulate him for his frankness in this regard. It is noticeable, however, that he is one of a small minority of individuals in the Government or, for that matter, on that side of the House, who has had the advantage of that experience.
I note in the proposals put forward by the Government an almost fatal attraction for equating the improvement of Parliamentary procedure with a limitation on freedom of speech and the freedom of Opposition members to criticize the Government. There is a need for rules which result in the expeditious handling of matters which come before Parliament wherever that is possible, but I do not believe that expedition in itself is of tantamount importance. The preamble to the resolution states:
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 is a very high-minded statement, but the Government proposals which follow that preamble are equated with this most desirable objective, and thereby attempt to trick someone-perhaps the public-into equating whatever is proposed with reform and expedition. I do not agree that in this case that would be the result.
We find ourselves adopting axioms based on assumptions that are not only incorrect but cannot be proven to be correct and, in many cases, can be proven to be false. I think we should get down to the fundamentals and in this context attempt to determine what is important and what should be reformed. The opposite to improvement, of course, is deterioration; and I think it can be established, or at least argued, that some of the suggestions put forward in this motion would represent a deterioration of the proceedings of Parliament rather than an improvement, and retrogression rather than reform. They would result in a corruption of some of the fundamental rules of our House.
We as Canadians are virtually united in one respect. That is, we are proud of our democratic system and the type of freedom we enjoy under our parliamentary system. We may, however, fall into several errors by assuming that the institution of Parliament itself is that which provides the freedom we enjoy. It does not follow that if a country has a Parliament of some sort it enjoys all the freedoms and liberties to which we are accustomed. For example, in Russia-and I

do not think too many would like to live under that system-they have a Parliament. Of course in Russia they do not have an opposition. Some individuals assume that if a country has a constitutional election all the freedoms we enjoy will be safeguarded. I believe I am correct in suggesting that the Nazis came to power in pre-war Germany as the result of a constitutionally carried out election, at least in the first instance. These are not the things that safeguard our freedoms which are fundamental.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should like, in this connection, to quote briefly from Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 55, where I find these words:
A minority party may question ministers, may criticize but cannot control in the ordinary case a Government with a reasonably large majority. There can be no control of the Executive where the supporters in Parliament are prepared without question to obey the leaders of their party- through the Whips. All that the minority party-the Opposition-can do without support from members of the majority party is to question, inquire and criticize, but whilst this does not amount to control it is an important method of checking abuses of power.
With the support of a majority of Members it would be possible for a Cabinet to suspend the sitting of Parliament, have the minority members arrested, withdraw the safeguards of liberty such as Habeas Corpus and freedom of speech, and to establish virtually a dictatorship. All this, too, could be done within the law. It is surprising how few members of the general public appreciate how uncontrolled the Cabinet is where it has the support of a loyal majority in Parliament and that "the supremacy of Parliament" in this sense is absolute and subject to no real safeguards of any kind. We may add that the majority of the House of Commons does not always represent the majority of the electors in the country. It often happens that, owing to the redistribution of electoral districts, a party may come out of the general elections with a majority of elected members without having received the majority of the votes given by the electors who went to the polls or whose names are on the electoral lists. That party may form a Cabinet, but the official Opposition together with other anti-ministerial groups, though sitting to the Speaker's left, are the real representatives of the people; and their right to challenge by legitimate means every measure or proceeding sponsored by ministers cannot be disputed. In such case, when the House divides, members who oppose the Administration may act on behalf of the majority while Government supporters represent the people of Canada.
This, as has been pointed out, can be true when a government party has a clear majority in the House of Commons. It is even more true when they form a minority government. I do not want to leave the impression that having an opposition, in itself, is sufficient to guarantee the freedoms of our democratic
May 27. 1965	COMMONS
system, to which we have become accustomed. We must not only have an opposition, an alternative to the present government, but an opposition must be untrammelled in its freedom to criticize and see that the government is held responsible to the people who elected it for its conduct of the nation's business.
Again, I find a very apt quotation in Beauchesne, page 78. This is the statement made:
The "Official Opposition" is a standing proof of the British genius for inventing political machinery. It has been adopted in all the Dominion Parliaments; the lack of it is the chief weakness of most of the Continental systems... It cannot be denied that under modern conditions the concerted action of the Opposition is the best means of controlling a Government-by criticizing defects in administration loudly enough for the public to take notice. This is not a particularly pleasant, if salutary, experience for ministers, and it is only natural that they should be tempted to think both that the Opposition abuse their opportunities and that their opportunities are unnecessary ample. The facilities which the Opposition enjoy for initiating criticism on subjects of their own selection are dependant on technical forms and Parliamentary conventions. The share of the time of the House which the Government puts at the disposal of a body whose raison d'etre is to show up the mistakes of ministers and eventually to turn them out of office- this share of time, which during the last fifty years has not fallen below a quarter of the effective days of the session, is worth more interest-than it usually receives. The least that can be said is that since it is only through the Opposition that some measures of Parliamentary control survives, the uninterrupted respect for the rights of the Opposition which contemporary governments have shown should be accepted as prima facie evidence of the soundness of their Parliamentary faith.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in my judgment our democracy, as we recognize it, requires not only respect, as we know, for the rules as they exist, but it requires that a government, even with a large majority, must recognize that minorities have rights. They must recognize that they are responsible not only to the people who voted for them and elected them, but they are responsible to all citizens, and that they are actually holding in trust the traditions of freedom and liberty which have been the keystones in our country's history. They must hold themselves always ready to be accountable to the people for their actions and their administration of public business.
Of course, when any overt attack is made on our system it is plain for everyone to see. When we are threatened by such things as military conquest or subjugation by force, the issue is clear for us. There has been a wealth of treasure spent and tremendous sacrifice in our lifetime in defence of our 22620-111
DEBATES	1723
House of Commons Procedures system of government and our system of democracy. I sometimes think we are not sufficiently on guard against the slow erosion of our freedoms, our rights. We are not sufficiently on guard against the steady decline in our freedoms. We might, by an unintentional striving for efficiency or some other goal just as inconsequential, lose our basic rights and freedoms as a people.
Now people, in any phase of human activity, naturally try to rationalize their failure. They try to blame it on somebody else. A government, when it fails to make progress in getting its own legislation approved, if it has not achieved the goals in the amount of time it expected, rationalizes this failure. It is human nature for governments to do it, and of course the obvious whipping boy is the rules of the House, and the fact that in their judgment the opposition are going beyond reasonable criticism. Now, anyone who is criticized, I suppose, believes that his critic goes beyond reasonable bounds of criticism; that is human nature. Our system as it is built and has evolved is designed for the purpose of not allowing any individual who may be in a position of power, whereby he can be corrupted by that power, to subjugate the public interest to his own desires. So periodically we have governments blaming the rules for what they consider the slowness of parliamentary procedure.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Committees to revise the rules were appointed in 1913, 1927, 1953 and 1955, and each time they substantially curtailed debate in an endeavour to shorten sessions; but each time they failed. My contention is that if these present proposals are adopted in their entirety -I hope they will not be, although there is much in them acceptable to everyone in the House-they would fail in their purpose. In addition they would curtail and impinge upon some of the historic freedoms of parliament.
Always, of course, a great deal of this type of thing is done in the name of reform. I point out that many words in our language have been brought into disrepute by misuse of them. Any time the U.S.S.R. speaks about world conditions it talks in terms of the peoples' democracies that wish for world peace. It perverts both the word democracy and the word peace until they are almost meaningless. The same is true of the word reform.
It is almost inevitable that when some body wishes to propose something unpalatable it speaks of it as reform, and that has special application to this Government. Its Members'
1724	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures philosophy is based on the assumption that misuse of language is beneficial to their interests, and that a great many gullible people can be led into believing that anything they do is an improvement and is in itself a reform.
No doubt many Members of the Government belong to the Reform Club. I would not be a bit surprised if Lucien Rivard belongs to it too; but the fact that that is its name does not give it any special merit. By the same token, if you call a thing reform, that is not good enough: You have to substantiate that it is reform.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like the word progressive in your party's name.


John Angus MacLean: Yes, this could be used as an example. But we are progressive, and the fact that we are progressive does not, however, mean we wish to abandon everything that is old.


Michael Starr: The word new in your party's name does not mean anything either.


John Angus MacLean: The selection of good or bad should not be made on the basis of what is old or new, but on a more objective basis. We often hear the term "the effective dispatch of public business." For example, in the preamble to this resolution we find the words, "and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business." This is misleading because parliament's chief role is not to dispatch public business. That is the job of the executive; that is the responsibility of the Government. That is what it is there for, to dispatch the public business; and Parliament is chiefly here to examine the Government's performance. Another reason is to give the executive additional powers if it is considered to be in the public interest that that should be done.
Over the years there has been a tremendous trend to give the executive more and more power by adding a great list of legislative items in every session of parliament. In many cases much of this legislation, is not only unnecessary, but is detrimental and should be more carefully scrutinized by government before placing it in front of parliament.
No doubt this stems from the public's belief that a government's merit is in direct proportion to the amount of legislation it stuffs through parliament; but in my judgment this has little to do with the merit of a government. It is something which stems from the T.V. age in which we live, where in election campaigns all parties-and this is human
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
DEBATES	May 27, 1965
nature-make grandiose promises of what they will do in the way of stuffing legislation through parliament if they become the next government.
It is possible to have a tyranny of a majority that is just as bad for a country's interests as any other kind of tyranny. Because a group of people happen to constitute a majority-and in this case they are not even that, they are a minority-it does not give them any divine attributes which make them always right. There must be a finer realization; there must be some rights accorded to minorities as well. Again I turn to Beau-chesne because this is summed up very nicely there, at page 55:
In every country attempts have been made to ensure that there shall be some check on the powers of the majority. Lord Bryce said In "Modern Democracies": "That a majority is always right, i.e. that every decision it arrives at by voting is wise not even the most fervent democrat has ever maintained seeing that popular government consists in the constant effort of a minority to turn itself by methods of persuation into a majority which will then reverse the action or modify the decisions of the former majority."
Decision by majority is not an absolute and unquestionable principle. "Our constitution, to use Burke's phrase, is something more than a problem in arithmetic." There is no divine right of a mere numerical majority any more than of King's. Majority decision is a measure of convenience essential to the dispatch of business, the result, "of a very particular and special convention, confirmed by long habits of obedience." The idea that a majority, just because it is a majority, is entitled to pass, without full discussion, what legislation it pleases, regardless of the extent of the changes involved or of the intensity of the opposition to them, the idea in fact that majority edicts are the same things as laws, is wholly alien to the spirit of the constitution.
As I have already said, I believe the main trouble is that we have been subjected to government by propaganda; the notion has grown up that expediency is the main virtue; and the more stuff parliament passes the better parliament it is. I do not share that viewpoint. Parliament has a great obligation to examine everything on its merits and it is quite conceivable that on occasion parliament is at its finest when it refuses to pass legislation proposed to it. In this connection I have one more brief quotation I should like to give:
One of the main functions of the House consists in debating public Issues, a function which can only be filled by complete freedom of speech. There will always be contests between groups and parties, minority and majority, and, in the debates that follow, the rules of procedure are all-important. Delays, multiplicity of amendments and even obstruction must not always be regarded as illegitimate public weapons.
May 27, 1965	COMMONS
The mere object of shortening sessions may lead to an undue curtailment of the freedom of speech. The duties of a representative Parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
And so on. The quotation goes on to say that this is especially true in Canada, a very large nation with diverse points of view and widely scattered geographical areas.
I am in favour of the improvement of our procedure where it is possible without conflict with our fundamental freedoms and rights. I think these must be safeguarded.
I notice that this resolution proposes to set up a committee to work out the exact rules which would result if the resolution before us were passed in its present form.
I should like some Member of the Government to explain more fully the functions and methods of operation of that committee. I would not favour the setting up of a committee of this sort if a majority had been told beforehand what it was to do, with the result that by this indirect method the Government would attain its objectives. And as I say, Members opposite seem to have a fatal fascination for wanting to curtail debate and freedom of speech, equating this process with efficiency in the House. I believe efficiency in the House stems from a different source, namely from good House management.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the hon. Member a question? I take it from his remarks that he would be better satisfied if the provision in the resolution that a committee be entrusted with the task of working out rules to give the Opposition certain rights in calling estimates, and so on, was not included?


John Angus MacLean: No, I did not say that.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would clarify his point of view on this matter. I did not follow him.


John Angus MacLean: I will do so, and I
will be very blunt with the Leader of the House. I have no objection to this committee. I think this is the proper way to proceed, provided the committee functions correctly. But I do not want the Opposition to fall into a trap. The Government might pretend in the House to be reasonable and co-operative and then, after we have transferred our responsibility to the committee, as it were, to deal with detailed matters, an entirely different point 22620-111!
DEBATES	1725:
House of Commons Procedures of view might be taken by the majority on that committee.


George James McIlraith: Can the hon. Member tell us how the Government could get a majority in that committee?


John Angus MacLean: It is possible. They did so on a previous occasion. I am not saying it would consist entirely of nominal supporters of the Government. The hon. gentleman will surely recall an incident last summer where this sort of thing took place.


George James McIlraith: I do not know which party the hon. Member is reflecting on.


John Angus MacLean: I am not reflecting on anybody. I think everybody is entitled to his point of view. However, my time is short and I would prefer that there be no more questions until I am finished.
The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by Members of Parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. We do not seek this privilege on our own account. 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. I think this should not be forgotten. This motion that when a' subject has been considered for a certain length of time it should pass automatically is one of which I do not approve. I cannot see any logic in it. I think it would be just as sensible for us to say in our courts of justice that if a conviction cannot be brought against an accused person in two days he should automatically be discharged. I do not think anyone would agree with that. This is the highest court in the land and the enforcement of a time limit should not take precedence over the fundamental freedoms and purposes of parliament.
I believe there are ways in which time could be saved without impinging on the rights of parliament at all. One of them, I suggest, is the elimination of frivolous divisions. I think rule 9 should be amended. When five Members rise after the Speaker' has called the yeas and the nays and said "The yeas have it" or "The nays have it" as the case may be they are, in effect, protesting the Speaker's call and therefore they should : automatically be counted, then and there as1 against the Speaker's decision. After all, the purpose of a division is to find out the opinion of parliament, and if the House agrees that the Speaker has collected the voices cor-1 rectly, that should be the end of the matter; we should not then embark on the procedure :
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures of having a recorded vote. How any individual Member of Parliament votes is, after all, beside the point in relation to the proceedings of Parliament.
As to placing a limitation on debate, if this is to be done at all I think it should be done not in relation to contentious matters, but in the opposite direction, that is, when there is general agreement that a piece of legislation is acceptable. It might then be possible for one representative of each of the parties to put forward his party's point of view. When longer debates take place it is because something contentious is being discussed, possibly a measure with regard to which the Government does not possess a majority support in the country, even though it may enjoy a majority in the House.
I suggest that the business of parliament could be expedited by the firm establishment of fixed times of adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: In this day and age
when it seems there are more Members of Parliament than usual whose children are young enough to be attending school, I believe the summer adjournment should coincide with the school holidays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: In this far-flung country the only feasible thing a Member can do, if he wishes to spend much time with his family in these days of almost continuous sitting, is to bring his family here to Ottawa. Otherwise, under our present system, a Member finds he is engaged in parliamentary duties while his children are home, and that they have returned to school when finally he is permitted a vacation. This does nothing to add to the good humour of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Labour seems to understand the problem.


