1965-05-25

URANIUM


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware I returned over the week end from a visit to Paris, where I held discussions with Ministers of the French Government regarding uranium. At the conclusion of the discussions the following joint communique was issued on May 22:
The French Secretary of State for Scientific, Atomic and Space Affairs, Mr. Yvon Bourges, and the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, have concluded today a series of talks on matters pertaining to a sale of uranium by Canada to France. In the opinion of the Canadian and French Ministers, these discussions should be viewed in the context of increasing co-operation between the two countries, which has been witnessed at other recent talks at ministerial level.
The purpose of the discussions concerning a proposed sale of uranium was to provide for a first exchange of views at ministerial level on the main questions involved in the provision by Canada of fuel required for France's rapidly expanding program of nuclear reactors for the production of electrical power. The ministers noted with satisfaction that the discussions had been of great value to both sides in the examination of various aspects of the proposed sale.
The two ministers will report to their governments on their conversations.
This concludes the communique. For the information of hon. Members may I add the following points by way of clarification. At these meetings in Paris we did not attempt to negotiate a contract of sale for Canadian uranium. We were concerned only with the general conditions under which a sale could be negotiated and under which uranium could be exported from Canada by producers. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, the export of uranium from Canada requires the approval of the Government.
I made it clear during the discussions that in accordance with the firm policy of the Canadian Government, the proposed sale of uranium could be only for peaceful purposes. As the communique indicates, the French Government for its part is interested in acquiring Canadian uranium for its civil program of nuclear reactors for the production of electrical power.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: The report given by the Minister has one quality; it frankly faces the situation and does not build up any false hopes. Indeed, as one reads between the lines one can only conclude that there are very great difficulties in the way of securing from the Republic of France an order for uranium of the dimensions in question. I should like at some time for the Minister to let the House know whether during these discussions the Government pf Canada advanced the view that it was prepared to alter the basis upon which Great Britain and the United States today are able to acquire uranium; in other words, to make changes in the arrangements that go back almost to the end of the last war, these changes to be made in order to bring about a possible agreement with the Republic of France.
I hope, Sir, that the changes are not made, and that Canada takes the firm and definite stand on the matter as reported by the Minister a few moments ago, that any sales that will be made will be clearly based upon the agreement that the uranium shall be used for peaceful purposes. This reassurance on the part of the Minister is in accordance with the general stand that Canada has taken through the years.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. Members appreciate the fact that the Minister has given us a preliminary report on his initial discussions with the representatives of the French Government regarding a possible contract for the sale of uranium by Canada. I am sure Members in all parts of the House hope it will be possible to successfully work out an agreement whereby Canada will be able to sell large quantities of uranium, thereby stimulating the uranium industry and bringing employment to those parts of the country that have been adversely affected by the decline in the uranium market in recent years.
There are three points, Mr. Speaker, about which I hope the Government will be able to give us information at an early date. The
1602	COMMONS
Proposed TJranium Sale to France first is one the Minister has already mentioned. We are glad he stated that Canada will take a very firm position that any uranium sold by this country must be for peaceful purposes. Such an agreement must provide for adequate inspection and control, and some form of machinery must be set up to make absolutely sure that uranium sold to France, or to any other country, is used entirely for civil purposes. This is particularly important in this case because France is one country that has refused to sign the partial nuclear test ban agreement, and I think there would be some public reaction if adequate safeguards were not taken to make sure that any Canadian uranium sold to France was going to be confined entirely to civil purposes.
The second point on which I would like to get some information from the Minister at an early date is with respect to the length of the agreement. It is to be hoped it will be a fairly long term agreement. One of the mistakes we made with the U.S. agreements was that they were very short term agreements, and I know that in the Province of Saskatchewan as well as in the Province of Ontario the governments, municipal and provincial, made very large social capital investments on the strength of those agreements. Although we recognized at the time that they were short term agreements we had no choice but to make these very heavy investments in communities which virtually became ghost towns when the agreements ended. If we are going to build up an elaborate structure in Canadian uranium mining it has to be on the basis of long term agreements.
The third point concerns the matter of price. If we are going to get long term agreements, particularly a 25 year agreement in the case of the French contract, I hope the Minister can arrange in such a contract to have a guaranteed price for only a limited period of time, with the price to be renegotiable in the latter part of the life of the agreement.
All the indications are there is going to be an increasing demand for uranium. Experts have forecast that by 1973 there will be a great world demand for uranium, and it is quite conceivable that having a fixed price now for 25 years would find us selling uranium to our customers at a price far below the world price within the 25 year period. If it were possible to get an agreement that would be open ended after a specific period of time, so the price would then be renegotiable, this would be to Canada's advantage.

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
I wish the Minister well in his negotiations. I am sure all of us hope he will be able to bring them to a successful conclusion.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party note with interest the report made by the Minister in regard to his negotiations in Paris relating to the sale of Canadian uranium. With the prospects of a vast increase in the world market for uranium as nuclear power becomes more commonplace it is obvious that what we are dealing with is something that is much greater than just Canadian-French relationships at this time. With France as a member of NATO, with the prospects of uranium becoming a very strategic item particularly among NATO countries, certainly the groundwork that is being laid now in these negotiations is something broader than what is being discussed between our two countries.
I noted with interest reports circulating through news media that one of the reasons the Minister was not able to come to any definite conclusion about this sale agreement is that he expects to carry out negotiations with the United States government as well in this regard. It would have been good if the Minister had referred to this. It emphasizes again that we are dealing with a very broad aspect of nuclear power development through the basic material of uranium.
One thing is important in connection with this subject. It is whether there is a satisfactory agreement with France as far as the use of uranium for peaceful purposes is concerned, bearing in mind that whatever uranium France may obtain from Canada now if stockpiled will release other material, not liable to restriction, for military use. I know the Minister is taking this into consideration.
I do not think it is satisfactory to pretend that the whole question is being settled by this trade arrangement which is now being negotiated. Having regard to the tremendous supply of uranium which is available in Canada, we must certainly lead the way in developing some satisfactory proposal for the sale of uranium not only to France but to other countries, a proposal covering not only use but price.
We shall await with interest reports of further negotiations.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, the communique issued by the two countries following their discussions and read by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was
May 25. 1965	COMMONS
surely one of the most laconic ones we have ever heard. No conclusion emerged from it and it could even be perceived that the negotiations had not been as successful as the two parties involved expected. This is shown by the fact that the communique contains several statements to the effect that Canada and France are friendly countries, but nothing to suggest that an agreement has been reached. Mention is made that the meeting was not held in order to negotiate a contract, but simply to discuss the conditions of such a contract. In spite of all this, it is impossible to infer that the conditions laid down by each party have been accepted by both of them. Consequently, the communique is far from satisfactory. What is the main reason for the failure of those negotiations?
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will admit that, on the one hand, Canada wants to exercise some control and supervision-that is part of the conditions of sale of uranium to France-but, on the other hand, as stated in recent press releases, France wants no part of such control and supervision. However, in the joint communique, France stated that it needed uranium for its nuclear reactors in order to produce electric power. Those are the statements contained in the joint communique; the statement is official enough to be sufficient in itself, I think, especially when it comes from a friendly country such as France, unless France, in the case of this agreement, is not considered as one of the friendly countries mentioned at the beginning of the communique.
Mr. Speaker, I still maintain the position we have already taken in this matter. When negotiations were carried on with Great Britain and the United States, even if they were carried on during the few years after the war, we knew perfectly well to what purpose the uranium would be used, that is for military purposes, but no conditions were imposed on that sale as they are imposed today with respect to another country, a friendly country, France.
I think negotiations should be put on another basis. We should have confidence in the statement made in the joint communique by the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Yvon Bourges, on behalf of France, to the effect that this uranium will be used for their nuclear reactors in order to produce electric power. In addition, I think Canada feels the need for such a sale, such a contract, especially to improve its balance
DEBATES	1603
Proposed Uranium Sale to France of trade which is truly unfavourable at present.



On the orders of the day:


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question based on his announcement concerning the uranium negotiations in Paris. The hon. gentleman mentioned the emphasis placed by Canada on the use of the uranium for peaceful purposes only. Can he tell us whether there were any other conditions involved than the one he mentioned, or whether any further problems arose? Is it possible for him to inform the House what the basic price per pound is to be, and whether there is to be a further meeting in connection with this sale?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): May I begin by answering the question about price. As I indicated in the course of my brief statement on motions, we did not attempt at these meetings to negotiate a contract of sale. That would be a matter for negotiation between the Canadian producers and the atomic energy authorities of France. The question of price was not discussed during these meetings.
As to the first question, I reiterate what I said in my statement. The proposed sale could only be considered if the material were to be used for peaceful purposes. In this connection we had a discussion about the implications of that condition, and there was some discussion about the form of safeguard which would be necessary to ensure that the uranium was used for peaceful purposes. The whole range of subjects relating to the movement of uranium from Canada to France and the condition to be attached to it were the subject of discussion.


Michael Starr: Would the Minister say whether the French Government agreed to the safeguards which were set out by the Canadian delegation? Will he tell us, too, whether there will be further meetings or negotiations in order to finalize this agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: The two main points upon which we have not yet reached agreement are the avoidance of discrimination in the terms to France as compared with those to Britain and the United States and, second, the form of the safeguards. These matters are under discussion. In reply to the question concerning further discussions, the hon. Member will have

May 25, 1965
Sale of Wheat to China noted from the communique which was issued that the two Ministers agreed to report to their Governments. I reported to the Canadian Government this morning and we are in the process of considering what the next step should be. I am sure the Government of France is doing likewise.