John Angus MacLean: I realize my time has almost expired. I have just two further points to make. I think the business of parliament could be expedited tremendously if the estimates were brought on early in the year and given top priority. Members would then have an opportunity to say what they wanted to say in the appropriate place, instead of trying to smuggle in their complaints on some piece of legislation to which they were not appropriate. I think, too, that a great deal of time would be saved if the session began sufficiently early for the estimates, or most of them, to be passed before the beginning of
[Mr. MacLean (Queens).)
the fiscal year to which they relate. In this way you would automatically dispense with the necessity for interim supply.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I think that if the Government were acting in good faith-and I hope they are; I am not being intentionally critical but I am a little suspicious because of the order in which they have advanced these two resolutions- the resolutions should have been dealt with in reverse order. It is the old tactic of saying to Parliament, "If we can push this pill down your throat, maybe we will give you a candy afterwards". I think the consideration of these matters should be in the opposite order. I believe that most of item No. 15 on the order paper is acceptable to most hon. Members and that we could make some real progress on that resolution. There may be the odd exception. I think there would be an exception with regard to the proposal for the limitation of the time of the question period. But I would suggest to the Government that they consider the second resolution first. We could make some real progress on that resolution and would have some common ground on which we could make progress with regard to this more unacceptable proposition.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not in the House last week when the opening speeches were made on this particular resolution, though I have attempted to read the debate and to benefit from the views that have been expressed on all sides of the House. I think it is pretty clear from reading the debate, and from listening to the hon. gentleman who has just completed his speech, that there is a difference in emphasis and a difference in approach among Members with respect to this particular resolution.
I have stated in the House in previous discussions that fundamental changes are needed, in my humble view, in the procedures of the House of Commons, and I have heard the former House Leader for the Official Opposition, the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), disagree quite strongly with the prospect of fundamental changes in the procedures and rules of the House of Commons. I believe that difference in emphasis has been evident in the speeches that have been made by Members in this particular debate and has been reflected in the statements made by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat.
There is much in the debate, in the sentiments that have been expressed, with which
May 27. X96S

all of us agree. I read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and certainly his statement as to the role of parliament, the necessity for maintaining a durable, strong and sturdy House of Commons is a matter of common agreement. I particularly agreed with the Leader of the Opposition in his reference to oftentimes unjustified criticism made about the House of Commons and particularly its Members. I think the Leader of the Opposition put the matter very clearly and illustrated the vital function of parliament in this country in the following sentence:
They can pour contempt upon those of us in public life, but no teaching of the church, no finding in science, no discovery in medicine, no new foundations in economics can be translated into action for the benefit of the people except through the often criticized politician.
That applies to the role of the House of Commons and of Parliament in our way of life. I certainly agreed with almost all the comments made by the senior member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), except that I regret he did not deal with the specific proposals contained in the resolution we are now discussing. More than any other proposal, this resolution embodies a subject matter that is of concern to all Members, and especially of concern to Members of the Commons who have taken a particular interest in its procedures and rules. For that reason, possibly more than on any other proposal made by the Government the views of all Members of the House, including Members in the Opposition parties, should be considered carefully by the Government.
The Prime Minister stated yesterday that there was no "take it or leave it" attitude; that the Government was ready to consider various views that had been put forward by Members of the Opposition, views that would have the effect of improving and making more acceptable the resolution that is now before the House. My purpose, Mr. Speaker, is not to develop any further general comments on the resolution; my purpose is to indicate the attitude of the Government, the views of the Government with respect to a number of proposals that have been made by the Members of the Opposition. If I may refer to Order No. 14, paragraph 2, as a start,
I would draw the attention of the House to subparagraph (5) in the proposed Standing Order 15-A, which reads:
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
House of Commons Procedures 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.
After listening to the views that have been expressed in the House, and after condensing the views that have been expressed informally, we are ready to introduce a new concept into this particular proposal and provide that there be a floor or a minimum time below which an order cannot be specified. At present it is open to a Minister of the Crown to establish any particular time, if a motion is subsequently adopted by the House, for any particular stage of a bill, for example. I am suggesting that it would be quite acceptable to the Government to make provision for a minimum time period for each stage of a bill. We have at present established a full day for the resolution stage of a bill. We would anticipate that no change be made in that particular order, which I think has worked to the satisfaction of Members and without any derogation of freedom of speech.
On second reading we would propose that there be a minimum time period of two days; at the committee stage that there be a minimum time period of two days; and that on third reading the minimum time be one day.


George James McIlraith: A long day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A full day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I may repeat this, Mr. Speaker, the resolution stage would remain as is, one day; second reading, two days; the committee stage, two days; and third reading one day. In other words, a Minister could not ask for a time allocation provided on second reading of less than two days, with a similar principle applying to the other aspects of the bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to make it clear that when I use the word "day" I mean a long day, not a Wednesday but a Monday or a Tuesday.


Mr. Baldwin:: All days are long here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Another question which has been raised is, what happens to the time allocation if on second reading or in committee an amendment is moved which might raise a new matter of substance or new issues for the House itself? I have in mind issues which may not have been fully anticipated when the debate commenced and which, in a sense, bring on a new phase to the debate. This might not only apply to the
1728	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures [DOT] amendments which it would be necessary lor the Government to move, as often happens, but to amendments which may be proposed by Members of the Opposition.
We would suggest in a case of that kind that a provision be made that the Speaker provide for additional time, but that the time provided for each amendment in any case should not extend beyond two days. It seems to me that these additional provisions provide firm guarantees to Members of the House that there will be a basic minimum of time available for each stage of the bill, 'and that if fresh issues or new matters of substance are raised, additional time will be made available. That is the proposal we are making with respect to Standing Order 15A as indicated in this resolution, Government 'order No. 14, and it does go a long way, of course, to meet views which have been expressed in this debate.
*' In addition, Mr. Speaker, I should mention :that naturally if the Business Committee reached unanimity on a lesser period of time 'for any stage-
( Mr. Knowles: Or a longer period.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Or a longer period-this provision would not in any way set aside <the conclusion reached by the Business Committee when it brings forward the unanimous finding.	. v
May I now refer, Mr. Speaker to-


Gerald William Baldwin: Could I ask a question here, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister does not mind; this might be of some importance. In the event that there is a recommendation from the Business Committee that a specified number of days be allocated for each stage of a rbill, and if during the course of the debate on one stage of the bill an amendment is proposed, would the same rule provide that on an amendment being introduced the Speaker would have the same right as when a Minister arose, if unanimity was not reached, and the Minister had made a proposal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that would be acceptable, Mr. Speaker.
if If. I may now turn to paragraph 1 of the ..same Government order, which deals with the matter of Supply, there are two components to this particular paragraph. The first is the definition of the business of Supply; the second is the provision of 36 days to deal with business of Supply. These two (Components of the paragraph are naturally interdependent and cannot really be considered one from the .other.	.

DEBATES	May 27, 1965
May I say to begin with, Mr. Speaker, that the definition of Supply in the present resolution covers Supply motions "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates; interim supply; and main estimates. That is the definition of Supply in the present Order.
This definition has now been amended to redefine the business of Supply; in the first instance by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who excluded all items except main and interim supply from the business of Supply, and subsequently by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who introduced a subamendment which included the main estimates and interim supply, as did the amendment of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, but made a further addition to the business of Supply, namely supplementary or additional estimates except those supplementary estimates which had been introduced after the main estimates were passed or the final supplementary estimates were passed. These would also become the business of Supply.
These are the only amendments which have been suggested with which we are able to deal definitively on the floor of the House, and we are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to meet the proposals made in the amendment and subamendment to which I have referred, conditionally. The first condition is really not a condition because, if I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre agreed that the number of Supply Motions should be reduced, or could be reduced, from six to four. That view was also put forward or supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). So, subject to correction, my recollection is that there will be no difficulty on the part of hon. Members in accepting the idea that the number of Supply motions be reduced from six to four.
Supply motions are very useful and essential to an Opposition, but they can be very trying to an Opposition when an issue of importance is not really before the House or the country. I think every Opposition has had that experience at times, so there will be no loss in offensive debating potential in reducing Supply motions from six to four. If this is acceptable then, we would be willing to accept the proposals made in the amendment and subamendment if, in turn, my hon. friends are ready to accept a very slight verbal amendment-I do not think it can be considered otherwise-to reduce the number of days given tb the business of Supply from 36 to 30.	- .. s . .	* -May 27, 19G5	COMMONS DEBATES	1729
Originally we had considered it reasonable that in making these exclusions from the business of Supply 26 days would be ample. Because, after all, we ought to be able to deal as well with less business here as the British do in their 26 days; but I am not pressing that point. We are ready to accept the proposals, provided the 36 day limitation is reduced to 30 days, which would mean that there would be 30 days allowed for the debate on Supply, plus four Supply motions outside that limitation with a potential of eight days debate. That would mean we would have 38 days plus an additional time for Anal or additional estimates of not less than two days or, under certain circumstances, for an indefinite period.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We are now in fact making a proposal which will provide for 40 days, plus, in respect of Supply. Surely that is a reasonable proposal which could be accepted by hon. Members, and which would go a long way toward meeting the objections and proposals which have been made. If the attached condition is acceptable, then the amendments proposed by my hon. friends could be withdrawn and the substance of those amendments could be incorporated in an amending motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. Minister permit a question at this point? There have been discussions as to whether or not these changes should be passed on a permanent basis or for a trial period. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether or not the Government is prepared to make some response to our proposal in that connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to state that the Government will consider a trial period in respect of these amended rules, and the time suggested is two sessions or two years. Whether that should be two full sessions, and whether this session should count as one, are matters which will have to be discussed in the normal way. Certainly the Government is ready to accept the idea of a trial period, as long as it is for not less than two sessions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? Could the Minister be a little more definite in this regard, so as to obviate any discussion about whether this session shall count as one session? Let us settle this argument by agreeing that the balance of this session shall be counted as one session, and
House of Commons Procedures that the amended rules will be applicable to it and another full session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support that suggestion. I believe that we will make headway if the Minister will say that the Government will agree to the suggestion that this be adopted on a trial basis for the balance of this session and for the next ensuing session.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give acceptance to that suggestion, with the expectation that my proposals will receive a similar ready acceptance on the part of my hon. friends.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Just so that we are absolutely clear as to the Minister's proposal, will the Minister once again outline what will be included in the 30 day limit and what will be excluded from that period of time? The Minister has referred to the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment in this regard. Perhaps he could again state the proposal in a precise form.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps you should read the new proposed rule.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot respond to the invitation proffered by the hon. Member for Peace River. However, the 30 day period would include consideration of the main estimates, interim supply and supplementary estimates excepting those that are brought in after the main estimates have been passed, or the final supplementary estimates. These would remain outside the 30 day limit and there would be an additional eight days allocated for the four supply motions and an indefinite period for final supplementary estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Carried.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with our proposals in respect of the allocation of time, and in respect of the proposal regarding the Business Committee. May I now say a word or two about a third matter which has been raised, and which has become a central issue during this debate. This has to do with the naming of a permanent Speaker, if that expression can be used in any formal constitutional sense.
Two names were mentioned yesterday in relation to a continuing Speakership, and those gentlemen are both Members of this House. I will not embarrass them by saying more about them, except that I share the
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures views which have been expressed as to their capabilities. A third man was named yesterday, who by general agreement I believe was one of the best, most fair and strongest Speakers this House has ever had. I refer, of course, to Hon. Roland Michener. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated yesterday that Mr. Michener would also be eminently acceptable to this side of the House as a continuing Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to what the Prime Minister stated in this regard. He said:
If these two Members of the House, who have conducted the affairs of the House with fairness and impartiality were not available, then I can think of no man worthier or more qualified to be given this assurance that he would not be opposed if he became a Member of Parliament and acted as Speaker than former Mr. Speaker Michener;-
I am very pleased to put his name forward in this connection as a man we would be glad to see in the Chair under the conditions I have mentioned, if Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker were not available.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question in this regard, Mr. Speaker? Having regard to Mr. Michener, who is so highly regarded, does the Government intend to propose, if his name should be acceptable, that a seat be immediately opened to him, and that he be selected fbr that seat by acclamation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: That is a Pickersgillian-ism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better call it five o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the House will give me a moment or two, in view of the statements which I have made and which the Prime Minister made yesterday about Mr. Michener, reflecting the view of the Government I should like to invite the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leaders of the other parties to confirm this view regarding Mr. Michener's acceptability on the basis suggested.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford for the second reading of Bill No. C-95, to incorporate Laurentide Bank of Canada, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Belanger.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. Member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise).


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; in view of the fact that the sponsor of this bill is not in the House, the House should give unanimous consent to allowing this matter to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that unanimous consent is required in this regard. Is that unanimous consent to be given?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member in whose name the bill stands is ready to proceed. He has someone here representing him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I simply want to say a few words in support of the position taken by the hon. Member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), who is the sponsor of this bill. I should like, substantially, to use his words and request this House to pass second reading of Bill No. C-95, with a view to having it transferred to the Banking and Commerce Committee. The hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard has outlined the details, the directors and sponsors of the bill as well as the financial position of the Laurentide Bank of Canada. He has described it as a bank which would be based on the West Coast, namely Vancouver, B.C., but also with offices in Montreal as well. He described it as a private bank which has a charter to operate on a national basis, a bank which being headquartered in British Columbia could better serve the interests of individuals and industries, all prospective developers of Canada's western economy.
I trust that this House, faced with the passage of this bill, can deal with it in short order and that there will not be undue opposition from other corners of the House. I trust that the case of these Canadian
May 27, 1965

citizens, who are prepared to launch a bank in Western Canada, will be heard, and their right to be cross-questioned by Members of the House, will be realized in the Banking and Commerce Committee shortly.


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


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the debate on Bill No. C-95, an Act to incorporate Laurentide Bank of Canada, and it is with pleasure that I support the amendment moved by my colleague from Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) to postpone for six months the consideration of this bill.
Several hon. members have spoken on this subject and it makes one wonder whether it is really necessary to grant new charters to Canadian banks. I maintain that we should wait until the Bank Act has been revised, in order to ensure greater justice toward the provinces. In fact, I wonder why we should grant a charter to the Laurentide Bank of Canada, owned by a few shareholders and other associates, who practically all are directors of other already existing banks.
I realize that banks have given tremendous help to the Canadian consumers and having two banks more or less would not alter the competition much, since they are all regulated by the same legislation already.
If the Senate had not refused to accept the proposals made by the government of British Columbia, we would have been more inclined to adopt this measure. But in view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to the effect that it was extremely risky to allow a provincial government to invest in a bank, I must say that we are stumped there because the provincial banks represent the interests of each and every citizen in a province. In that case all the people, and not only a handful of individuals, are represented in that bank or hold shares in it.
That is why I say the Minister of Finance should reconsider his statement. Since he is supposed to be intelligent, he should sit down and realize once for all that the whole population of a province should be entitled to hold shares in a provincial bank.
Furthermore, a provincial bank could bring revenues to a province, and this would enable the authorities to reduce taxation which at present is a crushing burden.
Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, when will this end; indeed at the present time we are encouraging loans which will allow an individual to get deeper into debt. As a matter of fact, we are going into debt at a catastrophic rate, and some are wondering when there will be an end to the great danger which the financial system represents for this country.
Mr. Speaker, it is no more dangerous to let provincial governments invest in banks than it is to let individuals do so because the promoters of the Laurentide Bank of Canada all have personal interests to look after.
If the Bank of Canada played its primary role in the field of finance in Canada, we would have nothing against the multiplication of charter banks so long as the latter confined themselves to the provision of services in the field of loans, exchange and administration of the Canadian economy. Then the banks could be most helpful to individuals. As things stand now, such is not the case, however. The banks control credit in the country and that is what we, Creditistes, cannot accept because at present the banks have the privilege of creating credit, even with the guarantee of the borrowers and the government and are thus playing part of the role of the Bank of Canada, the creation of the money required for the consumption of goods and services in the country.
As the people's representative in the house of commons, it is my duty to delve into facts and to bring out the truth concerning the financial system of the country and to work toward the removal of the causes of the permanent doldrums in which our financial system is entangled and continues to bog down, year after year, even though the Minister of Finance goes to great lengths to try to prove that Canada is very prosperous.
No, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not prosperous Most Canadians are not prosperous and it is up to us, members of parliament, to see to it that this situation which is becoming every day less bearable is corrected.
But the one who is responsible for this situation, is the Minister of Finance, who, on many occasions, has given signs of incompetence and unwillingness.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Inasmuch as we have the labour force and the materials available, if the government would only assume its responsibilities as regards finance and the creation of new credit this would mean a great change in the living conditions of certain classes of people.

May 27, 1965
Private Bills
Instead of making gifts or loans, without interest, of $200 million to other countries, it would be much wiser to use similar amounts of money in this country so as to solve the unemployment problem in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec where it is more serious. The unemployment situation is really terrible, and in the case of representatives of constituencies like mine which are largely inhabited by working people, it involves a dreadful amount of extra work. We are required to be present in the house, but whenever we are not in our ridings to settle numerous cases relating to social assistance and unemployment assistance, we are blamed, and I think this is perfectly normal.
That is why I would endorse a parliamentary reform which would allow every member to spend in his constituency at least two or three weeks every four or five weeks in order to meet the needs of the population. Now, all that is due to a lack of credit, to unemployment and to a tremendous lack of industries. It is a well known fact that in Quebec we need 200 to 300 new industries in order to employ the available labour.
Therefore, the job of the member of parliament is made very difficult if he wants to discharge his duties both in the house and in his constituency.
Last Tuesday I should have liked to be here at 2.30 p.m. but a family head was starving with his eight children and the social service refused to do anything before two weeks, so I had to go myself to the office to settle this case. And there are hundreds of such cases.
I said on severaT occasions and I repeat that if there is a lack of leaders, it is because we did not give our educators the necessary financial assistance to enable our young people to look forward to a better future.
We have juvenile delinquents, young people who do not know what to do. Why? Because they are unemployed; they cannot earn an honest living, so they wander in the streets and do not know what to do with themselves. This is why we are having trouble with them. If they were given the opportunity, to work, juvenile delinquency would disappear in our great country, Canada, which is supposed to be so prosperous and so rich.
If the Bank of Canada lent money to the provinces and municipalities at the administrative cost to build modem community centres, juvenile delinquency would quickly disappear.

Our Canadian families are being crushed under a burden of debts and by the exorbitant credit terms legally imposed by finance companies. That is why we have warned the people not to fall in the trap set by those finance companies who are exploiting them. With the interest they are charging on loans, under the present system, people have no choice but to come into the world surrounded by debts and to leave it on the instalment plan in order to get a decent burial. In between, they have to go through the expense of getting married, raising a family, buying a house and some furniture. There is no other alternative for them than to go to the banks who, most of the time, refuse to lend them any money and refer them to the finance companies, who charge more and whose directors are mostly the same persons. Mr. Speaker, this does not make sense. Banking is the most important matter that the government should consider because, in the long run, it is the banks that control the economic blood stream of the nation, and whoever controls credit, has the upper hand over the economic life blood of the nation.	.
When a country has a debt of $72 billion, or a per capita average of $4,000, I wonder where it is heading? It is high time to sound a warning note. Under the present system, we, members of parliament, should, before even considering the creation of other banks, take time out to consider the role which the Bank of Canada should play, for it is a most important one. When the Bank of Canada is authorized to create public credit for materials and the building of roads and schools, then we can think about creating more chartered banks and multiply them a hundredfold, if it is desired. It would no longer create a problem because chartered banks would then be playing their true role, which is to make credit available at a normal rate of interest, instead of rates as high as 24, 30, 35 per cent per year as charged today by finance companies. It is absurd and we believe that the number of chartered banks should not be increased Until the Minister of Finance becomes conscious of his role and of the authority he has over the Bank of Canada.
Recently, he admitted at least that the Bank of Canada came under his authority. When we are called upon to examine the budget, the first point to be considered will be the interest on the debt.
Mr. Speaker, we are paying more than a billion dollars in interest every year to
May 27, 1965

financiers and banks, and this is far from being normal. The country must be responsible for its credit and the creation of credit. Instead of paying those billions to a group of financiers, the money could be distributed across the country for useful purposes, to help the people and reduce taxes.
I still have on my desk a pile of letters with regard to income tax and charitable receipts which have been reduced to $200 and $225.
Who has all the bother? The members of parliament who have to look after those cases. But whose fault is it? It is the government's fault, because it is remiss in its duty. It is really shocking. And then people wonder why members are no longer interested in coming back to sit in the house. Indeed, a member who really wants to carry out his duties finds it very exhausting. If we are overworked it is due to the present system which is basically wrong.
I am against the establishment of this new bank so long as we fail to take the time required to look into the Bank of Canada Act. That is why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix to give a six months' hoist to the bill so as to provide time to study the role of the Bank of Canada, to determine its function and its authority from a monetary point of view. Then, some thought may be given to the opening of branches throughout the country in order to extend credit.
The Bank of Canada must play its part. When the government needs money, it has a right to create a certain amount of credit. What does it cost the government? In a word, only the administrative cost.
But today, such is not the case; if the government wants to create money tomorrow morning, it has to kowtow to the chartered banks, to beseech them for a certain sum of money so that it may carry out its work, so that it may have credit of some kind.
Mr. Speaker, suppose a disaster should strike the country tomorrow morning; suppose there was a flood and that six provinces out of ten were flooded. For 10 to 15 days, the waters would subside; and then, what would the country do? Would we say: everybody is dead, the houses are destroyed, everything has been devastated, and that is the end of it? No. Credit would have to be issued for the reconstruction of the houses that have been destroyed and for the burial of the dead; credit would have to be created then.
Private Bills
If a war broke out tomorrow morning, there would be no question about finding the necessary money; credit would be created. But, for our unemployed, this seems to be impossible. This is utter nonsense. It is high time we should assume our responsibilities. People are waking up and they want to know who controls money in the country.
Some people are involved with exports and imports; a certain country cannot buy goods because it does not have American dollars, and so on. They should try to settle our own problems before tackling international ones. What I find most annoying in the House of Commons is precisely that 60 or 75 per cent of the questions asked deal with international matters when we are unable to settle our own domestic problems.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that we, members of the House of Commons, should assume our responsibilities because it is high time we sounded a warning note in matters of finance, and the problem has to be settled as soon as possible.


An hon. Member:: Question.


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


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, having met some of the representatives of the proposed Laurentide Bank, people who have a job to do-and I must say they are doing it-I still maintain my opinion concerning the possibility of having one or two banks in addition to our eight existing ones. I still maintain the position I took after listening to some of the arguments presented by supporters of this bill.
They argued strongly that the proposed bank will make money available more easily to small Canadian enterprises and individuals as compared with the trend of the big banks to make large loans to major companies.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Consider the latitude given to the eight existing banks, especially as a result of the reduction of the proportion of their reserves required for credit creation from 8 per cent to 7 per cent. Formerly the chartered banks were permitted to lend I2J times their reserve, or savings deposits, including Government bonds. Now the requirement has been reduced to 7 per cent, so they can lend 14.38 times the amount of their reserves. A few years ago they were able to lend 16 times the amount of their reserves, but that was in

May 27. 1965
Private Bills
wartime and the factor involved was the highest ever.
Would this proposed new bank really serve the needs of the Canadian people at the present time? I do not think so. What is needed is a change in our methods of financing in this country. I do not believe that one more bank, or ten more, or one less, would change the picture in any way. It is true that in order to accumulate some of this required reserve of 7 per cent the new bank might collect a few savings accounts. This is what happens when a new branch is set up-and I know what I am talking about. A number of depositors in existing banks or caisses populates close their accounts because they have been unable to get loans with individual managers. They open a savings account in the new bank and are granted loans. After a year or two when the operation becomes more stabilized in that branch, credit is restricted and a situation prevails similar to that which three or four years previously caused the new customers to transfer their accounts originally.
It is not by setting up additional financial institutions that we will help the Canadian people. We shall do that best by amending the law which applies to the Bank of Canada, permitting the Government to exercise more control over its credit. The Government may exercise control over the Bank of Canada to a certain extent in the fields of bonds and currency. But what about the credit created in each and every one of the branches of these chartered banks? It will not change this situation in any way to have one more bank making loans on the basis of a 7 per cent reserve.
If people close their accounts at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or the Bank of Nova Scotia and deposit them in the Laurentide Bank, what will happen? The lending powers of the other banks will decrease accordingly and the lending power of the Laurentide Bank will increase. Until we create sufficient real credit to balance the gross production of this country from time to time, it makes no difference whether we have ten banks, or 20 banks or 30 banks. The money deposited in current accounts does not matter, when it comes to the creation of credit. It is what is deposited in savings accounts that constitutes the reserve which can presenly be multiplied by 14.38 times in order to make loans to borrowers. There are now eight banks which lend on this principle.
Government bonds also constitute part of a bank's reserve funds. When I deposit $100 in

a bank, that bank can lend $1,438 on the basis of that deposit. It can collect the interest in respect of this sum. If the bank allows me 2j per cent or 3 per cent, how much does it collect on the $1,438 at 6 per cent, or 7 per cent, or 8 per cent. Some people may say the banks charge 6 per cent. I do not believe this. The rates start off at 6 per cent-I am talking now about a personal loan, when repayment begins at the end of the month. Toward the end of the repayment period, when most of the loan has been returned, the same rate of interest is charged despite the fact that the bulk of the money is no longer in the borrower's hands. Similarly, loans made by finance companies do not work out to 2 per cent interest monthly, as is sometimes advertised. By the time a borrower has finished repayment the rate has risen to 25 per cent or 30 per cent, or even more.
[DOT] (5:30 pjn.)
Someone may ask how I arrive at these figures. It is not hard when you consider that the Niagara Finance Company gives the borrower a note mentioning 2 per cent a month or 24 per cent a year. Of course there is a limit. It depends on how much you borrow. But it is 2 per cent a month for 12 months, or 24 per cent a year to start off. If that is not usury, it certainly is not far from it. In fact, to my mind it is legalized robbery. I don't give a hoot if you call it legalized permission to charge a higher rate of interest: it is still robbery.
When people are refused loans at the banks, they go to the finance companies and get their loans. Then the same notes are endorsed by the borrower and brought back to the bank, after the loan was refused by the bank in the first place. The loan is granted by the finance company, and when the finance company obtains the note, they go back to the bank and change it or have it accepted there. I asked one bank manager how it was that he accepted them when they came back from the finance company. He said, "They are guaranteed by the finance company". With what does the finance company guarantee these notes? They are guaranteed through the guys that borrow there. Good Lord, Mr. Speaker, if the finance company can guarantee the notes through the assets of its borrowers, why can't the bank do this in the first place? This is why you see some of the chartered banks giving more and more personal loans today.
Is the Laurentide Bank going to give us more purchasing power? No, Sir. The law does not change; it is exactly the same. It is
May 27. 1965

the same, whether the bank is there or not. The banks will not change their operations. The law permits them to operate in this way. And the law will not give us in this country any more banknotes, any more Government bonds, to act as a reserve for the banks. What would happen if a bank lent money beyond its reserves? The other chartered banks would lose money proportionately. This would not give the country any more credit. It might cut the other banks down in regard to their profit; but it would end up in the bank that went beyond its reserves anyway. The same people would be on the winning side, and the same people, the Canadian consumer, would be on the losing side.
This story of the big banks lending money to small enterprises, this story of the banks making personal loans to the individual consumer, is for the birds, Mr. Speaker. The proposed bank will not lend any more than the others do; it is the exact picture of the others. It is to be operated in the same way and under the same law, which permits banks to operate in this way. All banks will do exactly the same. They hand us all these flowers and make a beautiful window dressing. They can do that if they wish; but it does not change the picture underneath, because after a year or two years the proposed bank will have the same basic operations as the other banks.
It might be difficult for them to get this bill through the House, but have they ever thought of the Canadian consumer who goes every Monday morning to the kings of finance, the bank manager or somebody else? I do not blame the bank manager, because he has a job to do. He is a cog in a big wheel; and sometimes when I look at them going around like that it makes me think of this saying, "Blessed are those that go around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels". That is right, Mr. Speaker. The bank manager receives orders from above; he does his job. The clerks have to do their job. At the end of the day they make out their balance sheets at the branch and send it to the head office in Toronto or Montreal. There everything is compiled by electronic computers and they are able to say that the bank made so much profit or lost so much money. Where is the interest of the bank manager in all this? That guy is just a cog in the wheel. If that banker does not do his job, the cog is removed and replaced by a new one.
If we look back to 1936 or before that, the banker had to put his signature on a Canadian banknote before it was valid. That requirement has been removed. That was a
Private Bills
little more powder thrown into the eyes of the Canadian people; that was a little more window dressing; it was a little more mysterious. The banker does not have to sign them any more. But he has to do something. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have a deposit in a bank. I am positive that if I have borrowed $100 from the same bank that conducts your financial affairs, your account does not go down by $100; yet I have borrowed $100 from that bank. You may say, "Yes; it is guaranteed by their reserves". Let me tell you something, Sir: A bank that is operating on the credit side is not making any money. I have noticed that. At one time I left one branch of the bank and my account was transferred to a new branch, and I noticed that the branch clearing was not the same; the two figures had been switched-the bigger balance was on the credit side. I asked the bank manager how the other branches were working on what you might call the debit side, and he said, "It is because we have more loans out at the moment than we have in deposits, and we are running under". I said, "How is it that the others were running over, or making a profit?" He said that some big banks were lending more, and you might have $2 million deposit in the savings department and $750,000 and $800,000 out in loans.
There is an advantage to being able to transfer, within the same bank, loans and things like that. But why not ask the chartered banks to lend what they have- no more, no less? You can't give what you haven't got; nobody can. How can they do it under a law passed by this Parliament? There is a reason for it, Mr. Speaker. If every Canadian citizen went out today and got the money that is in their savings accounts, retrieved it from the banks, you know what would happen. This was done with some of the banks, and they faced some pretty difficult times.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I have to interrupt the hon. Member because his time has expired.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody can blame me for having talked too long on the bills to incorporate two banks and especially on this Bill No. C-95, to incorporate the Lauren-tide Bank of Canada, because this is the first time I have risen to speak on these private bills.