Michael Starr: Were there any other technical problems involved in the negotiations apart from those the Minister has mentioned?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am happy to say that as far as the other matters are concerned there seemed to be a very large area of agreement between the two Governments on what might be termed the commercial aspects of the sale. As I say, we were not concerned with price but we did discuss the willingness of Canada, for example, to enter into long term contracts. I indicated we were prepared to meet the power needs of France over a considerable period of time. I think in this respect we have the basis for an agreement.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO MAINLAND CHINA

['The Government has received this resolution from the Government of the Province of Manitoba and from another provincial Government giving this House advice as to the manner in which it should proceed in dealing with a matter before this Parliament. The advice from the Provincial Governments in this regard is under consideration.']
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have another short announcement to make. I have been informed by the Canadian Wheat Board that the Board has concluded negotiations in Hong Kong for the sale to mainland China of 1| million long tons of Canadian wheat, approximately 58,700,000 bushels including shipping tolerance. Further details will be announced by the Canadian Wheat Board within the next few days.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to say a few words about the China wheat market because of its importance at this time. In the first place I think we can gather from the announcement made today that this is no longer a temporary type of market. I think we have to assume now that this is not a windfall type of arrangement but will be here permanently.
Therefore, in view of its importance I am going to ask the Minister and the Government to take effective action with regard to the desire of mainland China to set up in this country, as they have in other countries, an unofficial trade office where their representatives can meet with Canadian businessmen, so we can show some honest effort on our part to get their goods into this country, which 
are not coming in in any amount at all at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The second point I want to make is that at the Canton trade fair which ended just last week, of some 5,000 businessmen there from all over the world only a handful were Canadian. I think the Department of Trade and Commerce has to make just as much effort to enter into this market as we make with regard to other markets, and I think we should have several hundred businessmen organized to go to the coming trade fairs in April, May and September to make sure that Canadians know what the Chinese are producing.
I am not going to discuss price at this time because that comes under the purview of the wheat board. It is their business and the business of the farmers; therefore we should not talk about it here.
My final point is this. Trade with China is not going to be a one way street. We are selling them approximately $150 million worth of wheat a year and we are buying back a handful of millions-$4 million or $5 million-of dollars worth of materials. Canadian policy should be to help the Chinese in every way to establish legitimate trade relations with us, and at the same time Canadian Government policy should be to persuade the Americans themselves to change their regulations and their act to allow American businessmen to trade with China as well. If this kind of approach were taken by the Minister I am sure he would find that some ears in the United States would be willing to listen, and we could hope that the American rules and regulations, and their act as a matter of fact, aimed against the American citizens who trade with China, would be amended or removed so that American business could make contact with this great country. When we remember that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of our business is entangled with American business, the importance of this matter to Canada is obvious.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would take this opportunity to ask the Government to realize that this China trade is no longer a windfall, as the Prime Minister said when in opposition. It is a permanent arrangement and we must protect that permanent arrangement, not only for wheat but for all the other products the Chinese want. The slogan to keep in mind is "A single market of 700 million people under single management".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
May 25. 1965


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. The Minister of Trade and Commerce read a statement to the House, which is six typewritten lines in length, dealing with one specific point-a very important one, but one point. In reply to it, or by way of comment, we heard a speech raising views that the Prime Minister expressed about trade generally with China in earlier sessions; we heard other points raised, such as agreements made with China, and so on. I would like respectfully to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the rule which reads:
On motions, as listed in section (2) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may make an announcement or a statement of government policy.
In this case it was a direct, simple and concisely stated announcement. To continue the quotation:
Any such announcement or statement should he limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the House and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
I respectfully suggest that the limitation as contained in the rules has not been observed, and I feel that this should be pointed out.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I should like to recall to the attention of the House, through you, that over and over again announcements have been made about wheat sales in this House in respect of which I have deliberately refrained from making any comment whatsoever. I took this occasion to make these important points because-and I think the Minister knows this as well as I -there have been certain signs in the last six weeks regarding China which would indicate that we should take some action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group welcome the announcement by the Minister, and we are glad the Wheat Board has been able to complete this sale of wheat to China.
In welcoming this announcement I think even the President of the Privy Council will not object to me saying that we hope there will be other such announcements, and that the best way to make such announcements possible is to plan for better trade relationships in the future with mainland China. In order to obtain better relationships we must try first to set up facilities for negotiating two way trade deals; and second-this is some-
Sale of Wheat to China thing this group has been advocating for many years-eventually the Government of Canada will have to recognize the government of mainland China in order to permit the kind of relationships between these two countries which will allow increased trade.
Sales of wheat as announced by the Minister are of importance to the people of the prairies who grow the wheat, and important to the people of British Columbia from whose ports this wheat is to be shipped to China. We hope the Minister will keep this in mind in future negotiations with mainland China.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, we join in welcoming the announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of this additional sale of 58.7 million bushels of wheat to mainland China. We are very interested to know the price. If there has been no further reduction in the price in this particular deal we hope that is an indication that the wheat markets of the world, so far as prices are concerned, have been stabilized to some extent. We should also like to know whether there were any discussions in relation to supplying some of this wheat in the form of flour.
We do welcome the announcement, and we hope there will be no difficulty on the west coast in getting this grain loaded into the ships. Hon. Members will appreciate that there have been some recent rumours regarding a grain handlers' strike in the area, and we hope this will not interfere with the delivery of this grain.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with others in the Opposition in expressing our heartfelt welcome to the announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the sale of wheat to mainland China. This is an indication that the Wheat Board is doing its job.
There is one thing that comes to my mind in respect of statements of this kind, and it has come to me again today as a result of the remarks of the hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle and the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to the effect that we should recognize mainland China. Canada is a country which will be doing more trade with China, particularly in respect of wheat, but this is not a one way street. We will be expected to import certain things from China. I am sure all farmers in Canada want to participate in these trade deals with China. At this time western farmers are taking advantage of the opportunity to sell wheat, and I am very happy that they are able to

May 25, 1965
External Affairs
do so. However, I believe that we have been neglecting the eastern farmers, who are waiting for someone to come along and pull them out of the darkness of their immediate financial position.
I agree with the hon. Member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam that before very long we will have to recognize mainland China, and I am afraid we will have done so before we help the eastern Canadian farmers.

On the orders of the day:


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the 58.7 million bushels of wheat involved in the latest deal with mainland China was sold at a set price. Perhaps he could also tell us when the Canadian Wheat Board will announce this price so that the farmers in western Canada will not be wondering whether there has been another reduction.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Wheat Board does not announce the prices at which sales are made under these contracts and, in this respect, it is following its normal practice. I do expect, however, that in the next day or two, when the negotiators have returned from Hong Kong-according to the latest information I have they are not back yet-the details of the grades and of shipping positions will be revealed. The Wheat Board, for obvious reasons, never announces the wheat prices at which it concludes transactions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question. The Canadian Wheat Board ordinarily sells its wheat at its daily offering price, and I am wondering whether there has been a long term agreement made at a set price for several months in the future. That would be something of a departure from Canadian Wheat Board policy.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think we should wait for the statement by the Canadian Wheat Board, otherwise we will be getting into a debate on matters of policy.



John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making a motion on a matter of 
urgent public importance which is, as I see it, of such emergency that it requires immediate debate.
As you know, for quite some time Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been asking for a day to be set aside for the discussion of matters of international importance concerned with the peace of the world. Indeed, in the light of events in the last two days and the kaleidoscopic changes that are taking place internationally, a discussion of international affairs can no longer be delayed.
In respect of the urgency involved I have only to mention the fact that in the past 48 hours the press has reported that plans are now under way to bring the equivalent of a United States army combat division into South Viet Nam. This is according to informed U.S. mission sources.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have received a report today from Cyrus Eaton who at all times in recent years has been loud in his protestations of good relationships between the western world and the U.S.S.R. He has returned from a visit to the U.S.S.R. and has stated, among other things, that during his meeting in the Kremlin with Premier Alexis Kosygin last Thursday he was terrified by this man's attitude; that he had never met a man so grim, so wrought up or so serious. Kosygin told him "You have left us no alternative but to fight".
I use that reference because throughout the last several years Mr. Eaton has had that closeness of relationship with Mr. Khrushchev which impelled him to say that so long as Khrushchev was in charge of the U.S.S.R. there would be no danger of war.
As I have mentioned, Sir, we have tried to obtain information, but it is quite impossible to do so. No matter how comprehensive the answers given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs we are entirely in the dark in this matter, which far transcends any question normally of a domestic nature. We are left with a labyrinth of words while the world situation is deteriorating and gradually becoming worse. I need not point out what happened in Viet Nam within the last two days. As reported by authoritative British sources, the Viet Cong has taken over control of rural areas. This being a matter which requires consideration by Parliament, the Canadian people must not be kept in the dark.
Furthermore, what took place in the Dominican Republic over the week end has induced Mr. U Thant to state that the United Nations was being ignored; and the Prime
May 25, 1965



Minister, in one of his extramural statements, indicated that he was in agreement with that view. Indeed, too often the information we get on external affairs today is that given outside the House in the course of speeches. At the same time the Shah of Iran spoke of the weakness of the United Nations.
I could mention other matters of immediate importance. There is the situation regarding NATO, where the indications are that General de Gaulle has a plan of withdrawal. On the other hand we had the Prime Minister's statement in Sudbury which to say the least was critical of the course being taken by the President of the French Republic. In the past 48 hours, as Canada's leaders have paraded before the international footlights, we have had to get our information through radio and television broadcasts. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was quoted as having indicated that there were discussions on the transfer of the United Nations headquarters or some of its agencies to Montreal, and within 24 hours the hon. gentleman said the report was incorrect. Finally, in the past 48 hours there has been a report that Canada may be denied defence information by NORAD.
These statements all indicate that the time has come for a debate so we may learn what the situation is and not have to depend on statements regarding these matters made by various incognitos in other parts of the world.
I therefore ask leave, under Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the alarm and uncertainty which today prevail in the country with respect to strained world relations in general and in particular as to (a) the dangerous developments in Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic; (b) the uncertainty as to the future of NATO, with particular reference to the future participation of France; (c) the use and control of tactical nuclear weapons by NATO forces; (d) the uncertainty as to the future role of Canada in continental defence within NORAD; and
(e)	the new uncertainties facing the position of the United Nations, which alarm and uncertainty stem from the Government's continuing refusal to give clear information on these matters, its confused and equivocal handling of these situations and the collapse of Canada's traditionally effective role in international politics.
I say, Sir, that the urgency is apparent to anyone who reads the headlines, and I ask
External Affairs
therefore that this matter receive the attention of the House.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. There is no question about the importance of this matter. Because it deals with the question of peace and war it is perhaps more important than any other subject that can be brought before us.
There is some doubt in my own mind as to the definiteness of the matter having in mind points (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e), all of which deal in a very general way with foreign policy, and there remains the question of urgency.
The right hon. gentleman has stated that there is evidence of the worsening of the international situation in an alarming way, and this therefore means that the matter is so urgent it should be discussed today and that we should interrupt our ordinary business for that purpose. We have no evidence before us, Mr. Speaker, of the worsening of the situation in that alarming and critical way to which reference has been made.
There are, of course, ways in which this matter could be discussed. If we could deal with the parliamentary reform resolutions now before us we could set up the Committee on External Affairs immediately and there could be a full discussion in that committee. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if the resolution concerning that matter is not passed we can always, by unanimous consent, set up the Committee on External Affairs at once. We can also arrange with the house leaders to have a supply debate next Monday when this question can be brought forward if the Opposition so desires.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing, of course, against the importance of this matter or against the desirability of a debate at this time provided Your Honour feels it is a matter of urgent public importance. If you make that decision, Mr. Speaker, we will be very glad indeed to take part in a debate today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has dealt with two points, first of all whether the motion concerns a definite matter and, second, whether the matter is urgent.
It seems to me there can be no argument about the definiteness of the motion. It is true that it enumerates certain points from (a) to (e) seriatim, but the fact is that each