May 27, 1965
Private Bills
Lately resolutions have been brought forward and, in particular, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced some bills concerning the monetary policy of the government or the Bank Act.
Recently we discussed Bill No. C-101, to amend the Bank of Canada Act, a measure concerning finance in this country. The house should also examine Bills No. C-102 and No. C-103 respecting chartered banks and savings banks in the province of Quebec.
We will soon be asked to approve or disapprove the renewal of bank charters which have to be renewed every ten years.
In regard to that legislation concerning the banks and the monetary policy, we have nothing definite, nothing specific, in short, no plan. We do not know where the government is headed for with its monetary policy.
During the discussion on Bill No. C-101, the Minister of Finance stated that he wanted to establish a monetary authority in the country and that in the event of disagreement or misunderstanding between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the federal government, the Minister of Finance would have jurisdiction and the authority to decide.
On the other hand, other resolutions have been introduced in the house. In fact, about a week ago, I put on the order paper notice of motion No. 27 asking the Minister of Finance to produce the written instructions of the present Minister of Finance and of his predecessors, the correspondence with the governor of the Bank of Canada since January 1, 1960.
I received the answer that those documents could not be tabled, because they were of a confidential nature. Then how can we control the monetary policy in this country?
How can we control this country's monetary policy if we do not know anything about the written instructions given to the governor of the Bank of Canada, if the authority in the field of monetary policy, that is the Minister of Finance, issues instructions on monetary policy to the governor of the Bank of Canada, and if, on the other hand, the members of parliament cannot take cognizance of such documents or instructions which exist or may have existed? Why submit to us bills designed to grant charters to new banks, if the present Canadian monetary policy is so confused that the government refuses to disclose to the members elected by the people the nature of our policy, the blue print of the monetary policy or the instructions the Minister of Finance has given in the past or will give in future to the Bank
[Mr. Rondeau.)
of Canada? On the other hand, in Bill No. C-103, page 31, section 63, it is provided that the savings banks in the province of Quebec shall maintain:
-15 per cent of such of its deposit liabilities as are payable in Canadian currency.
This means that savings banks in the province of Quebec will be allowed to make loans provided they have deposits amounting to 15 per cent, whereas the chartered banks- as the one to which it is intended to grant a charter at the present time-could, under the new amendment submitted recently, make loans while keeping a reserve of 7 per cent only. Why should one bank be required to maintain a 7 per cent reserve and another a 15 per cent reserve? If there must be uniformity in our monetary policy, that is the present financial set-up, why should the savings banks in the province of Quebec be required to maintain a 15 per cent reserve, whereas the chartered banks will be required to maintain a 7 per cent reserve only?
How can we say, in view of the situation of all these private institutions which are called banks, past or future, that we have a uniform monetary policy?
We have no objection to the granting of charters to new banks because we say that the country's monetary policy comes exclusively under the purview of the Minister of Finance, but we must know what this monetary policy is.
The Minister of Finance claims to be the master of our monetary policy, but he is unable to reveal what are those instructions, what is the plan, what is his policy; as an economist, as Minister of Finance, he should inform the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament, because, if we do not know where we are going in the field of monetary policy, why should we incorporate new banks which will not tell us either where we will be heading for tomorrow?
Why has the monetary policy been left in the past to the whims of private enterprises called chartered banks? Chartered banks have but one purpose, and that is to lend the capital they have; shareholders want to make money by investing in banks and this is normal and logical, there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, we object to the granting of new charters to such banks, whether they are called Laurentide or Western or any others that may come about. If charters are granted today to those two new banks, how can we better control our monetary policy in the future?
May 27, 1961

As our monetary policy should come under the federal government, then we contend that credit, the creation of credit and the issuing of new money, should be controlled by the federal government. It does not matter if there are 8 or 80 chartered banks, the main thing is that they should only be empowered to lend whatever capital they have on hand; that would be normal. It is normal that shareholders, financiers, capitalists, all those people who have invested a million dollars in a bank would want to lend their million with interest, but we do object to the fact that those individuals are empowered to lend 92 and 93 million dollars more than their million, or are empowered to create credit. Creation of credit should come under the sovereign control of the federal government, of the state.
The individuals called bankers or capitalists, should be authorized to lend their capital, their money, and earn interest thereon, just as any individual interested in any company or just as any industrialist producing something should normally realize a profit. There is nothing wrong with the shareholders of a bank making a profit or earning interest on their capital. What is wrong is to give private businesses, banks in particular, the power to lend 12 or 14 times the capital they hold. We are surprised to hear the Minister of Finance tell us that the amendments contained in Bill No. C-101 will enable him, in the future, to exercise tighter control over the country's monetary policy, because although last year the banks were obliged to keep their reserves at 8 per cent, from now on they will be allowed to keep them at only 7 per cent. It means that the banks will have more power thanks to that new amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member for Shefford that he cannot discuss the amendment nor the substance of Bill No. C-101 to which he is referring at this time. I would ask him to come back to Bill No. C-95 which is now under consideration.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me that I was dealing with Bill No. C-101, but since all these bills have to do with the monetary policy and that even the proposed Laurentide Bank will be submitted to the requirements, the liberties or the freedom provided for in Bill No. C-101, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act, I would consider that what I was saying was in respect to the Bank Act.
Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, we are requested to approve a new bank charter, and then instead of having eight, maybe we will have nine, perhaps ten in the near future, perhaps we will even have several others, and that is where we have an objection. We have nothing against potential, past or future shareholders in existing or future banks, we have nothing against them, because they are individuals who want a charter to make a profit. On the other hand, in the context of the Bank Act now in effect, we are against the granting of this charter by the federal government. Such a charter should be granted not in a rush, but normally, because the Bank Act grants a privilege, a power which would extend the existence of the financial system we have been criticizing for more than 20 years.
In the past we have never criticized banks as such, but rather the financial system which is responsible today for the fact that we have no control over the monetary policy of Canada, because banks are all-powerful in this country. In fact, they are private institutions which control the economic blood of the nation, and the federal government has no power over them. The government has powers in words, but none in fact. When the banks decide to restrict credit, to raise the interest rate or even to change the monetary policy of the country, it seems the federal government has agreed beforehand to all their requests. Why? Because they control the economic blood of the nation, which is very important.
We do not have the right to leave the economic blood of the nation in the hands of a few individuals because, sooner or later, because they control the economic blood of the nation, they will ruin the nation to the prejudice of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They may laugh about those assertions, but the fact remains that day after day our debts are increasing and to whose advantage? To the advantage of those who hold a bank charter. When we look at the public debt, we wonder who is buying the bonds issued by the federal and the provincial governments. Well, they are purchased by the banks with credit, figures and accounting; this is not money earned but money newly created in the form of figures. This is what makes the Creditistes say that the federal government should let the chartered banks keep on accepting deposits and lending that money to the public, to private

May 27, 1965
Private Bills
enterprise but that the federal government through the Bank of Canada, should control public credit, the monetary system, the financial system of the nation. Otherwise, the country will keep on going down hill, because in spite of all its legislation, the federal government is always restricted, always limited, is in a strait-jacket, is always conditioned by the money, the dollars of the nation's bankers because they are the ones who control the economic fate of the nation.
[DOT] (5:50 p.ra.)
A former prime minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, used to say: "Give me control over the credit of a nation and I do not care who makes the laws." He said that in Saskatoon in 1935 and he was absolutely right.
What he said in 1935 is even truer in 1965: When one has control over the credit of a nation, one does not care who makes the laws. That is the reason why, if the Canadian government really wants to have authority and fight poverty, it must not give more scope to chartered banks while requiring a smaller reserve.
Who created poverty? It is our present banking system. It is the banking system we know that makes people poor. Give even more charters to banks, without amending the Bank Act, and you will multiply the number of poor people in Canada. The same causes result in the same effects.
We have handed over our monetary policy to some individuals who can get the country deeper and deeper into debt day in and day out, year in and year out, from one war to another and from one crisis to another, and who are sufficiently powerful to bring about prosperity during wartime and crisis during peacetime. Then, why issue new bank charters? So that, depending upon their aims and ambitions, they can impoverish at will a greater number of people?
Mr. Speaker, we do not object to a new charter, but we object to the powers which this new charter will grant those individuals. It is quite normal that banks lend money with interest; but it is not normal that banks, with a capital of $7 can lend $100. This means that they can lend $93 which they do not have and on which they charge interest. This is blue ruin. Our present financial system is a cancer and, if we in Canada, are not ready to fight this cancer, it will destroy our great and rich country, because the greater the number of chartered banks with powers we know are theirs and the greater the number of bankers able to lend more

money than they own, the faster we shall travel on the road to ruin.
It is often said that with money you can control everything and that money means power. But the less money banks have, the more power they get, because until now they could grant loans while maintaining an 8 per cent reserve fund, and now they are to be authorized to maintain a reserve of 7 per cent only. That will give the lie to the old saying: with less money, you would not have any rights at all.


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

The hour appointed for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39A, to inform the House that the following questions will be raised at ten o'clock this evening: the hon. Member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise)-

-About a letter of protest from the Knights of Columbus.

-the hon. Member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming)-Trans-Canada Highway- New Brunswick-proposed change in route; the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-agriculture-British Columbia- losses suffered by fruit growers.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Olson:
That this House recognize the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for
May 27, 19G5
[Stage Direction]
the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees:
That this House accordingly orders:
1.	That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures 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-
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at five
o'clock I had just about completed my remarks in connection with the proposed changes that the Government was prepared to accept in connection with the resolution. I suggested that if the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), were prepared to withdraw, with the consent of the House, their amendments, I would be prepared to move an amendment to the motion that would give effect to the proposals which I made earlier today.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I may, I would be prepared to ask the House for consent to withdraw the subamendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. Member have unanimous agreement of the House to withdraw the subamendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subamendment withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am in a similar mood. In view of the fact that the amendment that has been suggested by the Government meets all of the points that were raised, either in whole or in part, I would be glad to ask the House for consent to withdraw my amendment so that the Government's amendment might be moved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), the following amendments to the motion that is on the Order Paper as Item No. 14, as follows:
That numbered paragraph 1 be amended to read as follows:
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 estimates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a special committee of the House, consisting of 24 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.
This second amendment would be an amendment to the proposed Standing Order 15A, which would be amended as follows;
That Standing Order 15A be amended by adding at the end thereof the following sections;
(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, or 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. 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.
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, reflects the proposals which I made earlier in the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I may ask the Minister a question before he sits down? What he says about these amendments reflecting the proposals made earlier is certainly correct. They reflect also the discussions that have taken place through the usual channels, and what has been accomplished is good. There is just one sentence I should like to question him about.
In the new proposed subparagraph (7), the first sentence has the phrase, "time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, or one day for

the third reading-I thought at an earlier stage, or in an earlier draft, I saw the word "and" instead of "or" which seems to make quite a difference.


George James McIlraith: It could be "and".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, it should be "and". It is a typographical error.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Please do not say a typographical error when you mean a stenographic error.


Gilles Grégoire: Tomorrow we will have a Supply motion. If that takes only a half hour, will that count as one day for the consideration of estimates? Will it count in the allocation of 30 days for estimates, including interim supply motions? If it takes only five minutes or an hour, or an hour and a half-not the whole day-what will happen in such a circumstance?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, the supply motions are excluded.


Gilles Grégoire: Interim supply, like the one we will have tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Interim supply is included within the 30 days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it count as one day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The supply motions are outside the 30 days.


Gilles Grégoire: I am speaking of interim supply, like the motions we will have tomorrow. It will be the first order of business and could be passed in half an hour. Will that count for one day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, it would not count as a day. You could accumulate a bank deposit of the remaining hours for some other occasion.


Gilles Grégoire: Can we have some precision on this accumulation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that if an hour is used for interim supply, the remaining hours of that day will still be available for the business included within the 30 days, but there is to be a special committee of 24 members who will be able, I hope, to give effect to the general principles that are in the order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a related question. Would the suggested special committee of 24 have power to state, in preparing alterations to the rules, that the 30 days to be allocated for the business of supply shall not be 30 Wednesdays?
May 27, 1965


George James McIlraith: Of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In order words, that Wednesdays will count as half days. Will this be within the power of the committee to write into the changed rules?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On another supplementary question, since there is a little bit of confusion, I understand if an interim supply motion passes within a very few minutes, say less than an hour, and the balance of that day is used on some other estimates, there is no question but that that would be counted as a day. But if the first item of business was interim supply and it passed within an hour, with the balance of the day used for other Government business, such as legislation, will that be charged up as a day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


George James McIlraith: I would like to clarify that. It was very clearly our intention that that should not be a day, and that the 30 days should mean 30 days. If we can think of it in terms of six weeks that would be the correct way. That was the proposition. It was the method of defining days and things like that which gave rise to the provision for the special committee to draft the proposed changes in the rules.


Gilles Grégoire: Are we to understand that each day we spend on estimates which is not completely devoted to estimates will not count as one of these days?


George James McIlraith: No, it will only be counted as a fraction of a day. I presume the committee to be set up will use the kind of principle incorporated in Standing Order 56 where there is a definition of time, or make some similar provision to cover the point.


Gilles Grégoire: I have one last question. It is stated here that on third reading the time will be one day. Would the Minister agree to include in this that the minimum time for third reading be one day, provided each party in the House has the opportunity to speak on third reading? I raise this because, for example, we might have the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition each speaking for an hour and a half, then the N.D.P. party for half an hour, and by the time our turn arrived the day would be finished. It would be a safeguard if the amendment stipulated that each party in the House could have its say on third reading, and I think the Government should accept this proposal.
House of Commons Procedures


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. We could consider this in the committee and we would be agreeable to take account of this possibility in any definition of time.


Gilles Grégoire: Would it not be a better safeguard for the third parties if the Minister incorporated this in his amendment? We are not asking very much from the Government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Minister of Labour has overlooked a point when he says we can deal with this in committee. What the hon. Member for Lapointe was referring to comes under paragraph 2, and the special committee of 24 is given authority to deal only with the matters outlined in paragraph 1. Perhaps the Minister meant that the Business Committee, in making recommendations to the House, might make recommendations with respect to this point; but so far the point raised by the hon. Member for Lapointe does not seem to have been met.


George James McIlraith: There is one point that may be misunderstood. We are talking about extended hours, and the definition is such that the period can never be shorter than five hours. I suppose it is theoretically possible that the circumstance described by the hon. Member could arise. It is pretty difficult to foresee how it could, but the period of time allocated now, with third reading taking precedence over all other business, would mean a minimum of seven hours time devoted to it. If any hon. Member thinks there is any expectation of four persons taking more than seven hours, I suppose a provision could be put in the rules to allow the representative of a fifth party to speak, but I am sure in those circumstances the House would extend its hours of sitting.


Gilles Grégoire: If the Minister thinks so, why does he object to including that in the amendment? It is possible that on such a day there could be many votes or appeals from the decisions of Mr. Speaker-delays like that- with the result that three of the five parties in the House would not be able to talk on third reading. Since the Government concedes the point, why not write it into the amendment by adding one line?-"provided every party in the House has the opportunity to speak on third reading"? If that is done we will accept the one day limit.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a related question, has the Minister of Labour considered whether this Business Committee, when it is allocating time, will also have the right to consider the
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures distribution of that time? In other words if a limitation on debate is moved, could a recommendation also be made to the House to shorten the speeches made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and other Members?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker, I would object to that immediately. Shortening speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the two officers of the House of Commons, should not be done under those arrangements. The President of the Privy Council has suggested a solution- extending the hours of that sitting day on third reading, if necessary, to give opportunities to other Members to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: Well then, include it in the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are ready to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Lapointe. We will undertake to put a provision in the second order to provide that, in the event that the fifth speaker is not heard, the adjournment will not take place until he, the representative of the fifth party, is heard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, we will sit here to listen to the hon. Member for Lapointe. We have done it before.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Gilles Grégoire: May I first put one question to the Minister who presented these amendments? Where does he intend to include a clause to the effect that debate shall not be concluded until all parties have had an opportunity to express themselves? For example, on third reading, how will this be arranged? Where does the Minister intend to include a guarantee of the rights of the smaller parties?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a provision in the resolution for extending sittings beyond the normal adjournment hour, and I think it will be easy when we come to that point to put in a provision to ensure that in any such case adjournment would not take place automatically and would be suspended until a representative of each party had spoken. It would not be beyond the ingenuity of the draftsman. I am certain we could do it in paragraph 1, too.


Mr. Monteith:: Does that include the hon. Member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You asked the question.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to repeat the two questions I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) yesterday. The right hon. gentleman was sympathetic toward the points I raised but I do not see that any consideration has been given to them.
The first concerns what should be done when committees report to the House. It seems to me this is a fundamental question which should be dealt with by Standing Orders. Nevertheless it seems to have been overlooked in the amendment which the Minister of Labour has put forward. If there is a desire to limit debate as far as possible in order to afford more time to debate other subjects, it seems foolish, after a particular committee has reported, to deal with the subject matter of the report rather than with what is contained in the report itself. If a debate does not take place on a committee report after it has been tabled, it seems to me that the sittings of a committee become nothing more than a high class educational program for the benefit of the Members who take part. These committees should be recommending procedures to improve the operations of the various departments, or ways of bringing about economies in expenditure. If these recommendations were brought before the Committee of Supply there would probably be a short debate and the Government would have to decide whether to adopt the recommendations or reject them. If it rejected them it would have to explain why it did so. I think this is an obligation owed by the Government to Members who would otherwise waste a great deal of time in committee. Attendance on these committees is like taking a short university course on a particular subject in the parliamentary field. Of course, it tends to make the Members experts-sufficiently expert to be able to come back into the House and "rag" the subject to death for two or three days if they wished.
The second point which I put to the Prime Minister and to which he gave a favourable reply was the suggestion that these various committees be set up according to a timetable so that neither the Government nor Opposition parties could drag their feet as they did last year. Every time a responsible Minister was asked why a particular committee had not been set up he told the House that the Members had not yet been named by all the parties in the House. I think a time limit should be imposed by standing order, prescribing the date by which the various committees should be constituted.
May 27, 1965

I do not insist that effect be given to these proposals right now. But I will say that if the Government is not willing to consider them it is unlikely that much success will be attached to the changes in the rules which are now proposed, because no fundamental change will really have been made. These two points have always seemed to me to be important. In studying the procedure in Great Britain I found that before doing anything else the committees usually considered carefully what action had been taken as a result of the recommendations previously made.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
If there has been no result, that again becomes a matter of discussion. I believe the matter of setting a time, so that the Government is not faced with getting the co-operation of all parties in the committee, can be established and should be something taken care of by our Standing Orders. Second, with regard to the estimates that are sent to the Estimates Committee, obviously there will be exceptions, but in the main the report should be a matter of discussion, rather than the individual items of those estimates.
I do not make these remarks facetiously, Mr. Speaker; I believe they are very important to our operation. My hon. friend may disagree, but it seems to me that with regard to the operation of committees, in the past the report has merely become a tabled document and no action has been apparent to the members of the committee. In view of this, they feel they have really wasted their time. Surely that is not the intention of the Government in making these proposals. I hope the Minister will answer these questions, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the intention of the House to allow the Minister to speak a second, or perhaps a third time? My suggestion is that the Minister has already taken part in the debate and would not be allowed to speak a second time, unless this were agreed to by all Members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member who just spoke preceded his remarks, if I may say so, by stating that he was going to ask a question. I think we might consider that the Minister is merely answering it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You put that beautifully.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)
House of Commons Procedures has raised a difficulty, and a reason for the necessity of having a Special Committee examine changes to be made in Standing Orders affecting Supply; because, as my hon. friend knows, Standing Order 57 provides a method by which at the present time estimates can be sent to a committee, and it also provides a method by which the report of the committee is referred back to the House. The Standing Order says:
A motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, may be made without notice during routine proceedings by a Minister of the Crown withdrawing any item or items in the estimates from the Committee of Supply and referring the same to any standing or special committee and, upon report from any such committee, the said item or items shall stand referred to the Committee of Supply.
So the procedure now is that upon report the items that have gone to a committee come back and are considered in Committee of Supply. I do not think we can change that, because we have to protect the right of the Committee of Supply to deal with the estimates. The hon. Member is suggesting an additional procedure by which a committee report is put before the House for debate on its recommendations. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. gentleman has raised a problem to which I have not the answer and I could not produce an answer at the moment. But I hope that the Special Committee we are setting up under this order will take this as one of the matters to be considered in re-drafting the Standing Orders as they relate to supply.
In connection with the committee system, the next order, No. 15, deals in its principal part with the committees structure, and I would suggest that this point be reserved until we reach the next order, when we can discuss the proposal the hon. Member has made.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I just put this point to the Minister in that respect. Does the Minister not feel that the terms of the proposed Standing Order as contained in Item 14 are really mandatory. It says:
-detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees-
I would judge that to be a direction by the House to the Government that these estimates must be referred to Standing Committees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Consequently, the Special Committee which is going to be set up to
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Inquire into the consequential changes which are required will be able to give effect to the points raised by the hon. Member tor Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) by putting forward the machinery which would implement this mandatory direction and indicate the times when the estimates must be placed before the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. Member addressing himself to the amendment?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, on this subject. So far I have not participated in any stage of this debate, but that does not mean I am not interested in the subject. My reason for rising now is to indicate my own view that the point which has just been raised, in the form of a somewhat prolonged question, by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) strikes at the very heart of what I feel we are all seeking to attempt to do by the proposed amendment.
While it may be true that some of the detail of how this could be worked out would have to be placed in the hands of the proposed committee, and also some of it in detail would have to be dealt with under Order No. 15, nevertheless, I believe it is important that this point should be emphasized at this stage while we are considering the amendment that has just been proposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen).
I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Timiskaming, that the possibility of this being a successful and meaningful change in our rules hinges upon the fact that on the one hand consideration of estimates by a Standing Committee is not going to be an aimless sort of excursion, and second that when we do come back to the House to discuss the estimates of a particular department under a restricted arrangement of a day, shall we say, for a department, that day is not going to be spent in the House purely in a rather aimless perambulation of a rather haphazard collection of subjects that may be in the minds of the particular members who happen to get the floor in that very short period for discussion that will be allowed in Committee of the Whole.
I feel it is essential that some machinery be set up so that when estimates are con-

sidered in Committee of Supply in the House, the attention of the House will be focussed upon the points which in the considered opinion of the Standing Committee are the essential considerations involved in the estimates of that particular department for that particular year. Otherwise I think that what the hon. Member for Timiskaming suggests will turn out to be the fact, namely that Members will participate, perhaps at length, in consideration of estimates in the Standing Committee and will end up with a sense of frustration, having really accomplished nothing except, as the hon. Member suggests, perhaps some increase in their own knowledge of the operation of the department. I think we should keep this in mind.
Those who have participated in committees which have on occasion dealt with fairly extensive bills would, I imagine, share the feeling I have had, that in some instances there arises a real sense of accomplishment out of having participated in the consideration of a bill in a Standing Committee, where in some cases useful and fruitful amendments to the legislation have been agreed upon by the committee, recommended to the House and become part of the legislation.
However, there are other occasions when we have participated in committees which at times have gone at considerable length into a study of certain aspects of public policy, have reported in good faith to the House, and then nothing has happened, except that anyone who is interested enough to delve into the history of the situation can go into the Parliamentary Library and dig out the report which has been gathering dust for a number of years.
While I was not a Member of the House at the time and did not participate in the committee, to my mind a classic example of that has been the committee held on Indian affairs. This was a joint committee of this House and the Senate. Most of the key recommendations of that committee are contained in a report which for a number of years since that time has been mouldering and gathering dust in the Parliamentary Library. I recall this in particular, because when that committee's report became available to the public many Indian people in my area thought the recommendations of this committee were practically as good as the law of the land. I have had enough previous experience in the House to suggest to them that they should not take that for
May 27, 1985	COMMONS DEBATES	1745
granted, and I think that what has happened since has proved me to be right.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
So that I think it is important that those of us who are concerned that these principles should be worked out should use this opportunity to express our views, in the hope that when the Special Committee reports back and we get to the point of considering the details in the next order relating to amending our procedures we are not going to be disappointed in the over-all result that is being achieved by the two orders relating to the rules which we have been considering.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the debate on this amendment I would hate to think that anyone in this House could feel he could curtail in any way, shape or form the arguments put forward by backbenchers and others in the House at the time when the estimates are finally on the floor of the House. Some of the best debates we have had have occurred at that time. Many hon. Members have points to make which they cannot bring before committees, so if there is any idea in the minds of some people that they can by any rule exclude arguments being put forward, then I am afraid they are very sadly mistaken. If there is any rule formulated in this regard, I feel that this House would lose many of the good debates which take place in this chamber, and many of the arguments of hon. Members.
It is useless to say that all the points at issue when a certain subject is before a committee could be crystallized, because we all realize the divergence of view held by various Members of the different parties on certain subjects. To say that these points should be crystallized within certain recommendations coming to the House from a committee, those recommendations arising only from the points debated, I say would be very wrong indeed. I reiterate once more that many hon. Members in this House cannot be members on certain committees; that is true. Nor can they have their views put before certain committees. Many points of view put before committees are important in the extreme to certain constituencies or areas, so when the report of the committee finally comes before the House no rule should be formulated which would curtail any debate arising thereon, debate which, in my limited experience in this House, has been of very fine standard indeed.
House of Commons Procedures


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I realize I am not entitled to speak again, but if the House would bear with me for a moment I am ready to meet, the point made by the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) by inserting a sentence to cover the case where any party has not been heard when debate is confined to a single day. If I could get consent of the House I would move an amendment to this order and regard it as part of my amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That section 2 of the amendment be amended by adding after the word "day", in the eleventh line thereof, the following:
"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".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the amendment as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I think all parties in the House have indicated their interest and desire in streamlining the rules of Parliament so that the business of this House can be carried on in a more efficient and effective manner. I also think that through the debate that has taken place up until this point the independence of the Speaker has been foremost in the minds of all hon. Members, and more especially in the minds of the Opposition, so as to ensure that their rights are jealously guarded. Because they, in effect, are guardians of the freedom and protection of the people against the actions of the executive. Surely, Sir, what we as Members of the Opposition must be certain of before we agree to any rule changes is the protection of our rights and the right of any individual in this House, whether he be a backbencher or a frontbencher, to be able to rise in his place on the appropriate occasion and bring before the House his views on matters of national and local concern.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) argued that the proposal for a permanent Speaker must be foremost in the minds of all hon. Members if we are to consider adequately rule changes proposed by the Government which will greatly curtail the activities of the Members of this House. They must have the complete assurance of an
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures impartial Speaker who is not concerned about pressures being applied by members of the executive. Surely, Sir, the events of the past, and the very recent past-the year 1956 especially comes to mind-indicate that on certain occasions a Speaker who is a Government appointee and who must still look forward to a future and the prospect of further advancement within his own party can be forced to do things which he possibly considers would be in his best personal interests, but would not be in the best interests of parliament. As yet we have not had that kind of assurance from the Government, if they intend to appoint a permanent Speaker.
I have before me the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in connection with the appointment of a permanent Speaker, with which he dealt in his remarks yesterday. He said this, among other things:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I am not quite sure what we mean by "permanent Speaker": there has been no definition, that I know of, of a permanent Speaker.
Later on on the same page he is reported
as having said:
But if we do that, and indeed if we do not, then whatever rules we make to increase the efficiency of the House and the better conduct of public business may not be as successful as we may like them to be; because it is important that the Speaker should not only be independent, but it should be obvious that he is independent and he should be freed from pressures against his independence.
I am afraid I do not have that kind of confidence at this time. I do not believe that the Speaker is completely independent and completely beyond the pressures of the executive. As a backbencher, and one who takes an active part in the debates of this House, I am very leery about accepting proposed changes until I am certain that there are no pressures which can be applied to the Speaker in respect of anything about which he has to make a judgment. Certainly we know that an individual filling the Speaker's position must endeavour to become impartial but, as I have already stated, it is not an independent position because the Speaker is appointed only for one parliament. He does not have that kind of independence which would relieve him from the uncertainty of ensuing elections.
If we are going to adopt rule changes which will greatly curtail our activities, with the understanding that parliament will be more efficient, then we as Members must be certain that the executive, who will be the beneficiaries, have no way of exerting influence in

respect of decisions arrived at by the Speaker. Surely there is only one way to accomplish that, and that is to name an individual-he may be elected by the Members of this House -and provide him with a constituency in respect of which all parties in the House agree not to contest. Such an individual must be certain that he can serve in that position for as many parliaments as he personally desires to remain Speaker, with that independence about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke.
It is very nice for the Government to state that if we pass these rules it will give serious consideration to the appointment of a permanent Speaker. That is a very good and wonderful undertaking, but we have experienced many occasions during the past two years when promises have been made by the Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet which were not followed by action. I do not think a better example of that situation can be found than the example set by the Government in respect of the position of the Union Jack as a flag of this nation. During that debate we were told that the Union Jack would be the flag of Canada under certain circumstances. From what I can gather now, it is only a flag of Canada under extremely rare and unique circumstances, and then only as far as Parliament Hill is concerned. It is flown nowhere else in an official capacity. That is a far different situation from that which the Government outlined when it proposed the dual flag resolution.
One cannot talk out of both sides of his mouth and expect hon. Members to have any confidence in what he is saying. It is one thing for the Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet to suggest that we should pass these rule changes, at which time they will give serious consideration to the suggested appointment of a permanent Speaker, and quite another thing to have such a promise fulfilled, particularly when one remembers that the Prime Minister has said that he is not even sure what is meant by a "permanent Speaker".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us how he thinks the objective he has referred to could be achieved by a change in the rules, and outline the mechanics of this?