May 25, 1965
External Affairs
is a definite statement of a particular problem in the field of international affairs, and each demands the attention and consideration of the House. I do not think there is any lack of definiteness. It is true that several of these crises are enumerated but they are specific and very definite and in my opinion they ought to be discussed and discussed fairly soon by Parliament.
The second point has to do with the question of urgency. In that regard I would remind the Prime Minister that on the last supply motion the hon. Member for Oxford spoke briefly on the subject of external affairs, and at that time the Prime Minister said he would be glad to arrange for a discussion either by having an item of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs called or by having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs. So far neither of these things has been done, and I think no one can disagree with the contention that the situation in the world today calls for fairly clear and specific statements of policy by the Government of Canada.
We have had no statements whatsoever with regard to where the Canadian Government stands on the matter of Viet Nam. We are a member of the truce commission which has been completely overlooked and neglected. The situation in the last week or 10 days in the Dominican Republic has caused a good deal of concern in Canada in view of the fact that this country, located as it is in the western hemisphere, is affected by anything that happens in the Caribbean. In addition, as clause (e) of the motion points out, throughout this entire series of unfortunate incidents the United Nations has been bypassed completely by unilateral action on the part of the United States.
It seems to me that the Canadian Government should give a clear expression of its views with respect to these various troubled spots in the world. I do not think we can afford to delay this matter. The Government has not provided any opportunity for discussion. It has not called any of the estimates and has not done any of the things that would provide an opportunity for debate. I believe that on April 2 there was a brief debate on foreign policy on a supply motion, but apart from that there has been no debate. I think there can be no better time than the present, when the world situation calls for some leadership on the part of the Canadian Government, to have a full scale debate and to give the House an opportunity to express its opinion

with respect to the various items that have been listed in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no question in the minds of the members of this party but that it would be desirable to have a discussion in this House on foreign affairs, particularly with regard to the situation that has developed in Viet Nam and in the Dominican Republic as well as other places in the world. We think we can agree that there has not been sufficient information given to this House with regard to these trouble spots in the world. The question immediately arises, Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs more information that he is at liberty to give to this House?
It is not fair to say that no information has been given, because there have been a number of occasions when the Minister has attempted to give what I should like to call "sop" information to the House respecting these two matters. It is rather difficult, because while we agree that more information ought to be given, while we agree that there is a very serious situation in the world that we would like to see helped, the fact is that we have to abide by the rules of this House. It is your duty and obligation, Mr. Speaker, to enforce these rules.
Citation 100 reads in part as follows:
The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a Member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the Government.
I cannot see anything in the motion moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that directly involves the administrative responsibility of this Government. I can understand your position therefore, Mr. Speaker, and the quandary in which you will be if you are going to apply the rules that have been given to you by this House and at the same time take into account the importance of this matter.
Then, of course, the motion refers also to the alarm and uncertainty which today prevails in the country with respect to strained world conditions in general. The motion then lists five items. Well, Mr. Speaker, this may be definite but it is certainly not a specific thing. Paragraph (2) of citation 100 reads in part as follows:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved under Standing Order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
May 25, 1965

I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we can argue, debate and discuss these generalities in the motion moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition all day, but that would not necessarily assist the public interest in this matter.
Then the "urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you are familiar with this citation. It means that the public interest demands that a discussion take place immediately, and that something useful in the public interest can come out of this debate. This is what is meant when reference is made to urgency.
Another point you may look at, Mr. Speaker, is contained in paragraph (5) of citation 100. This does not apply particularly to matters in the international field, but I think we can draw a parallel between that and the national field. I quote:
The adjournment of the House cannot be moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
I think this paragraph can be applied so that the adjournment of the House cannot be moved under this rule for critical conditions prevailing generally in certain parts of the world. Notwithstanding the tremendous importance to all Canadians of these trouble spots in Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you have no choice if you are to apply the rules that were given to you by this House, and you will have to rule this matter out of order.
I hope we can get on with passing the two resolutions on procedure that are before the House, so we can get the standing committees of this House realigned as quickly as possible. Then I believe, although I have not checked, that the Department of External Affairs has already been entered and could be referred to the Standing Committee. It seems to me that it is in this Standing Committee that the Minister of External Affairs could be called and cross-examined so we could get all the information he is free to give to Members of this House respecting these critical situations in the world.
I hope, therefore, that we can follow this line of action because, important as this matter raised in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is, it seems to me that it would be a clear violation of the rules under Standing Order 26 to accept the motion. We in this party have always taken the position that we do have to support the Speaker
External Affairs
and support the rules that are given to the Speaker. This is our position, as we see it, in this instance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on reading the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister when he states that the motion does not concern the discussion of a definite matter. In fact, when reading the motion one finds that the terms contradict one another.
The Leader of the Opposition is asking to discuss:
-a definite matter-
And that definite matter is:
-the alarm and uncertainty-
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how uncertainty can be definite. Only certainty can become definite. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition would have to tell us first what is uncertain and what is definite, and then we would be able to decide if this motion is in order.
He wants to discuss a definite matter, and that is exactly what he wishes to discuss. Even if alarm and uncertainty do exist, uncertainty still remains something which one cannot determine or define. All along he referred to uncertainty as to the United Nations, as to the future role of Canada. The future is another thing which cannot be considered as a definite matter, since nobody has the divinatory power to determine the future. Therefore, the future cannot be considered as a definite matter.
There is also reference to uncertainty as to NATO's future. The motion before us is obviously not on a definite matter. Of course, as was pointed out by the right hon. Prime Minister a moment ago, we would be interested in a general debate on external affairs, but I do not believe we should delay the business of the house to consider this motion of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition bases his motion on standing order 26 (2), but I wish to draw his attention to standing order 26 (6) (b), which reads as follows:
Not more than one matter can be discussed on the same motion;
Now, we are called upon to discuss the situation in Viet Nam and in the Dominican Republic. These two countries are so far from each other that they constitute two different matters.

May 25. 1965
External Affairs
We are also asked to deal with NATO, NORAD and the United Nations. These are three different organizations and should not be dealt as one matter.
We are also asked to deal with the future, the past and the present state of uncertainty. There again, the motion aims at discussing more than one matter.
Mr. Speaker, we, in our group, are ready to adjourn the house to discuss urgent matters but only with regard to domestic matters. In fact, the debate now proposed will not settle the problems in Viet Nam, in the Dominican Republic, in NATO, in NORAD or in the United Nations. It is going to take more than one day to settle all that. Furthermore, to discuss all these problems today will do nothing to settle those existing at present in all those parts of the world.
Mr. Speaker, what surprises me most are the following words I find in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition:
-which alarm and uncertainty stem from the government's continuing refusal to give clear information on these matters-
Mr. Speaker, as if whether or not the government gives us information is going to settle the war in Viet Nam and the rebellion in the Dominican Republic. In my opinion, whatever information we may get this is not what is going to settle those problems.
We feel that there are more important things to settle than matters concerning Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic. Moreover, if those matters are discussed, what we will have will be mere talk, not a debate. As far as we are concerned we want to discuss matters concerning Canada.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition is facing some difficulties within his party and that he would like to discuss matters concerning certain foreign countries, but we prefer to solve the problems before us in Canada, and we suggest that this is what we should do.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say that in my opinion, the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) show a parochial spirit and indicate that he has misunderstood the meaning of the motion introduced by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), Therefore, I will restrict myself to that description of the remarks of the hon. member.

With respect to the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, I find it passing strange that

he would advance as his concluding argument that all the rules he cited and the arguments put forward in Beauchesne- which is nothing more than a commentary- must strengthen Your Honour's hand in matters of this kind. I do not think the hon. Member, on reflection, would like that argument to remain as he put it, because I do not think there is anything required within the rules to strengthen Your Honour's hand one way or the other in deciding whether proceedings shall be adjourned under Standing Order 26.
Neither do I think one needs to spend any great length of time on the preliminary arguments put forward by the Prime Minister, and I think he also on reflection would wish to back away from them; because I believe he too would see there is a precise point in regard to this motion, with respect to the alarm and uncertainty in the country about the situation. His colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs will certainly agree they are important; and if there is alarm and uncertainty as a result of events, then that must be dealt with by the Government.
With respect to the question of urgency of debate-and I think this is the main problem facing Your Honour-it has been argued that this is a continuing situation which the House had the opportunity to discuss in the past. I would put it to Your Honour that this has not been the case. We have dealt with this at some distance away in point of time in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Then there was the budget debate, and there have been other specific matters and debates during which the House has not had the opportunity to discuss this particular item.
It is not open to the Government to call the first item in external affairs estimates without going into a supply motion. The Prime Minister said we could by unanimous consent go into a supply motion-