Robert Carman Coates: I am afraid I do not quite understand what the Minister of Transport is asking.
May 27, 1985


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am anxious to find out how the hon. gentleman thinks this can be done. It is all very well to say that we should have a permanent Speaker, but before a permanent Speaker can be appointed we must decide how this can be accomplished. That is what I am asking the hon. gentleman. Does he envisage that this can be done by a change in the Standing Orders of this House and, if not, by what other procedure does he feel that this can be achieved?	.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, all this House must do to accomplish this is agree that a permanent Speaker should be appointed. The method of doing this can very easily be
worked out after that agreement has been reached.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. gentleman any idea which he can pass on to this House as to how this could be done?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that I do have a suggestion to make as to how this could be done. A Speaker is appointed at the commencement of each parliament. In order to avail this Government the opportunity to give the serious consideration to this problem about which it speaks, I intend to move an amendment to this resolution now before us, which reads in part:
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 eifective 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;-
At this point I intend to insert certain words. I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken):
That the Resolution be amended by adding immediately after the words "Standing Committees", in paragraph three thereof;
"That this House agrees that the following proposals shall not become effective until a permanent Speaker shall have been appointed." o (9:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour puts the motion perhaps we should consider whether or not the motion itself is within the scope of the resolution now before the House, because we would not like to appear to be doing something which under the rules it is not possible to do. Under Section 44 of 22620-112
House of Commons Procedures the British North America Act, which is the constitution of Canada until it is changed, it is provided that:
The House of Commons on its first assembling after a general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to elect one of its members to be Speaker.
Now, that is something which we cannot change by a change in the rules of the House of Commons. This would require an amendment to the British North America Act. It would be my opinion, for what it is worth, that under the amendment to the British North America Act of 1949, this might be the kind of amendment that could be made by the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown here in Canada. However, it would require an Act of Parliament to change that provision which is laid down for us in the constitution. I think the objective the hon. Member has in mind is laudable. Although we may quarrel about whether we use the word "permanent"-I do not like the word "permanent", I like the words the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) used, "continuing and independent". The word "permanent" suggests to me a sort of civil servant, someone who is not elected to this House or is elected in some phony way. I do not always agree with the right hon. gentleman opposite, but I do agree with what he stated the other day that the Speaker should be one of us, not someone chosen in some other way. This means he should be elected in a normal constituency, as is the case in the United Kingdom, and as the right hon. gentleman suggested ought to be the case here.
It seems to me it would not be within our power in this House alone to alter this condition. We could introduce a bill to change the British North America Act to provide for some other method of having a Speaker. I do not advance the other, technical ground that since the resolution before us deals with two points, limiting time for the consideration of Supply and allocating time for the consideration of other business, that this is beyond the scope of the resolution. I do not want to raise that kind of technicality. It seems to me that we are dealing with the rules. If the hon. gentleman were proposing something that was within the scope of the rules, something that this House alone could do without offending against the constitution, I would not want to be pedantic in raising an objection to it. I think we are trying co-operatively to do the best we can on this matter.
It is quite clear that under Article 44 of the British North America Act of 1867, which is
1748	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures still the Constitution of Canada, this would be beyond the scope of the powers of this House. It was for this reason I asked the hon. gentleman a question before he moved his amendment. I have been wracking my brain, quite frankly, to think of another method by which we can achieve this objective, other than the method followed in the United Kingdom, which I think is a very good method. In the United Kingdom, the Speaker is elected just like any other Member. As I understand it, there is an understanding amongst the political parties-it is not part of the rules-that no regular, political party will oppose him. I think he has been opposed by independents two or three times recently. I would hope we could follow that British practice in our procedure. We would not attempt to try to write this into the rules or even try to amend the British North America Act, but that we would reach an understanding among ourselves through consultation. Yesterday the Prime Minister and today the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) indicated the attitude of the Government toward this matter. The right hon. gentleman opposite indicated the attitude of the Opposition. I suggest that we could try this method.
Perhaps I am going beyond the point of order, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the House will show the same tolerance that has been shown some other hon. Members. I suggest that we could deal with the matter in that broad way. Notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's great suspicion of our good faith, perhaps he could assume that on this occasion we really mean that we would like to see a good Speaker elected and re-elected, as long as his constituency wanted to elect him, and as long as he was satisfactory to the House, and that we would like to do anything practical to achieve that.
There is another section of the British North America Act, the preamble, which says our constitution should be the image, in its parliamentary aspects, of the British. I think this is one case where it would be good to follow it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I assume we are discussing the point of order at the moment. I do not want to extend my remarks, but the first thing I should like to say is that twice during this debate the Prime Minister has stated it would be a good idea to have a permanent Speaker appointed. If he was really serious in this proposal, and if it had been given some forethought, then one would have thought it

DEBATES	May 27, 1965
would have been within the power of this House during the consideration of rule changes to put into effect what the Prime Minister suggested. If this required an amendment to the constitution, then it seems to me the whole discussion of a permanent Speaker was completely irrelevant. It has not been dealt with on that basis up until now.
The second point I should like to raise is the question of the constitutional amendment. If the House were going to elect a permanent Speaker who would not be an elected Member, then we would have to amend-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; is the hon. Member addressing himself at this time to the point of order?
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport (Mr. PickersgiU) tried to point out that we could not do it. I am trying to counter his argument by saying it does not require an amendment to the British North America Act unless the permanent Speaker were not to be an elected Member. It does say in Article 44 that the House shall proceed to elect one of its Members to be Speaker. If we were going to appoint a non-elected person as Speaker we would need to have an amendment to the British North America Act, which would be more than an amendment to the rules, but which would be within the competence I believe of this Parliament. However, I see no problem if we continue to select a Speaker who is satisfactory to the House and whose seat is made secure by some arrangement among the parties. If he should lose his seat I suppose his term as Speaker would expire.
These suggestions I have made could be worked out under the rules, but what I am finally coming to is that under part 1 of this resolution we are setting out some general principles as to what we want to do, and in clause 1(c) we are setting up a special committee of the House, consisting of 24 Members to be designated later by the House, to draft the actual method or means of putting these changes into effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not merely to draft the Standing Order relating to Supply?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thought the committee was to put into effect everything that is contained here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not apply to the other Standing Orders.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Part 2 is a definite amendment to the rules, but part 1 is a general statement
May 27, 1965

that the House adopts a certain group of ideas on how we should deal with Supply. The hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) has suggested that within that we should also provide for a permanent Speaker. I am merely saying that his amendment is surely in order because the committee that is set up to draft the actual rules can also consider and draft the amendment he has proposed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we do not like the amendment in itself and we feel it is out of order. Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules, 1943 edition, page 139, states that an amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and others who have gone into this question of a permanent Speaker, surely it is apparent that these changed rules, if passed, can be effective whether the Speaker is permanent or not. The basis of the motion that is put forward is that it would be a better protection and provide some safeguards, but that is not really pertinent to the resolution before us.
One of the most regrettable things that has happened in this debate was the initiation of the discussion of a permanent Speakership, and in a sense I believe that the Chair, early on in the debate, may have been at fault in allowing that particular part of the discussion to go so far. It is apparent, especially since personalities have been injected, that this is a potentially embarrassing situation. It points up the irrelevancy of the kind of discussion about these matters, because we have had mention of three particular persons.
We have something that is fairly concrete and clear before us, and discussion of a permanent Speaker has absolutely nothing to do with it. I not only suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you rule the amendment out of order but that you take it upon yourself, perhaps in consultation with your officials, to tighten up the whole discussion on whether we should have a permanent Speaker. The feelings of certain people are involved, and if you do not do this we are going to have a pretty bitter and disgraceful discussion in the House, because a great many of us are highly opinionated and prejudiced in this regard, particularly with regard to some of the personalities suggested.
House of Commons Procedures


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest the amendment is out of order for two reasons, one being the citation quoted by the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in that it introduces something new and quite apart from the matter before us. I shall not go further into that, except to say the resolution deals with Supply, and a Business Committee allocating time. The subject of a permanent Speaker does not come within that realm.
The second point is that the amendment calls for something that has not been defined. It has been stated by a number of hon. Members that the word permanent, as related to a Speaker, is something on which we have not yet got a definition. Therefore an amendment containing words saying the changes shall not become effective until a permanent Speaker has been appointed is tantamount to a motion that would hoist the whole resolution for an indefinite period. At the moment we do not know what we mean by a permanent Speaker. I also support the argument that the amendment is in violation of section 44 of the British North America Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, just before you give a ruling with regard to the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), I wonder if you have given quite serious consideration to the point raised by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), that the resolution before us is stating certain general principles. It reads:
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.
I suggest those words indicate that reference to a permanent Speaker is applicable under the circumstances, and is a further declaration of the general principles contained in them. In other words, they suggest that the House recognize the need for improving its procedures, and one of the ways in which that may be done is by giving greater authority to the Speaker. Therefore I say the amendment is not adding extraneous matter. It is part of the declaration of intention.
I further suggest that the argument that the B.N.A. Act requires amendment does not necessarily follow, because many things might be done without having to go through that procedure. But even if it had to be amended, it could be done very expeditiously by the Government bringing forward the necessary amendment to section 44 of that Act.
1750	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
When we are engaged in considering what the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) has called fundamental changes in the rules- and it has been a serious debate up to this point-I suggest the most serious, fundamental point is that of increasing the authority of the Speaker. Our feeling is that that being done, that major step having been taken, then the proposed amendments to the rules, and the changes, might be recognized as very useful if back of them is the power in the hands of the Speaker to protect the rights and privileges of every Member of the House.
It is with that in mind that we have brought forward this amendment as a declaration of intention, a declaration of general principle with regard to improvement in the procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation. That full opportunity might be dependant upon the decision of Mr. Speaker, who we suggest must be untrammelled and quite free to make an impartial decision, and thus ensure the effective dispatch of public business.
Then again there are suggestions regarding changes in the rules whereby the Speaker will make a decision on amendments at various stages, and on whether additional time is required or not. For that purpose there will have to be authority beyond that which our Speakers have enjoyed in the past. I suggest this is a statement of general principle and is applicable to the resolution.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe that every argument was invoked and that the present amendment is slightly irrelevant to the matter under consideration.
We do not wish to go on with this discussion, but even if we approve the appointment of a permanent Speaker, we believe that the subject matter of this debate-that is, the appointment of a permanent Speaker-is a new interpretation of the Rules, and therefore this amendment is out of order.
That is the point we wished to make because we believe that we are drifting away from the question we intended to discuss and from the amendment we would like to be adopted concerning motions nos. 14 and 15. [Text]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: While I think the point made by the Minister of Transport is a valid one I do not think the procedural argument necessarily rests on the constitutional considerations. The hon. Member for Port Arthur, it seems to me, indicated correctly that this

DEBATES	May 27, 1965
amendment introduces a consideration which is foreign to the motion and beyond the scope of the present resolution. If it were within the power of the House of Commons to act on this matter, aside from the constitutional aspects, then it is a question of such consequence that a substantive motion requiring notice in the usual way would be necessary before action could be taken on it. For these reasons I submit that the amendment is out of order and should not be considered.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am sorry to ask to be heard again, but I should like to raise a different point. It is that this amendment is in effect a reasoned amendment. Since 1951 a series of amendments of this type have been admitted by the Chair. I have a note in my Beauchesne to this effect. Also, there is citation 382 which is directly on the point:
It is competent for a Member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not a bill.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The Minister says this is not a bill. But it is a motion setting forth a principle and I think the same rule surely applies. The citation continues:
-to move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the policy, principles or provisions of the bill.
I know of no reason why the discussion of a motion should be treated differently from the second reading of a bill in this respect. Amendments have been allowed to motions on other occasions. I should like to mention particularly the amendment setting out the reason for not approving a bill on second reading on March 16, 1961 as reported at page 3045 of Hansard for that year. I do not have the volume here because I did not expect this question to be raised.
This amendment advances a principle and gives a reason for not approving the resolution before us until a certain event has happened. Mr. Speaker Michener, at the insistence of the Opposition of that day, made several rulings over a period of some two years with respect to reasoned amendments. I say this is an amendment of the same sort and I think it is in order.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Does the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre desire to participate in the debate on the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, for about two sentences. May I also draw Your Honour's attention to citation 203(1) which requires that amendments be relevant and consistent with what
May 27, 1965

they propose to amend. The amended motion before the House contains a clause providing that these orders be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session. It seems to me that an amendment, or another sentence in the same resolution, which would negate that determination would be inconsistent with the motion now before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might deal first of all with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka to the effect that this is a reasoned amendment. If the hon. Member will consult the authorities he will find that this rule applies only to bills. If he were able to find one precedent indicating that it also applies to resolutions his submission might be considered by the Chair. In any event a reasoned amendment involves a negation of the principle. There is no negation of the principle in this case, merely a suggestion that there should be a postponement of the application of the principle contained in the resolution. Furthermore, a reasoned amendment must still be relevant to the main proposition it seeks to amend, and there are very serious doubts as to whether this amendment is really relevant. I would refer hon. Members to Beauchesne's fourth edition citation 203 (1) -
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which it is proposed.
I believe the hon. Member for Port Arthur referred the Chair to citation 203 (3):
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and may not be moved.
My suggestion is that the main motion deals with certain limited matters, the time allocation and Supply procedures, and that the submission made by the hon. Member for Cumberland goes beyond the terms of the main proposition.
Finally I would suggest that this amendment is in the nature of an expanded negative. I would refer the hon. Member to May's sixteenth edition at page 418 where the learned author says that Mr. Speaker in certain instances has ruled that an amendment which was merely an expanded negative could not be put from the Chair.
For these reasons I regretfully rule that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cumberland cannot be accepted.