Mr. MacEachen:: Not today.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Unanimous consent would be required today. By unanimous consent we could deal with the matter, and I put it to the right hon. gentleman that the House giving unanimous consent would be tantamount to the same thing the motion proposes.
With respect to the Prime Minister saying "Well, we could call a supply motion in the future," for example say next Monday, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition and the House are not aware of the Government's attitude until this statement is made, and it is a statement made under duress of
May 25. 1965

the motion and has not been announced beforehand. Therefore the Opposition is quite in order in putting forward this motion to try to elicit a stand from the Government in this regard.
Further with respect to opportunities for debate, I must say I find it passing strange not only with the hon. Member for Medicine Hat but with the Prime Minister and his followers that if we were to go on to adopt the package deal of resolutions in motions No. 14 and 15 on the order paper, then we could get to this particular question. Surely to goodness in his responsible position the Prime Minister will not for one moment suggest that we should gloss over the very important and complicated matter of amendments to procedure in the House in order to get at this particular question. He might as well say "Well, pass the order paper, the whole of the order paper, then we will get to the question."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The argument is just as valid. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I put it to you that this motion to adjourn the House meets with the requirement of precision, meets the requirement of national importance, and certainly meets what I would say is the paramount requirement of urgency of debate.
If we look at the items that are indicated in the motion we see we have the situation with regard to France's participation in NATO. This is a rather recent matter so far as the public is concerned, and there are the implications of the ministerial statement issued after the Ministers' conference. Then there is the question which came to the fore this past week end, of Secretary McNamara's statement with respect to a change of policy regarding tactical nuclear weapons available to forces in Europe. Then there is the matter of the United Nations, and the Minister's statement the other day as to the site of the United Nations.
All these matters give rise to uncertainty, and we ask the Minister to stand on his feet, assume his responsibilities and make a statement to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to thank hon. Members who have taken part in this short discussion. It is of material benefit in assisting the Chair to reach what I hope is a right decision.
I accept the proposition that this is an urgent and important public matter to which the Leader of the Opposition draws attention. It is a definite
External Affairs
matter of public importance. However, that is not the criterion in determining whether Standing Order 26 should be applied. The criterion is whether there is an opportunity to debate this matter in an effective way.
Those words are the words of a previous Speaker who had a similar situation in which to render judgment, on June 27, 1961, and the statement can be found in greater detail at page 7105 of Hansard for that date. It was the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener.
There is no doubt about the importance of the various subjects detailed in the motion, but under Standing Order 26 it seems to me the question is, is there an opportunity to debate these matters in an effective way?
If hon. Members would refer to Beau-chesne, citation 100, subparagraphs (1) (2) (3) and (8)-I do not think there is any need to detail them here; they are reasonably clear-they will find they serve as a guide. Although the matters referred to are extremely important and of great national interest, my decision has to be based on whether or not they are of such recent origin, of such recent urgency, that all the business of the House must be set aside in order that they may be discussed.
There is no doubt, it seems to me, that these are extremely important questions, but it has been indicated that there could be a supply motion on Monday, and various other suggestions have been made. Also, if we were to set aside all the business on the agenda this afternoon I doubt very much whether we would affect the course of events dealt with in the motion. I cannot, therefore, conclude that this is an emergency requiring all the business of the House to be set aside, and accede to the request made by the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: May I just say that in order to bring this matter to a head as quickly as possible, if we have the unanimous consent of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -we could establish the external affairs committee forthwith, and I would be prepared to appear before that committee tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
1612	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Legislature of Manitoba regarding the amendment formula, and whether it contained the following words:
While this House approves the revised draft it recommends that the Government of Manitoba advise the Government of Canada of this resolution and requests the Government of Canada to cause the revised draft...to be submitted to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada with a request that it be considered by that committee and that the said committee hold public hearings.
In view of the fact that this is the second provincial legislature which has made such a suggestion, is the Prime Minister now in a position to say whether the Government intends to follow this course when the matter comes before the House?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Government has received this resolution from the Government of the Province of Manitoba and from another provincial Government giving this House advice as to the manner in which it should proceed in dealing with a matter before this Parliament. The advice from the Provincial Governments in this regard is under consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct this question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. As the right hon. gentleman no doubt is aware, there are a great many municipalities-for example in my own constituency, the City of Port Coquitlam-which have applied for assistance under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act only to find that the allocation for the Province of British Columbia has been entirely depleted. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will give consideration to asking Parliament to increase the amount of money available for loans to municipalities, and whether this is likely to be done early in the present session.

DEBATES	May 25. 1965


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very much aware of the problem and, indeed, I am discussing it with the Minister of Finance. He will be reporting to the House on this matter as soon as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the event that the Government does not propose to add to the $400 million for which provision has been made in the legislation, would the Prime Minister consider diverting allocations from provinces which do not intend to use the money set aside for them to those provinces which have already used their allocations, at any rate until this matter has been dealt with?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into that aspect of the matter too.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question concerns both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since I have given notice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps he will be able to give us the most relevant part of the answer.
In view of reports from the Republic of South Africa that the Canadian Government has refused permission to the Ford Motor Company of Canada to tender on the export and sale of four-wheel drive vehicles to the Government of the Republic of South Africa, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House whether or not these reports are true, and also the nature of and reasons for any Canadian Government restrictions on the export of such vehicles to South Africa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. This report may relate to an international call for tenders for certain military vehicles which I understand the South African Government issued early in 1964. It will be recalled that in the previous autumn I made a statement in the House on the policy of the Government with respect to the export of Canadian military equipment to South Africa. In the circumstances I understand no Canadian company has responded to the South African call for tenders.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it should be the case that the South African Government intends to use
May 25, 1965

these vehicles for other than military purposes, such as in its parks service, forestry department or for certain commercial and industrial operations, is there any reason why the Canadian Government should not allow their export?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how, in the circumstances outlined by my hon. friend, there would be any infringement of the Security Council resolution.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it the minister's intention to move that the house revert to motions so that he can ask for its unanimous consent to set up the external affairs committee immediately in order to discuss the important problems referred to a while ago in the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make such a proposal immediately after the orders of the day.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RESPECTING CENTENNIAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I do not want to close off the questioning, but it is now 4.20 and if there are any pressing questions perhaps we could conclude within the next few minutes.']
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to an answer he gave on Thursday about the Centennial Commission. In view of the fact we will not be able to set up a special committee for some time, can the Prime Minister give the House some indication as to when the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) will be present in his place so the many hon. Members seeking information in this regard will be able to follow the only course open to them, that is by asking questions on orders of the day?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is possible for my hon. friend to put questions in respect of this matter on the order paper and receive answers in that way. The Secretary of State has been out of the House because he has been indisposed
Inquiries of the Ministry and under doctors' care, and has been attending one or two meetings in the course of his duties. If my hon. friend will put his question on the order paper-I think this is a proper question for the order paper-I will give him the assurance that it will be answered promptly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the course we will have to follow in respect of a number of questions about policy, and the discussions between the Secretary of State and the Commission, which will have to be cleared up; but if the Minister is not well enough to be here perhaps the Prime Minister would consider asking one of the other Ministers to brief himself on this matter and report to the House.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, one of the Ministers acts as Secretary of State when the Minister is away, but I would remind my hon. friend that the Minister m!ade a statement on this matter last week in which he indicated that he would be very glad to meet with any hon. Member who was particularly interested in discussing this whole question. I am not sure whether he made that statement in or out of the House.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister state if it is correct that two North American anti-satellite missile systems have been removed from the control of NORAD, or joint Canadian-American control, to be placed exclusively under U.S. control; and can he say whether such changes are the forerunners of a new policy in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only information I have on that matter up to the present is the news dispatch. I will make inquiries, and as soon as there is something to report to the House I will be glad to inform the hon. Member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, when the Prime Minister is making inquiries, he would find out from the Minister of National Defence if any indication of this move had been given to the Minister of National Defence before the Minister briefed the Canadian delegation to the recent
1614	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry joint parliamentary meeting with the Americans.


An hon. Member:: Last week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not yet established that this move has been made. That is what I am looking into.


POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR RELEASED EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the Minister what alternative work has been provided for the 140 men who received notice from the Department of the termination of their employment over the week end?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: May I take this question as notice?


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question. Since such questions are being taken as notice, will the Minister examine the question he took as notice several months ago and see if he cannot provide an answer?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The answer I gave to the former question was that there was a phasing out operation and that the people would be either integrated into the departments taken over by the Department of Transport, or by the industry that would be installed there. This is the first time I have heard of this matter, and I will take the question as notice so that I can investigate it.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a further supplementary question. If the Minister will examine the original question he will find it is not at all along the lines of the statement he has just made.


NATO-REMOVAL OF TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM FRONT LINE UNITS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which arises out of a report which I just received this morning and which I, at least, regard as important. I sent notice of the question to the Minister of National Defence, but I now address it to the Associate Minister.
Is it true that a revision of NATO strategy is contemplated and will be discussed at the forthcoming NATO defence ministers' meeting whereby tactical nuclear weapons would be removed from front line units and kept

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
under separate control? If so, what is Canada's stand on this proposal?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. May I remind the hon. Member that a NATO ministers' meeting was held in Ottawa in May, 1963, at which a general review was authorized as a basis for future force goals. This review is not yet complete, but it is anticipated that the ministers will consider a progress report at the forthcoming meeting in Paris.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that all civilized countries are using the metric system in the scientific field and that the government of Great Britain has just declared its intentions to adopt that system, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the Canadian government intends to enact the official use of the metric system in this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think this subject comes under the purview of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not know whether he can deal with the question in the form in which it was raised.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this question as notice and if possible give an answer that might be of some value to the House as a whole as to our plans about the introduction of a metric system.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Pictou asked a question in relation to a meeting I had with the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association.
May 25. 19G5	COMMONS DEBATES	1615
On March 2 I met with members of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association. At the meeting I provided a forecast of Government shipbuilding and ship repairing as planned by all Government departments and agencies for the period 19651970. This was, I believe, the first time the industry had been given a long range forecast of all such Government procurement requirements.
The main purpose of this was to allow the shipbuilding industry to plan intelligently their future development, to facilitate specialization and thereby increase their efficiency. At this meeting 1 also outlined proposals for Government ship procurement based on competitive bidding in all cases wherever there was sufficient preliminary data to enable shipbuilders adequately to formulate bids.
On May 19 I met again with members of the Association for further discussion of this subject. At this time the Association presented a brief which expressed its appreciation of the forecast of Government work and generally concurred in the proposals for competitive bidding. However, the Association did draw attention to the necessity for greater clarification of the basic conditions for the conduct of competitive bidding. Accordingly it was agreed that a joint industry-government committee should be established to study further those conditions essential to effective competition in this field.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and before asking it may I say I am sure the Shipbuilding Association will appreciate any long term plans that may come forward. May I ask if we can take it from the Minister's answer to this question that there will be no regional considerations whatsoever in any future contracts, defence or otherwise, that may come under his purview?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, forever is a very long time.


Thomas Miller Bell: To be specific, may I ask what consideration was given at the meeting to the request from the east and west coasts with respect to regional systems of tendering.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This particular topic was not raised or discussed at the meeting, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA


TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES FROM QUEBEC FOR LANGUAGE REASONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and is based on a question asked by the hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and answered on May 17. The question reads:
How many employees formerly of Air Canada in the Province of Quebec have been transferred in the past three months to (a) Toronto (b) elsewhere because they were not bilingual?
The reply to that question was that no such transfers had been made on company initiative, but that there had been transfers out of the Province of Quebec at the request of employees. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give the House the assurance that no employee of Air Canada will be transferred out of the Province of Quebec, for the reasons stated in the question, unless he agrees to the transfer.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was of course giving to the House the information imparted to me by Air Canada. I will put to Air Canada the question the hon. gentleman has now asked. However, every hon. Member who knows the relations between these Crown Corporations and the Government knows it would be quite wrong for me to give any assurance on my own responsibility without receiving such assurance from the corporation.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-PETITION RESPECTING CHANGE IN PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the Government of Canada has received a petition from the legislature or Government of Quebec, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of that Province, for transmission to Her Majesty and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, for a change in the provincial constitution which would effect a diminution in the powers of the Legislative Council.
At the same time I would ask the Prime Minister whether this was one of the matters discussed at the recent meeting with Premier Lesage; and in view of the statement attributed to Premier Lesage to the effect
May 25, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry that the petition had no chance of success unless approved by Parliament, what is the attitude of the Canadian Government going to be in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such petition, to my knowledge, has been received, and I believe I am correct in saying it has not yet been discussed in the Provincial Legislature.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the political unrest in the Caribbean and the adverse effect this situation has brought about in the marketing and exporting of salt fish to that area from Canada, can the Minister of Fisheries give any indication when we may expect the report of Dr. Finn, who heads the federal commission of inquiry appointed to investigate the salt fish industry in the Atlantic Provinces?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. Member that Dr. Finn is now preparing his report and it is expected very shortly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question to the Minister, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister or the Government favour the establishment of a Government marketing board to control the export and sale of salt fish products?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, this is a decision that will be reached by the Government after the report has been received and carefully studied.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Industry. In so far as current expert opinion feels that the loss of life and serious injury on our highways could be reduced if automobile manufacturers were required to produce vehicles conforming to definite security and safety standards, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government is prepared to make representa-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
tions to the automobile industry whereby vehicles manufactured in Canada or exported into Canada would have to conform to such definite security and safety standards.
Mr. Speaker, the great urgency of my question is based on news reports of today which indicate an appalling and unnecessary slaughter of human lives on our highways during the past holiday week end.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Member is aware that regulations in respect of standards of safety of motor vehicles is a matter of Provincial rather than Federal Government jurisdiction. The Federal Government has received a brief in respect of automobile safety from the Canadian Good Roads Association, as well as from others, and my department is frequently in touch with the automobile industry and does make representations in respect of safety on the highways of Canada.


CONSIDERATION OF PRESENT CLOSURE RULE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. In the event that the House should pass such changes and rule modifications as it sees fit, will the Government be prepared to move, or accept a proposal to repeal or drastically modify the existing rules of closure now to be found in Standing Order 33?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider that matter after we have dealt with these resolutions. I appreciate the point made by my hon. friend.


POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT SPEAKER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister at Sudbury, Ontario, as reported in the press, that before the question as to whether or not His Honour should be considered as a permanent Speaker, is decided, discussion should take place between the Prime Minister and His Honour, I should like to know whether such discussions have taken place as yet.
May 25, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1617


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I said that before a matter of the kind referred to in the question raised by the right hon. gentleman could be decided by the House, naturally there would have to be discussions between the Speaker and the Leader of the Government. No such discussions have taken place.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on one of the many speeches she has made lately, but apparently she is out making another speech. I should like therefore to put my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the emphasis the Minister of National Health, in a speech she made in Charlottetown last Thursday, placed on the fact that the Canada Assistance Plan will make it possible for persons on old age security to receive an additional pension benefit, and in view of the urgent need of many people on old age security for additional assistance, will this legislation be placed before Parliament soon, so that its benefits can be enjoyed by these people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it will be possible to bring this before Parliament at an early date. I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with my hon. friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government give consideration to a revision of its plans so that this legislation might be made effective at an earlier date than April 1 of next year, which is the date mentioned by the Minister in her speech at Charlottetown.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to think that this might be possible, and I shall be pleased to look into the matter.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Public Works relating to an answer given to me last Thursday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about Government policy in respect of the construction of marina and harbour facilities. The Prime Minister referred the House in his answer to a statement made on May 1, 1964 by the then Minister of Public Works, in which reference was made to joint consideration in this regard by Federal and Provincial government authorities. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether this matter relating to the provision of marina facilities is to be on the agenda of the forthcoming Federal-Provincial Conference and, if so, is the Government going to that meeting with the position outlined by the hon. Member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) as reported in the Campbell River Courier which states that the hon. Member said:
All the government plans to do is to provide and maintain breakwaters and do any dredging that may be necessary.
He is also reported to have indicated that other authorities would have to provide the actual moorings, floats, etc. I should like to ask the Minister whether this matter will be on the agenda of the Federal-Provincial Conference, and whether that is the position the Federal Government intends to take at that Conference if this is a subject for discussion?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, this subject will not be on the agenda of the Federal-Provincial Conference. This question involving small boats harbours and marinas has been studied very carefully, as a result of which there has been some change in the thinking of the Government. What we are attempting to do is to keep Federal Government activity in this field in line with what it has been doing in fields such as commercial fishing. There has been no decision taken as yet in this regard, and the Government is still studying this problem.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that the policy of the Government in this connection has changed from that stated by the Minister on estimates last May 1 when he referred specifically to negotiations undertaken with the provinces to consider the possibility of entering into joint programs? Is that consideration no longer part of the policy of the Government?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. Member realizes that what my
1618	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry predecessor was stating was the thinking of his department in this field. There was no question of policy at that time in any way, shape or form.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has there been a decision made with regard to the importing of cattle from Europe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture has the answer to that question.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank the hon. Member for bringing this question forward and also to mention that this question was asked by the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce on the 20th and 21st of May. The answer to this question is longer than would normally be given in answer to a question on orders of the day. However, in view of the importance of the question to the livestock industry I wonder whether I may have the indulgence of the House to read the complete statement.
On May 20 and 21 the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce raised certain questions in connection with importations of European cattle into Canada. The Minister would like to reply to these questions in some detail, since this program is of considerable importance to the livestock industry in Canada. The matter is of interest at the present time because of suggestions in some quarters in the United States that if these European importations take place shipments of Canadian livestock and meats into the United States should be banned.
Let me say first that we are satisfied that there is no risk of introducing disease into this country as a result of this program and that we have had no indication, in consultations with United States Government officials about this program, that it could lead to any restriction of Canadian livestock exports to the United States. I am confident that any suggestions that our livestock and meats should be banned from the United States are based on a misunderstanding of our proposed program.
Canada, along with most countries, controls imports of livestock and meat to the extent

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
necessary to prevent the introduction of serious foreign diseases. In keeping with this policy there has been a complete ban on the importation of animals and uncooked meats from most countries in Europe and elsewhere. The United States has had similar restrictions.
One of the main diseases both our countries have been concerned about is foot and mouth disease, and I am sure every thinking person agrees that health restrictions of this nature are necessary. But I think there is also agreement that these restrictions should not be applied to the point of restricting imports of blood lines which may be useful to our livestock industry, if such imports can be made with complete safety.
England, for example, has periodic outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. It is controlled there as we would control it here, by slaughtering infected herds. But Canada for years has been permitting the import of English cattle as long as they go through the quarantine station in Scotland, which has historically been free of the disease. English cattle are not permitted to be imported directly into the United States because of certain provisions in United States animal health laws. But for years many American breeders have imported British cattle by bringing them in through Canada.
Both Canada and the United States have recently taken steps which recognize that under reliable health controls and testing procedures importations can be made which carry no danger of bringing in disease. The United States has approached this problem by authorizing the importation of semen from all countries whether they are completely free of foot and mouth disease or not. Semen, of course, can carry the foot and mouth virus just as readily as live animals. But health controls and testing procedures have been developed which can give complete protection against the introduction of infection in this kind of program.
The United States has dealt with semen rather than animals because its laws specifically prohibit animal imports from countries which are not entirely free of foot and mouth disease. Canadian laws are more flexible in this respect and permit us to import animals as long as this is done with adequate health precautions. We will, however, import only from countries where foot and mouth disease is under control.
The only country from which such imports are proposed at present is France. Since 1961 France has had a policy of slaughtering
May 25, 1965	COMMONS
herds if foot and mouth disease occurs. It also vaccinates all calves against the disease. In the last two years French breeding cattle have been exported to some 30 countries without any difficulties on health grounds. These include Ireland, which like Canada is historically free of foot and mouth disease and which has an important meat and cattle trade into the United States.
I should like now to give some details of the procedures that will be followed because I believe they will make clear that we have taken every precaution in this program. First, any cattle which come to Canada must come from areas in which there has been no foot and mouth disease, even though the French do slaughter in such outbreaks. We will take only calves and they must not be vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. The animals will be disease tested while they are still on the French owner's premises, including a test for foot and mouth disease. They will then move into the French quarantine station at Brest for 30 days where they will be further tested. Following that they will come to the security quarantine station in Canada at Grosse-ile. Our regulations require quarantine here for a period of 90 days but in most cases it will be up to five months. They will again be tested at the Canadian station.
All the blood samples are to be sent to the foot and mouth disease research institute at Pirbright, England, to be tested for foot and mouth disease. This is one of the outstanding research stations for that disease in the world, and the whole program has been developed with the co-operation of the authorities there. We are completely satisfied that this program involves no risk of introducing foot and mouth disease into Canada and that American livestock interests need have no concern on this score.
The United States authorities have been kept fully informed of our program. There has been agreement on the soundness of the procedures which we will follow and there has been no indication in the consultations with American officials that, under those procedures, there would be any health grounds for restrictions on the movement of Canadian cattle or meat to the United States.
The trade between the two countries in livestock and meats is by no means a one way street. In recent years, for example, we have been importing more pork from the United States than we have been exporting to that country. In 1964 our imports were 54 million pounds and our exports 42 million 22620-104
DEBATES	1619
Inquiries of the Ministry pounds. Our exports of beef and veal and slaughter and feeder cattle in 1964 were, in terms of carcass weight, 88 million pounds, while our imports for the first 11 months were 30 million pounds.
We have invited the American authorities to have their own veterinary observer present with ours during all phases of our program. We recognize that in livestock and meats we are on a North American economy and obviously we must not take any steps which would expose the continent to disease. I am also sure that the Americans do not want to encourage any action that might be restrictive to Canada on anything but sound animal health grounds.
We are each very dependant on the other in agricultural trade. In total, imports of United States agricultural products into Canada are over twice as great as the value of Canadian agricultural exports to the United States. The last available complete figures for 1963 show agricultural imports from the United States to Canada at a total value of $513 million while Canadian exports to the United States were only $223 million.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the detailed statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary and I am interested in some of the statistics with regard to imports and exports. However, since the dispatch to which I referred initially emanated from Washington I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary now, in the light of what he has said, whether he and the officials of the department are satisfied that the American authorities are sufficiently satisfied with the program that no such restriction will take place?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was made eminently clear that there was no objection on the part of the American officials and that they were completely familiar with this program.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the animals transferred from the quarantine station in France to Great Britain or do they come directly to Canada?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, my information is they would come from the quarantine station in France directly to our quarantine station
at Grosse-Ile.
May 25. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS


SAINT JOHN, N.B.-REPORTED DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if it has been brought to his attention that Engineering Consultants Limited of Saint John, N.B. and Irving' Oil Company of Saint John are requiring employees for the M/V Boylen to in effect buy their jobs with the company by way of a $400 deposit? Does the Minister intend to take any steps to correct this abuse of federal labour practices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have received no information about this case. I shall be glad to investigate to ascertain whether any action can be taken.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In viewing a film on television last Sunday concerning this season's seal hunt, it was evident that the clubbing to death of young seals was extremely cruel. Will the Minister make sure that in future these hunters use revolvers?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Adjustments to this effect had already been planned toward the latter part of the last season.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to close off the questioning, but it is now 4.20 and if there are any pressing questions perhaps we could conclude within the next few minutes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Before we proceed to the next order of business, Mr. Speaker, I made a proposal earlier but I do not think I made it in sufficient time because the right hon. gentleman intervened. I did tell the hon. Member for Lapointe that I proposed to make it before the business of the House proceeded. It is that notwithstanding resolution 15, paragraph (10), dealing with the amendment to Standing Order 65, I would propose, with
fMr. Beer.]

unanimous consent of the House, that since we are masters of our own rules, we might agree to the setting up of the External Affairs Committee as quickly as possible, so that we may be able to deal with some of the matters referred to today as justifiably important.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I just say, on the matter of procedure, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is seeking to derogate from House procedure in that the matter he mentions is before the House for discussion as an item of business which seeks to set up this and other committees.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just make the suggestion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, that may be so, but I
think it is something the House should question. If the Minister had suggested we have the External Affairs estimates on Thursday, I think we could agree.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 21, 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.
May 25, 1965	COMMONS
2. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follow:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown
may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.-
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, as I followed on Friday the quiet, calm, reasoned and sometimes low-keyed debate on this important matter which, according to some members of the press, was supposed to topple kingdoms and unleash the party legions, I thought how different actuality frequently is from such predictions. I agree so much with what the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said on Friday that these continual predictions of elections are not only irritating but they are somewhat boring, at least they are to me because I have never believed any of them. It is my own view that the snows of at least one winter will come and go before this Government will go to the country. When I hear all of the threats I am reminded of the expression, the mouse that roared, because I think
DEBATES	1621
House of Commons Procedures the Government does exercise good judgment in not rushing to the people for a rendering of a judgment on their performance.
Now, I have no inside information on this. I did not get a chance to write to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I was not asked, but if he does ask me I shall send him my views on what should be done. I hope, however, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) suggested, on this very important matter there will be a free vote. One hears not only in this Parliament but in every parliament where matters of procedure are dis-cusssed, the reiteration that everybody wants to improve the procedure. This is a point on which there is agreement. Everybody wants a more effective Parliament. It would strike me as doubtful if there would be basic grounds for a party point of view on matters of procedure, some of them as detailed, precise and possibly as intricate as those involved in the subject matter before us. One can see a party taking the point of view on questions of principle, but surely not on a matter of procedure.
I should say, however, that in rendering this view I am not saying that it indicates at all an attitude on my part-I speak only for myself-of reluctance if someone is desirous of taking a measure, whether it be a measure of this kind or any other, to the ultimate question of confidence and of the results that flow from a negative vote thereon. On any matters of importance, which I believe are inimical to the nature and role of an opposition, any opposition in parliament and thus to parliament itself, I would not hesitate to oppose to the ultimate.
It is true that, as other speakers have mentioned, we are becoming very concerned about our image. I hope we are doing a little more than looking in the mirror. To use an old fashioned expression, I hope we are looking into our hearts as well. There are times- and the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) mentioned this the other day-when parliamentarians discuss their institution that they sound so lofty it would seem rules would not be necessary at all. Then there are times when we behave in such a way as to lead one to believe that the most rigid rules are probably not quite stringent enough. But that is the kind of institution parliament is. We go from heights to depths, and I suppose no assemblage of mortals could be otherwise.
I believe there are some reasons why, at this time in our national political development, certain things have happened. I am cer-
1622	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures tainly not a veteran of the House of Commons, although after eight years I feel sometimes, if not experienced at least old; but I have the impression that in the short period I have been here inept organization of procedure- and for this the Government must take prime responsibility-has exacerbated our difficulties.
We have had frequent changes of House Leaders. We have had a constant uncertainty as to any long-range plans detailing what the House will be taking up for consideration. We have had a most unfortunate deterioration in the handling of order paper questions. One does not like to reflect on anyone but, as we experienced today, the oral question period does sometimes become too long.
There are many Members who on most occasions would prefer to put their questions on the order paper: By doing this one can lay them a little more precisely and hope to get more precise answers; but the answers are not coming to us.
Last May I asked a question about what the Government planned to do on January 15 to celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday. It was not a tremendously vital question that would require continuous cabinet meetings to resolve, but I did not get a reply to it until long after his birthday had come and gone. From May to February that fairly simple and straightforward question sat there, without reply. There are many others like it, and this discourages the use of a very important vehicle, namely the order paper, through which precise information should be obtainable.
I think too-and this may sound strange- that as well as a disordered order paper we have one that in recent years has become too heavy. Too many things are being pushed before parliament. We have had so many elections, so many promises, so much promised legislation held before the people. Then this legislation is laid before parliament, and we are expected to enact it in 60 days, or some other very short period of time.
Quite often in this day and age, when welfare is so important, measures that come before us are not completely within the jurisdiction of our Parliament. We had great difficulty over the Canada Pension Plan on that very account, and it was not the only piece of legislation to encounter that problem. Federal parties make promises to do things which do not lie in federal jurisdiction, and it is therefore not surprising that the procedures of this Parliament become involved.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	May 25, 1965
I believe it is a mistake to regard the passing of legislation as the only function of the House of Commons or of parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), like the old professor he is, quoted Sir Walter Bage-hot. We all did in our classrooms, as our students know. But Bagehot, as I recall, listed five functions of parliament, and he listed four before he even came to legislation. The first one was that of an electoral chamber. It is a body which must sustain a government. Once in a while we have this role activated. We have had in recent times, but not often.
Then Bagehot says it has an expressive function. It must express the minds of the people on all questions. It must be a representative organ. We were a representative parliament before we had responsible government, and by that I mean in the strict sense of the government being responsible to parliament for its continuing confidence. This is a very difficult role, a very important one, and it is with this representative role that we must be concerned when anything happens to diminish the role of the spokesmen for all parts of the country-the backbenchers.
He also said that the House has a teaching function:
A great and open council of considerable men cannot be placed in the middle of a society without altering that society.
At least our public today are concerned about what we are doing here. There are probably more Canadians than ever before who know we are here. This is at least a beginning of an improvement in this field. People are becoming more sensitive, more aware of their national representative institution.
I would not presume to say what Bagehot also stated about Parliament:
It ought to teach the nation what it does not know.
That would be too presumptuous for one who sought public office.
Bagehot said the fourth function of the House was an informing function. In early days the King had to be informed. Now the people are sovereign and they have to be informed, and hence have laid before the nation those things of moment to it.
Finally he mentioned the legislative function, but it seems to me in recent sessions we have been so crowded with legislation that we have begun to suffer in the other roles, the expressive role, the role of careful scrutiny of estimates, and this Government has been
May 25, 1965

very guilty, very remiss in its handling of estimates.
The voting of supply is a preduty to that of passing legislation. It is the fundamental and historic function of a free Parliament.
There are indications that the present suggested procedural change is not nearly as broad as it might be, in that there are many other areas in which I think change would be helpful to a more efficient parliament, and in one or two cases the suggested change goes a little too deeply. In the brief time at my disposal I would like to mention some of these matters.
I believe one of our difficulties is that we have not yet come up with an arrangement whereby we can terminate our sessions. We never know when we are going to end them. In the past session or two we have had a great exercise in the type of suggestion, "Now, if these things are passed we might have an adjournment." Then a little later on the list gets longer and we are told, "If these things are passed we might have an adjournment." Barring a great national emergency I think there is no reason why the House of Commons should meet in July and August. There is no argument that cannot be resumed in September or October. No matter what is done we will hardly ever run out of material for argumentation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We must reach a point at which we decide beforehand when we intend to terminate. I would say we should always be out of here in time to celebrate St. Jean Baptiste Day and come back after Labour Day. This might be a good way of doing it and perhaps other adjournments could be fixed, too, at other times of the year, short ones. We must always recognize that we are at a stage in our political life which is complex and involved, that politics are becoming a full time business and that we might as well be rational and businesslike in setting out times for adjournments. The committee report hit the idea, but I believe the suggestion the committee made was not a good one inasmuch as it would have meant too frequent gyrations back and forth between the constituencies and the seat of Government in Ottawa.
Parliaments at the present time are suffering from too constant attendance by Members in Ottawa. Only part of our job can be done here. The most important part is that which must be done in the constituency.
In this connection the question of absenteeism has drawn the attention of the press and there are some reporters who attach such