Robert Carman Coates: I regret your decision, Mr. Speaker. However, it is not in my power to
House of Commons Procedures comment on it further. I should like to continue my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member has already spoken and the sequence of his speech has been broken by the point of order and the ruling of the Chair. Perhaps Members of the House would allow the hon. Member for Cumberland to continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret that in the circumstances I have to recognize the hon. Member for Greenwood.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My chief purpose in intervening in the debate at this stage is to introduce an amendment which, in the interest of real freedom of speech in this House, I consider essential, to the effective operation of the proposed order in respect to the allocation of time for debate. Before I introduce the amendment, however, Mr. Speaker, I would like-I hope without repeating what other Members have said- to make a few general observations. I have only been a Member of this House for three years, although I have been interested in its activities for many years, but from the very first moment I came here I have been deeply interested in the necessity for amendments of the rules of the House.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I think it may well be that some new Members, like myself, coming from other walks of life and unfamiliar with all the details of parliamentary procedure and many of its traditions, tend to be too impatient with what they discover when they come into the House. But it seems to me there is equal danger that those who stay in the House for some time, because they are devoted to the House of Commons as an institution, may fail to take a sufficiently objective and critical look at its operations, and they sometimes put up with situations which, if they had not been here for some time, they would regard as intolerable.
It seems to me that this question of the reform of the procedure of parliament is not just a matter of the public image of parliament. We are all aware of the widespread public impression that parliament as an institution is at the moment in some disrepute. There is nothing particularly new about this.
I think in the whole history of the Mother of Parliaments, parliament has frequently been in disrepute. I acknowledge, as I think
1752	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures has been said already in the debate, that this popular judgment is sometimes due to ignorance, sometimes due to an incomplete knowledge of the purpose and traditions of this House, and sometimes due to the quite inevitable circumstance that the less constructive aspects of our activities sometimes receive the greatest degree of public attention. But it is my view that there is a solid basis for the public's unhappiness with Parliament at the present time; and I am quite sure there is nothing we can do that will tend more to enhance the reputation of this historic institution than to improve, radically improve, the procedure which we have in the House.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we in this party have made clear our determination to support the proposed changes before the House in principle; and in addition to that we are very pleased by the amendments which have been worked out through the collective judgment of some of the Members of the House. It is our view that, in spite of our reservations about some details, the proposed changes, so far from constituting an invasion of the rights of individual Members, if anything perhaps do not go far enough. We believe, moreover, that the changes proposed will not be the achievement of any one party or the Government, but will be the achievement of the constructive thinking of Members of all parties in this House. The important question I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the procedural changes are, in our best judgment as Members of this House, likely to enable us to fulfil our functions more effectively in the interests of the people of this country of whom we are the servants.
Others in this debate have defined with more eloquence and learning than I can muster what are the functions of parliament; but for the purposes of my contribution I would like to mention three vital functions. The first is that we are the supreme legislative body in this country; and I do not think we should discount the importance of this function-I think it is of vital importance. It is true that in practice today most legislation is initiated by the Government, and that under our present system much of the drafting, and indeed many of the decisions about the legislation which is to be presented, is not decided by Members of the House, or even by the Cabinet, but by advisers from the civil service. It is also true that there has developed a modern habit of delegating legislative power and giving parliament only the

DEBATES	May 27, 1965
function of laying down general guide lines. By this system, important and operative details of legislation are reserved to Order in Council; but this seems to me to be an inevitable tendency and it is perhaps useless for us to complain about it.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a far greater volume of legislation of a constructive nature should be scrutinized and could be improved by parliament if there were a reasonable streamlining of our procedure. The second function of parliament that I would like to mention is that it is a supreme forum for the public discussion of important issues, and indeed of some issues that may not appear to be very important to the Government. For this reason we must be careful, as has been said by several hon. Members already in this debate, not to abridge unduly the rights of the Opposition or interfere with freedom of speech in this chamber. However, it seems to me that allocation of time and the various matters coming before the House are absolutely essential to that orderly freedom of speech which is real freedom of speech.
There is no freedom of speech if a minority can, even after they have had the opportunity to express their point of view, prevent by prolonged discussion the majority of the House from dealing adequately, or even at all, with other issues. I have no doubt that the proposals that we are discussing for the allocation of time by majority vote, and following the approval of the representatives of the parties, will only be used very rarely; and I suggest that any government or any majority that abuses these rules for the allocation of time will be making a very grave political mistake, one that would be very dangerous to its own future. I have no doubt that most of the orderly arrangement of the business of the House that is required can be done with good sense and judgment at the level of the Business Committee.
I do not imagine there are any effective deliberative or legislative bodies anywhere in the world that do not have some provision limiting the time for debate. For this reason- and I respect the views of those who have spoken differently in this House-I suggest it is nonsense to claim that the proposals we have before us, amended and improved as I think they have been by discussion and by the amendments that have been approved by this House, are an invasion of any freedom of speech. I have spent some time myself being interested in the problem of trying to maintain what I believe to be freedom of
May 27, 1965	COMMONS
speech, but I have always understood that freedom of speech was freedom subject to reasonable regulation.
Another function of parliament is that it should be a check on the executive, a watchdog over the constitutional and judicial safeguards of personal freedom. In these days it is frequently said that the role of the individual Member has virtually withered away. Mr. R. H. S. Crossman, who is one of the outstanding ministers in the British Government and a parliamentarian of considerable experience, referred to the present jobs of a backbench member as "to obey the party Whips in the lobby whatever his conscience may say, to act as a kind of political welfare officer for his constituents, and by questions and speeches to ventilate the causes he believes in".
The hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie), in his excellent contribution to this debate, spoke of the representative role of parliament and said that it is with this representative role that we must be concerned, and must watch carefully when anything happens to diminish the role of the spokesmen from all parts of the country, the backbenchers. It is my view that generally speaking the role of the backbench Members of all parties in all the functions of parliament, as legislators, as watchdogs of public expenditures and bureaucracy, our function as a forum for public discussion, can all be made more worth while and more effective by the adoption of the resolution that is before us. I know that some Members of this House are very sceptical about the efficiency of our committees system. I believe that the changes which are proposed will tend toward establishing a system in which backbench Members can make a real and more effective contribution.
However, Mr. Speaker-and I now come to the point of my amendment-the rights of backbenchers in every section of this House can be seriously interfered with if we proceed with the allocation of time for debate, which we have already approved as far as the amendments before the House are concerned, without any reduction at all in the time limit for individual speakers who sit in the House.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In September 1964 we in this party put forward a number of proposals to improve, as we thought, the procedures of this House. One of the items was that it was necessary that there be further limitation of the time for speaking for individual Members, a greater
DEBATES	1753
House of Commons Procedures limitation than presently exists in Standing Order 31. The proposal made in the amendment which I will put forward is that if there is an order for time allocation made, either as the result of the recommendation of the Business Committee or as the result of an order of the House following upon a motion by a Member of the Government, then in either case the time for speaking for an individual Member should be limited to 20 minutes and the time for speeches by leaders, or those opening and replying to the debate, should be limited to 40 minutes.
The amendments which have been approved by the House regarding allocation of time for total debate provide for two days on second reading, two days in committee of the whole and one day on third reading. If we make no limitation whatever of the contribution an individual Member of the House can make, and if Standing Order 31 (1) remains in effect, then we could have a situation where the whole of the two days allocated to first and second readings of a given subject in this House could well be taken up by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), or by the Minister moving a Government order or a Member speaking in reply thereto.
I remind hon. Members of the House that the present Standing Order 31 (1) provides for unlimited time for certain Members of the House in certain circumstances. We all recognize the importance of giving special opportunities to address the House to those who have special responsibilities. However, I should like to point out that it is perfectly possible, if we do not adopt any limitation of time, to have debates in the House reduced to the point where we hear nothing but speeches from the leaders of the various parties in the House.
I for one, and perhaps other hon. Members too, recall that on one occasion, in fact the very first debate I heard in the House, the present Prime Minister spoke for three hours and the Leader of the Opposition spoke for almost three hours. I think that was in 1963, or it may have been in 1962. As far as I am concerned they were excellent 'speeches, but they would have been much better speeches had they been made in 40 minutes.
If the amendment I am proposing is adopted, some hon. Members in this House who are used to making 40 minute speeches would find that having to confine their remarks to 20 minutes would involve some selfdiscipline. It would also involve a great deal more preparation than would a longer speech.
May 27, 1965

House of Commons Procedures


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


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member mind using as an example of a lengthy speech the one made the other day by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to whom we gave 60 minutes for his activity on that occasion. And even then I do not think he had finished saying all he wanted to say.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am sure that any speech made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would be listened to with great interest by the House. If we were allowed to make exceptions to generally salutary rules, I think this would be a good exception. But in the interests of the House as a whole, whoever be the one affected, I think we would make better speeches if we made shorter speeches.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to set an example?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, if I am not interrupted any more. I am almost through. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the shortening of speeches in this House would be beneficial in itself because, as I have said, it would make for better speeches.
The real purpose of my speech tonight is not just to get shorter speeches, although I am sure that would be a real improvement in itself, but to give a reasonable opportunity to backbenchers or speakers from various parts of Canada representing various interests in Canada to be heard in debate, as a result of my proposed amendment. I do not want to see a reasonable allocation of time for total debate destroyed, as it would be as far as I am concerned, by giving unlimited time to individual debaters or by unnecessarily lengthy debate by individual Members. We do not want this House to become a debating chamber in which we have a series of speeches from those who hold positions of leadership in the House. I am not criticizing any of the leaders of the House; they are all interesting and excellent speakers. But I do not think our purpose is to come here and listen to speeches from leaders. I think our purpose is to come here to represent the people of Canada resident in the areas from which we come, regardless of where we happen to sit in this House. I am absolutely convinced that if at the same time as we adopted an allocation of time for total debate, we permitted under our rules some individual

Members unlimited time and others 40 minutes for purposes of debate, then we would not have representative debate in this House.
In my opinion the time allocation rule is necessary and I am prepared to support it. But I do suggest that without some further limitation there will be real danger to effective and proper debate in this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Webster):
That the resolution be amended by Inserting In paragraph 2 thereof, immediately after subparagraph (8) of the proposed Standing Order 15A, the following subparagraph:
" (9) That in the event of an Order of the House being made for the allocation of time under the provisions hereof, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Standing Order, no Member except the Prime Minister, the Leader of any recognized party in the House or a Minister moving a Government Order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty (20) minutes and no Member shall speak for more than forty (40) minutes at any time in such a debate."


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. Member a question. This involves the same sort of problem which we got into when, on a resolution preceding a financial bill, a somewhat similar provision was inserted. During the course of discussion in this House some confusion arose over whether the wording of that amendment, which I think was almost on all fours with this-namely, that no Member shall speak for more than 20 minutes- meant that when we were in Committee of the Whole a Member could speak more than once, as long as he did not speak for more than 20 minutes, or whether it meant that he could speak for 20 minutes, at which point his speech would be interrupted by another speaker, and he could then come back and speak for a further 20 minutes. Your Honour may recall that this was a matter which was not well settled; I think we had some difficulty about it. I wonder whether the hon. Member would indicate what the situation would be in his view, having in mind my interpretation of the motion, when we are in committee of the whole.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have not really studied the point raised by the hon. Member for Peace River, but I certainly had not intended to change the procedure of the committee of the whole, at which stage I understand each Member can speak for 20 minutes from time to time during the course of a debate. It was not my
May 27, 19S5	COMMONS
intention to change that situation, and if the wording I have used gives that effect I hope that the Committee on Procedure, to which I understand these amendments have been referred, will set it right.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
Mr. B re win: If there is something amiss in my wording, I hope the Committee on Procedure will correct it. I did not have the slightest intention of changing the rule under which Members can speak for 20 minutes in committee, and on more than one occasion. The purpose of my amendment is to limit the time of individual speeches.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. Member would permit me to ask a question for the purposes of clarification, and my question does not refer to the meaning of his amendment. Does the hon. Member intend that his amendment in respect of speeches shall be applicable only to orders relating to paragraph No. 5, or applicable to agreements reached by the Business Committee as well?


Francis Andrew Brewin: It would be applicable to any order made in relation to paragraph 5. Of course, if the leaders of the various parties in the House reached some agreement as to time, not requiring an order of this House, then my proposed amendment would have no application. The amendment would apply to any occasion which, either by the agreement of this House that an order be made, or by a motion of a Member of the Government, related to subsection 4, or subsection 5 of the proposed Standing Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the hon. Member a question at this point. In the amendment now before us has the hon. Member deliberately or inadvertently left out any mention of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I referred to the leader of any recognized party, and I assume that the Leader of the Official Opposition would be leading a recognized party in this House. This is an inclusive phrase which would, in my judgment, include the Leader of the Official Opposition. I certainly did not intend to leave him out or in any way discriminate against him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is an officer of the House.


Francis Andrew Brewin: He would certainly be entitled to the extra time referred to in the amendment.
DEBATES	1755
House of Commons Procedures


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I just ask the hon. Member whether his proposed amendment places the Leader of the Official Opposition, who is an officer of this House, on the same level as the Leader of the N.D.P., the Leader of the Social Credit Party and the Leader of the Creditiste Party?


Francis Andrew Brewin: In regard to the time that he should be allowed in a debate which is limited, the answer is yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is very discourteous.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, regardless of how the present amendment is read, I promise to take no more than five minutes to make my remarks. I should first like to comment about the amendment now before us, and I believe that is all I am entitled to discuss at this time.
I am very encouraged by the progress we have been making in the House in respect of the proposed amendments, and the unanimity with which certain amendments have been accepted would indicate that this House is now prepared to give serious consideration to proposals designed to make the business of the House more effective.
The hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has suggested in effect that there be a limitation of time placed on Members' speeches, including the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), during any debate which is subject to the time limitation. He may have a good idea in principle, which may be acceptable if it is changed substantially in one or two respects.
The first change relates to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), to the effect that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition are recognized officers of this House and have traditionally been given special consideration under the rules of this House. Perhaps the hon. Member's omission in this regard was an oversight, but that can and ought to be corrected.
The second change relates to the fact that he has failed to make a differentiation between the different kinds of debate which take place in the House. For example, we might be debating on second reading a very important bill, in respect of which the Prime Minister finds it necessary to outline the background material in some detail. Likewise, the Leader of the Opposition might find that there is a great deal of background leading up to certain events and proposals under discussion

May 27, 1965
Business of the House
which require a longer than normal consideration.
I agree that in most cases 40 minutes should be sufficient for hon. Members to debate an issue, but I have on many occasions listened to excellent speeches which have lasted for an hour or an hour and a half, but which were not drawn out and did not contain unnecessary material. I do not believe there should be a time limit placed on the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Official Opposition in respect of debates relating to bills, and in relation to items of-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Does he feel that in respect of the introduction of bills of the type to which he has made reference it is conceivable or likely that there would be an allocation of time at the second reading stage?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think it is fair to say that the Government would not impose a time limit on anything except what it desired to have passed, or on things about which it did not foresee an extended debate. I certainly cannot envisage a case in respect of which the Government would bother to implement a time limit except in relation to something which it expected might provoke a lengthy debate. The purpose of such a limitation would be to shorten the length of the debate, and in such case I suggest that would be an excellent time for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to make extended remarks setting out their respective party positions.
I do not agree with the hon. Member that a limited debate should necessarily result in shorter speeches.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we propose tomorrow to call interim supply, and then the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, commencing with item No. 1. On Monday we propose to return to a consideration of the proposal for changes in the procedures of this House.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the President of the Privy Council the extent of the interim supply?


George James McIlraith: It applies to one month.
[Mr. Aiken.l
[DOT] (10.00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gérard Laprise: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), in his capacity as minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a state-owned corporation which is in a poor state. I wanted to know whether he meant to take a stand in view of the many protests he is receiving from all sides.
A few days ago, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus, while holding a convention in Ste. Adele, passed a resolution of protest against the C.B.C. from which I should like to quote a few excerpts:
It is resolved that a strong protest he made to the Secretary of State against the C.B.C.'s policy of allowing fellow-traveller leftists, agnostics, terrorists and other trouble-makers to promote, on certain programs, class struggles and contempt for religious, civil and legal authorities.
It is resolved that the federal government be asked to set up within the C.B.C. a censorship board to remove from the public networks programs which condone crime, violence, immorality in all its forms.
Mr. Speaker, the Order of the Knights of Columbus has in Canada more than 125,000 members who represent almost a million people and is recognized as a serious organization which fights for the respect and maintenance of order, understanding and common sense.
The taxpayers are simply asking for an answer from the Secretary of State. Will they get it? A few days previously, the magazine Aufourd'hui Quebec, a very dynamic and widely read publication, even if it is still quite young, published on the activities of the C.B.C. a detailed and well documented article entitled: A crown corporation in poor shape.
Mr. Gilles Dandurand, director of the magazine, begins his article by asking a question, and I quote:
To His Excellency Governor General Vanier, who is above Mr. Pearson;
To Prime Minister Pearson, who is above Mr. Maurice Lamontagne;
To Mr. Maurice Lamontagne, who is Mr. Ouimet's boss;
May 27, 1965	COMMONS
To federal members of Parliament-
And here is the question:
Are you aware that the C.B.C., a state Corporation, is in "bad shape"?
Will you keep on using the money we have honestly earned to finance "numerous T.V. programs bent on systematically and deliberately running down the highest principles of Christian faith and morals", as the bishops of Quebec stated on November 16, 1959?
During those six years, this "deliberate running down of the highest principles of Christian faith and morals" continues to be no less deliberate and more and more systematically organized... So...?
Those who are footing the bill are only asking you for an answer.
Is it asking too much?
Does the Secretary of State recall an article published in the newspaper Le Soleil last March 24 referring to a statement signed by 76,000 Canadian women, most of whom were mothers, and which read as follows:
We are asking our representatives to put an end to the control exercised by a minority over the C.B.C. to spread perversion, pornography, free love, blasphemy, use of drugs, violence and crime-
Mr. Secretary of State, those who pay are merely asking for an answer. Is it too much to ask?
Only a few days ago, Hon. Frederic Dorion, chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court, condemned television as being too often the best school of perversity and immorality. Speaking before a group of lawyers Judge Dorion said:
Unfortunately, I am also aware that all those attempts to keep order and protect morals are too often opposed by certain publicity media which, like television, frequently present programs so immoral and indecent that they stir up the indignation of decent viewers, especially fathers and mothers.
This communication medium which has now come into most of our homes and makes its way there by both word and picture, has become a need and an extraordinary means of propaganda. Whoever wishes to safeguard Christian principles which none the less are still the basis of our society, may but look at and listen to scenes we witness several times during the week, and he will realize that television is often the greatest school of perversion and immorality, particularly because it is introduced almost forcibly into our homes. For instance can the use of firearms be promoted without personal risks? Is it proper to show the feats and skill of bandits, to demonstrate so often the triumph of violence and fraud, even when it is helping justice, to show the indecency of beatniks and of eccentric girls who resort to provocative gestures?
Justice Dorion, a man in a position of authority, is well placed to see the nefarious effect television can have on our youth and on those who are not so young.
Many other people have protested to the C.B.C. and, in this house hon. members have, 22620-1131
DEBATES	1757
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion on several occasions, asked the Secretary of State to make a cleanup within the corporation, starting with its head if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive that a man who earns $40,000 a year and who has an annual budget of $100 million is unable to ensure that the picture and sound on television are favourable to healthy education and recreation instead of being conducive to perversion.
I want to know what position the Secretary of State intends to take-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. Member but his time has expired.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, when I read the question asked on May 26 by the hon. Member, I thought there was some error in the English translation. I turned to the French translation and I found in fact there was no error. Listening to the question that he raised tonight on this adjournment debate, I see he does have some misapprehensions concerning the relationship between the Secretary of State and the C.B.C.
The hon. Member is labouring under the assumption that the Secretary of State is responsible for the operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the same way that Ministers are responsible in this House for the operation of their several departments. In law and in fact the Secretary of State acts as a medium between the corporation and this House. Consequently he is not in a position to give directions to the C.B.C. in relation to programming.
I can assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State will serve as a faithful medium in transmitting the views he has expressed this evening to the President of the C.B.C. and other responsible officials of that corporation.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-NEW BRUNSWICK -PROPOSED CHANGE IN ROUTE

Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, the question which I posed to the Minister of Public Works this afternoon was inspired by a telegram received from the Bath Chamber of Commerce with reference to the routing of the Trans-Canada Highway between Florenceville and Perth, New Brunswick, and the decision which had been suggested to them as having been final as a result of the questions which they had put to the Government of New Brunswick-and the
May 27, 1965
1758	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion answers received-in spite of the fact that they had made a submission to the Minister stating this matter was of extreme importance to their district, involving expenditures in excess of several millions of dollars, and they were assured the question was under review by the Department here.
Their request was that before granting approval to the west side route, they felt the general public interest rendered it imperative that a top level official of the Department of Public Works be sent to evaluate that section of the highway both as to cost of construction and service to the public.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In explanation I might say I think it would be of interest to the House to know that the suggestion that the highway be diverted to the west side of the river involves the crossing of the river and proceeding along the river to the village of Andover, which is exactly opposite Perth. This puts the highway through a corridor which, beginning at Crossville at a distance of seven or eight miles gradually lessens in width until at Perth it is probably several miles in length, as against the original plan to follow the river on the east side through the various built up towns, or villages might be the better description, of Florenceville, Bristol, Bath, Upper Kent, Kilburn, Perth, and so on.
The request made to the Minister is that a top level official of the Department be sent to investigate the situation. I am very conscious of the fact that bridges are necessary across the river at Florenceville and I have nothing against the building of a highway on the west side. Nevertheless, the built up part of the area is on the other side of the river and before a final decision is made I think the Minister should comply with the request made to him so that careful consideration is given to building this road through that part of the area in which the greatest number of people would be served along the route of the highway.
The western side of the Saint John River is just a corridor to the Maine border, as I said, whereas on the eastern side when you get down to Bristol you run into the road between Bristol and the village of Juniper, down the Miramichi to Newcastle and Chatham. It seems to me that the local needs of the public would best be served by carefully investigating the contention of the Bath Chamber of Commerce that a route on the east side of the river should be followed. This is a reasonable request. The Bath Cham-


ber of Commerce is certainly a non-partisan body with no interest except the general interest of the public. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to comply with it.
I should also call attention to the fact that on the east side of the river below Perth six or seven miles of the Trans-Canada highway have already been constructed. This paving would have to be abandoned if the route on the west side were adhered to. In the light of all these considerations it appears that to change the route to the western side of the river at this late date would not only be unduly expensive, involving a good many millions of dollars in extra expenditure, but that it would also result in inconvenience to the general public and to the traffic bound for the eastern side of the province.
Then there is the highway from Bristol to Newcastle, a route which as far as local interest is concerned is of tremendous importance. It seems to me that a request by an independent body such as the Bath Chamber of Commerce to the federal Minister should be given the consideration which I believe it merits. I believe that the building of the Trans-Canada highway on the eastern side of the river will develop the local community; it will take care of the local traffic; it will also take care of the traffic, as I have said, that is somewhat greater as far as volume is concerned and also so far as general destination is concerned. Then in regard to all these matters there is the question of cost. I believe investigation will show that the expenditure will be much greater-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Hugh John Flemming: I just have two or three more words, Mr. Speaker. I believe it will be more expensive to go to the west side than to the east side.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) received a telegram today from the President of the Bath, New Brunswick, Chamber of Commerce. The telegram stated that the Chamber of Commerce was notified by the Premier of New Brunswick under date of May 19 that it was the intention to construct the Florenceville-Perth section of the Trans-Canada Highway on the west side of the Saint John River. The Bath Chamber
May 27, 1965
COMMONS DEBATES	1759
of Commerce advanced the view that excessive expenditures of several millions of dollars would be involved if this section of the Trans-Canada Highway was constructed on the west side of the Saint John River. The telegram, as the hon. Member has stated, requested that an official of the Federal Department of Public Works evaluate the cost of construction and service to the public on this proposed section of the route.
An official of the Federal Department of Public Works has made an evaluation of the proposed west side route vis-a-vis the east side route, and comparative costs were favourable to the west side route by some $230,000, and also the west side route is capable of being developed.
Under the Trans-Canada Highway Act the Provincial Governments of the provinces concerned select the route. The Federal Department of Public Works examines the plans submitted, takes into consideration the costs and other related factors and makes sure that the Trans-Canada Highway standards are met and maintained. This procedure was followed when a proposed west side route was advanced. It is not necessary to review the general policy of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, nor does the three-minute time limit at my disposal permit this to be done. However, the hon. Member who raised this question is well versed in this connection, as he held the portfolio of Public Works in the Province of New Brunswick when he was the Premier of that Province, and I have noted the points he has raised. I am not as familiar with the geography as he is, and maybe he has some good, valid points-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


George Roy McWilliam: I am just finishing, Mr. Speaker.


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


George Roy McWilliam: However, the points raised by the hon. Member will be brought to the Minister's attention immediately.



AGRICULTURE-BRITISH COLUMBIA-LOSSES SUFFERED BY FRUIT GROWERS

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, after 40 years spent as a tree fruit grower in British Columbia, I am naturally well versed in the problems that face the tree fruit producers in that province and am sympathetic to their proposals. It was on that account and at the request of several persons that I inquired of the Minister what
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion was being done to assist these tree fruit producers at the present time. I must say, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Chair, that I simply cannot understand why I was ruled out of order. I was simply inquiring of a Minister whether an investigation had been conducted and whether consideration was being given to amending the Farm Credit Corporation Act. However, I must take my medicine and stay here tonight, and I apologize to the hon. Member for Hull for keeping him so late out of bed.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I asked the following question on the Orders of the Day today:
Has the Minister held an investigation of the circumstances that exist with respect to the losses suffered from frost by certain fruit growers in British Columbia this year? Is consideration being given to amendment to the Farm Credit Corporation Act to cover this unexpected and unfortunate situation?
I had some personal knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker.
The fruit growers of British Columbia are concerned with two problems at this time, in addition to many others. First is the unexpected frost damage caused to stone fruits in British Columbia this spring; the second is the necessity of changing certain varieties of fruit, apples in particular, because of change in tastes.
This subject was discussed at the annual convention of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association held on January 19, 20 and 21, 1965. I am just going to mention briefly the resolution which was adopted by that convention. It was entitled: "Financial Assistance Program - Keremeos-Cawston'', which was the local which submitted it. The resolution reads:
Whereas there is no act or arrangement at present under which fruit growers may borrow long term, low interest funds to renovate their orchards by cutting out trees of low marketable varieties or on low volume rootstocks and replacing the removed trees with varieties acceptable to the consuming public and on high volume type rootstocks, and
Whereas many orchards were planted 30 to 40 years ago and the production has fallen to 500 to 700 bushels per acre of average to low quality fruit and are therefore uneconomical, and
Whereas it is estimated in the United States that production of 1500 bushels of high quality apples per acre must be produced in the years to come to meet competition
Therefore be it resolved that the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association approach the Canadian Government and request that the Farm Credit Corporation or other Government plan be amended to the extent that loans be made available to fruit farmers to enable them to cut out all or a part of their trees, if thought necessary, or replant with ac-
May 27, 1965
1760	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ceptable market varieties on quick bearing high volume rootstocks, said loans to cover not only the removing of old trees and replanting of new ones, but the continued care and maintenance of the new trees until they have grown to an economic size, and moreover funds be loaned to take care of the livelihood of the farmer to enable him to carry out the above renovations.
That is one problem that has concerned them, particularly in recent years owing to changing market conditions. The other one which I mentioned before is the concern over the effects of frost on stone fruits grown in the southeastern portion of British Columbia.
I know the Minister is interested in the problem and is sympathetic to it, and that the officials of his department have been investigating both aspects of the problem as presented to the department by the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association.
It was on that account that I asked my question, because they are anxious to know whether the Government is giving consideration to amending the legislation or to providing some assistance with respect to the losses being incurred as a result of fruit damage this year.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I
am sure the hon. Member will accept the fact that all Members on this side of the House are really sorry for these growers in British

Columbia as a result of the fruit losses they have suffered this year. Such a matter as this is generally a matter for the Provincial Government, and we know that the Provincial Government is at the present time making a survey to assess the extent of the damage caused. Whenever they find it necessary they may come to the Federal Government for help and they will be well received.
In respect of the second point, the hon. Member spoke about an amendment to the law. I do not know whether or not it is the intention of the Government to propose an amendment this year, but I can assure him that the Farm Credit Corporation has been in close touch with the situation facing fruit growers in British Columbia. This matter was discussed today by the Chairman of the Corporation with the branch manager in British Columbia. Those borrowers who are unable to make payments to the Corporation without undue hardship, as a result of losses beyond their control, will be permitted to postpone the payment of their instalments. Consideration as to any future policies the Corporation may adopt must await a further and more detailed assessment of the situation which has developed.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, May 28, 1965