House of Commons Procedures great importance to the number of Members who are present when votes are taken that they consider this calculation an exhaustive discussion of political matters. I submit that this approach is not satisfactory. I am in the happy position of being able to mention this subject without embarrassment or special pleading, because I think I would get a gold star for attendance this session if prizes were awarded; I do not think I have missed a vote or a day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I mention this matter to indicate that the problem of absenteeism is resulting in part from the continuing long sessions. How can a Member be here 12 or 13 months of the year, if I may use that expression, without finding time to deal with constituency matters. He must at least show up for his annual meeting, if for nothing else, and these meetings are not always held on Saturdays or Sundays. Sessions are long and we must make some arrangement whereby Members can be home-and be home, one might say legitimately. In other words we must set proper times for adjournment. The people who can slip home on a Thursday or a Friday-and it is not my business when they go-should not constantly be at an advantage compared with those who have to travel over longer distances.
If the measure with respect to the proliferation of committees is passed, as I predict it will be, we shall have even more difficulty in the matter of attendance in the House. We shall have to be more mature in this country and realize it is not essential that every Member be in his seat every minute at every sitting. Of course, if this were the case in the British Parliament the chamber would be split wide open, because there is seating capacity there for only about half the elected Members. If there are a great many committees set up, then account must be taken of the circumstances.
The Prime Minister referred to horse and buggy procedures. I notice that an earlier leader of our party, Hon. John Bracken, as he now is, referred to something even more antiquated when we were discussing procedure in 1946. He said our Canadian practice was still in the ox-cart stage of half a century ago. So perhaps the horse and buggy stage represents an improvement.
I believe there are some more practical measures which could be taken in order to make full use of our time-measures more
1624	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures practical than those which have been suggested. I think it is preposterous, the amount of time which is taken up by the voting procedures in the House of Commons. When one knows that at 9.45 on a certain night a vote is to be taken-and a Member may know this 10 days or even a month in advance-why should we go through the nonsensical procedure we follow at the present time? Mr. Speaker says: "Call in the Members" and the Members promptly go out and do not come back for half an hour. I wonder whether the statisticians have computed the number of hours spent in recent years while Members sat and waited to be counted. Simply being counted takes enough time, but waiting to be counted is an even less useful form of activity. I think we should look carefully and, I would say, hopefully, at the possible use of voting machines. Democracy is not thwarted nor diminished in those legislatures where they are used.
I think we should be able to find some means, in our collective wisdom, of providing against the so-called snap vote. I believe notice of such a vote, a matter of hours, should be given before it is taken. I believe -and I do not know how many of my colleagues would agree with me in this-that we should provide for those who vote neither for nor against a given measure. I have sat in this House occasionally and not voted. Once, I believe, a whole group did this. It is difficult to find that such a course is improper under our rules. It is probably more difficult still to justify abstention in these circumstances. But surely in a Parliament which has so many sides to it as this one-at least five- there must be occasions when an hon. Member would not think of endorsing a motion, yet would find the proposed amendment even more unpalatable. Should he not be able to indicate that he is present but that he does not approve of either of the suggested courses of action? Not everything is in black or white. Not everything is positive or negative.
It has been suggested there might be some danger attached to the use of machines. There is a story that in Finland a group of legislators, knowing that votes on three or four motions were coming up and wishing to vote against them all, broke a couple of matches and fixed the machine so that their negative votes would be registered, then went out of the chamber to drink beer. But surely our knowledge of electronics has advanced to a point where no real difficulty could arise. We need not be afraid of these devices, and I
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	May 25, 1965
think an innovation of this kind would increase our efficiency. Needless to say-and I am a traditionalist to the hilt-this would not affect our relationship with British procedures. Things are not done in this way in Westminster because, as I mentioned, there is not room enough in the chamber for all Members to take their seats and record their votes.
Looking through the record of earlier discussions on this subject I found a most excellent speech by a great Canadian leader, Mr. Brooke Claxton, delivered in 1943. He put forward some interesting suggestions, too. One was that by agreement during set debates such as the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne our speeches might be directed to one subject. We might have found it more helpful this session had we been able to do that, because we might at least have got our long delayed and much sought debate on external affairs. I commend these remarks of Mr. Claxton as being most fruitful. They were made in the course of a speech during the debate on the address, not during a discussion on rules or anything of that kind.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I note that the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I think it was-or perhaps it was a Member from the Government side of the House-mentioned the need for more research. This is becoming an important subject and a popular one. To realize its importance one has only to think of the size of bills which are presented to us. I believe there were 136 pages in the Canada Pension Plan bill. I studied all the Canada Pension Plans, and when I got to know them I discovered they had gone out the window and there was a new one being introduced. A tremendous amount of time has to go into the mere reading of bills. There is that dandy we are going to have on transportation. We have only to consider the Royal Commission reports, in their sheer bulk, to realize it is becoming extremely difficult for a Member, no matter how fast a reader he is, no matter how conscientious he is, no matter how much he burns the midnight oil for good and worthy purposes, to keep abreast of information and maintain effectiveness as a legislator and a representative of a constituency, without substantially increased research facilities. I welcome the developments that have taken place in the Library. We have a most excellent Library here and, in my opinion, a staff of great ability and extreme conscientiousness.
May 25, 1965	COMMONS
But we must have these services extended in scope and variety, and we must move closer,
I would say, in this instance to the American practice, where members are more adequately helped with research people under their direction in their own offices.
I would like to agree, too, with the hon. Member for Peace River on the question of a permanent Speaker; but I, like him, believe that the Speaker should be, first of all, one of us. I have never been enamoured of the suggestion of creating an artificial constituency for a Speaker, which is just one step removed from importing a Speaker to be our Chairman. I think he should be one of us, our elected peer to preside over our destinies and our deliberations with increased power certainly, and with that would come many improvements.
I am concerned about the very matters which the Prime Minister mentioned and which every Member has mentioned. We must improve our procedures; we must become more efficient; we must be able to arrive expeditiously at decisions. But as the Prime Minister mentioned and as others have pointed out, the right to be able to make a decision is not, in the final analysis, as important as the right of free discussion. If one infringes hurtfully upon the other, then it is surely the duty of anyone zealous of parliamentary	rights-and	parliamentary
rights is far more than a catchword; it is the essential, practical device of our democratic structure-to oppose it.
I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because I know my time has nearly gone, but in these measures I see three curtailments of the parliamentary rights of an Opposition. There is a restriction on the voting of supply. I may say that in this instance I like the amendment before us. This is an historic right, one especially cherished by the Opposition. There is also the oral question period, where the ministry is up for public and constant accountability to the representatives of the people. This is also a most valuable parliamentary device. One great scholar said that if he were asked to retain only one device to make a parliament free, he would keep the question period, where any Minister may be interrogated. I am concerned, however, with the suggestion that 30 minutes is sufficient. I think it is not. How many answers like the one given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) would you squeeze into a 30-minute period? When you do a little short division and consider five parties and five leaders,
DEBATES	1625
House of Commons Procedures five questions, five answers, you realize that you do not have much time left in 30 minutes.
There should always be the right of a Member to do what the hon. Member for Victoria did the other day, when he said, "Mr. Speaker,"-I paraphrase his remarks- "highways are as important to us as maple syrup was to other Members", who had wanted to raise that question. It is very important-it is essential, indeed-that representatives of all parts of the country be not denied, by the inexorable cutdown of the clock, the right to ask questions.
So I would suggest to the Government, Mr. Speaker-I see that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is not here- that some consideration be given to finding an arrangement whereby we approach the shortening of the question period, because it has grown too long, but also to some device whereby greater protection is provided in this period. We must also have the right to vigorously oppose legislation for reasonable periods, because many times the interplay of public opinion has been directed upon legislation helpfully and usefully only because a decent interval has been allowed for public opinion to be enlightened and informed.
I would have thought-this, I think, is a very important matter-that in their suggestions for committees, and what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) called "ill-disguised closure", the Government would have moved in that direction with regard to Standing Order No. 33, which is the kind of closure that I saw from the gallery of the House of Commons applied day in and day out in 1956 under the brilliant efficiency of C. D. Howe. Why was not the suggestion made that the Standing Order that is to be adopted replace No. 33, instead of No. 6? If this goes through we will have one ill-conceived form of guillotine, and one standing stark naked, the one that was used in the pipe line debate. I should have thought the Government would have given a better impression of a real desire to improve procedures and retain the rights of parliament by having made that sort of application.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would say more except that my time has gone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would only say that there is much here that I like, much that I will support; but the three items that I have mentioned do concern me, and until I see some evidence of an improvement they are

May 25, 1965
Private Bills
matters to which I would not lend my support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Konantz for the second reading of Bill No. C-99, to incorporate Bank of Western Canada. [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we are now taking up again, at this stage, the study of Bill No. C-99 entitled an Act to incorporate Bank of Western Canada.
I shall therefore take a few minutes to discuss this bill in order to make known to all members the position I intend to take with regard to our present banking system, as well as our economic system as constituted at present.
Mr. Speaker, there are now eight chartered banks recognized in Canada and since the beginning of this session, we have been submitted two pieces of legislation to incorporate two other chartered banks. One of them, Bill No. C-99, is now being considered.
During the last session we were also called upon to consider two private bills with a view to passing legislation similar to the one proposed under Bill No. C-99.
As a matter of fact, Bill No. S-6 which was put forward is pretty much identical to Bill No. C-99. I say pretty much identical, because I saw that a few changes had been made to Bill No. C-99, to incorporate Bank of Western Canada.
The bill now before us provides for a lesser number of directors or petitioners, if you wish, and the functions of each one have been changed to a large extent. Whereas Bill No. S-6 mentioned 54 executives, there are only 18 in this measure. Provisions have changed a little in this way; different people have disappeared and were replaced by new ones.
If you refer to the last page of Bill No. C-99, you will see that the authorized capital stock has been increased as compared to what was suggested in Bill No. S-6 discussed during the last session.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain my position in regard to Bill No. C-99. I wish to define it clearly and explain to the house that I am not against the chartered banks as such. Quite often it was said that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste were opposed to the chartered banks. That is not correct. Rather, we are opposed to the way they operate.
The effect of the charters which the banks hold at present, and which it is proposed to amend during this session, is that the chartered banks are granted rights and privileges which should devolve only upon the Bank of Canada, the bank of the Canadians, under the control of the Canadian government.
Mr. Speaker, it was stated that the new bank which it is intended to create could improve banking services in western Canada. But upon examining the figures which were quoted, we see that there are in Canada 5,500 branches of chartered banks, that is one branch for every 3,300 citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the 5,500 chartered bank branches across the country are ready and able to provide the service which Canadians expect from chartered banks. Furthermore, I think they can increase the number of their branches in western, eastern or central Canada, if necessary.
Consequently, it surely cannot be argued that more branches will mean better service in Canada, because I think that the chartered banks we now have can offer the services required by Canadians.
I said earlier that I am not opposed to chartered banks as such, but rather to the fact that they are enjoying rights and privileges which should be the prerogatives of the bank of the Canadian people, that is the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that new credit has to be issued each year, because of the vast expansion of the country, in short, of Canadian business, trade and industry. Obviously, this means a greater need for credit each year. New credit is therefore needed, but under the existing Bank Act chartered banks -that is private companies-are given the privilege of creating this credit at will and for their own benefit. That is why I suggest that this privilege be only granted to the Bank of Canada, so that only the Bank of Canada, under an agreement with the Canadian government, may have the right and the privilege of issuing new credit according to the need of Canadian business, a need the federal government is in a position to make known to the Bank of Canada.
May 25, 1965

Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the chartered banks playing the part of branches of the Bank of Canada in this issuing of new credit. But this should be done on behalf of the Bank of Canada, which would be responsible to the Canadian government. In this way, the Canadian government would control the issuing of all new credit, so as to ensure the good progress of the country's business, as it is indeed stated in the preamble of the Bank of Canada Act. At present, this control is granted only to the chartered banks, and that is why I suggest that we have now come to the point where we have a system that does not recognize the right for a human being to live a decent life in a country that can provide great wealth to all its citizens.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A former premier of a Canadian province and former leader of the Conservative party -I refer to Mr. John Bracken-took part in one of the first federal-provincial conferences, in 1941, as premier of Manitoba. During that conference he stated that our financial system was designed in such a way that money was taken from the poor to be given to the rich.
Here is my interpretation of what that premier said.
Our economic system promotes debt-building in view of the fact that the government is financing public business by means of bonds and loans. It is not the poor that are buying government bonds, but the rich, those people who already have plenty to their names and who, in any case, carry but a small part of the national debt burden.
It is the richer class of people who own the debt incurred by the country through the chartered banks, and it is the poorer people who, in the form of very heavy taxes, must carry that national debt which is costing us this year over a billion dollars.
I think that the establishment of a new chartered bank, no matter which one it is, whether it is called Bank of Western Canada or anything else, would favour private interests and belong to a group of shareholders operating it for their own profit. I shall therefore stand against such a bill as long as there has not been a complete revision and consideration of the Bank Act.
That is why I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce,
that Bill No. C-99 be not now read a second time but this day six months.
That proposal, Mr. Speaker, is in order to give the hon. members an opportunity to
make a detailed study of our banking and economic system in order to understand it clearly and in every respect.
When you talk to people you realize that very few are aware of that economic system. People suffer its consequences, but do not realize its implications.
If the bill were read a second time this day six months we would have the chance to clear up the matter of the Bank Act which must be renewed this year and to take a closer look at the banking system.
If you take a look at our government legislation today, you realize that everything is increasingly channelled toward that system of private enterprise which controls the economic blood of the nation. For instance, let us look at what happens when the farmers, at some point during their lives, must bring about certain developments in their organization. To have the right to improve their farms, to develop their herds, to purchase new machinery, to enlarge or improve their buildings, farmers nowadays have to ask permission from the banks. If they are not on good terms with their bank manager they might be turned down, thus having to apply to other loan sources and to delay or even give up their development plan.
On the other hand, we see young farmers who, to be able to continue their education, must also conform to the requirements of chartered banks. Over four or five years they have to repay close to $2,000 in interest to chartered banks to take advantage of the loans to students programs. But who will profit from it? Once again, those private interests: the chartered banks.
The same thing goes for Canadian fishermen. There is an act on fishing operations. Fishermen who want to improve their business, their boats, their fishing gear, their equipment are compelled once again to comply with the requirements of chartered banks and to give part of their income to private banks.
There is another rather recent measure, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, under which a group of three, four farmers or more are allowed to buy quite expensive equipment. But, here again, to be in a position to take advantage of this legislation and to buy the necessary machinery to produce foodstuffs, farmers must pay a return to chartered banks.
I have only mentioned four examples of our laws channelling part of the income of our farmers, fishermen and young students toward chartered banks.

May 25, 1965
Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, a great many improvements are required in our economic and financial system. We will be able to give our country an economic and financial system as modern as this 20th century in which we live only if we study more thoroughly our system and everything involved in it.
Our economic system dates from long ago and no longer renders those services it was intended to give.
In my opinion, if we study our system thoroughly we will surely find a way to improve our situation so that farmers, fishermen, miners and all those who take an active part in the production, that is the producers of our country's wealth, become the owners of that wealth and profit by it, and not those who regulate and control the "sign" between production and consumption; something must be done to put this "sign" into the hands of every consumer, every Canadian, of all those who make up this country of ours, who built it.
That is why I move this amendment, and I hope it will be agreed to.


An hon. Member:: The vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.
Mr. Laprise, seconded by Mr. Perron, moved that bill No. C-99 be not now read a second time but this day six months.
Does the hon. member want to speak on the amendment?


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the vote on this amendment I would like to give a few more explanations.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérard Perron: We heard many times, I believe-


Mr. Moreau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe Your Honour had put the question to the House before the hon. Member rose to speak and as a matter of fact perhaps before he was in the House. I feel, therefore, that the question has been put and that we should have the vote now.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order.
In my opinion, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) having seconded my amendment, it would be fair to hear him so that he can say why he seconded it and why he is of the opinion, as I am, that this bill should be read a second time this day six months.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member who has just raised a point of order that the Chair has not had an opportunity to put the amendment in French.
I assume that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) was listening to the simultaneous interpretation. That is my interpretation of the reason why he delayed taking part in this debate.
Therefore, I suggest to the hon. members that in view of the fact that the hon. member for Beauce has seconded the motion of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), he should have an opportunity to give his reasons for seconding the motion.


Gérard Perron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the interpretation you have just given. That was precisely the main reason which prevented me from rising when you seemed to put the postponement motion moved by my colleague from Chapleau (Mr. Laprise).
Since the last session we have often had the opportunity to discuss the request for incorporation submitted by the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank. Again today we are being asked to consider the Western Bank's application. By a curious coincidence, just a month ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) made a statement on the future monetary policy or its establishment through the revision of the Bank Act which must be carried out within the next 30 days, that is in the course of June. According to official and semi-official statements it was even implied that provincial governments would be denied the right to hold bank charters and to purchase shares of existing chartered banks.
Yet, a year ago British Columbia was denied a bank charter. Still, two private banks, one of which is the Western Bank, now come back before the house to request a charter.
We expressed our views on this matter on many occasions. The Minister of Finance himself said that his main reason for doing it was that he wanted parliament and the Bank of Canada to enjoy more and more, in the exercise of their authority on the monetary problem, the greatest freedom and the best control possible of Canadian credits. Now, this chartered bank is just another bank, similar to those already existing under the act that it is intended to amend and revise shortly and to which, we hope, many amendments will be made in order to limit the absolute
May 25, 19S5

control that banks have had and still have on the volume of credit in circulation in Canada, in particular on the issue of credit in favour of this or that economic power in Canada, whereas too often, unfortunately, the economically weak are obliged to make use of loan companies which lend to the consumers at enormous interest rates while the banks, whose interest rates are limited, prefer to grant loans to those who already have quite large powers in Canada. This leads a very large portion of the people to say and to believe, with evidence to support it, that our banks have become lending institutions similar to the umbrella lender when the sun shines, who when the rain comes takes the umbrella out of circulation; and again the small wage earners are the ones to feel the repercussions of our bank machinery which allows an ever increasing concentration of the already existing economic powers.
About a fortnight ago I quoted statistics supplied by the special committee on the activities of the small loans companies. These figures are phenomenal when one considers the amount provided by those various financing and consumers loans companies, while our banks refuse quite often to people with more than adequate collateral the credit necessary to improve their production or for other purposes.
However, when the time comes for some trusts to obtain or increase the credit they need, they easily find money lenders among financing organizations and they easily get the credit which enables them to extend their monopoly, their centralizing activities, their control over our economic life.
If one claims to be for private enterprise, to make things easier for our small industrialists, if small loans companies are to be deprived of the possibility they have to operate at prohibitive rates of interest in the sectors they want to use, namely consumer credit, I think that we should review again our banking policy before granting more charters, and that all of us here should at least wait for the opportunity to study all the legislation and make the necessary recommendations.
According to the study made by the Porter commission, which sat for more than two years to consider the banking system as a whole, all its effects on the economic structure of this country, it was often deplored that our banking system was probably one of the causes, I do not say the only one, but one of the main causes of this situation in 22620-1055
Private Bills
which so many Canadians are so poor in a coimtry as rich as Canada.
My colleague from Chapleau mentioned a while ago the case of farmers to whom credit is refused even to buy the seeds or farm machinery they need. Too often banks refuse credit to those people.
Others, in the area of housing, are denied credit by every institution, except finance companies which exploit them. Yet, in other economic areas, I can assure you that credit is easy.
Millions of dollars are transferred on the stock market; a host of companies are set up with an equity as small as $25,000 or $30,000, and, in a very short time, they increase it to $200,000, because the executives are influential-we have often seen company directors being at the same time bank directors, and all they need to do is to change seats to obtain the necessary credit.
Therefore, if a few banking institutions control credit in Canada, it is high time to have a review of our banking system.
Today too many poor in Canada are the victims of finance companies which exploit them when they want to own or use consumer goods.
Since there is talk of reform on a large scale, I think it would only be normal that the applicants for the Western Bank wait their turn and wait until parliament has legislated and revised the banking system- as recently suggested by the Minister of Finance-which should end this year, that is 1965. Revision of the country's banking and monetary policy should be made in this house, and the reasons given will certainly not weigh much on the scale. I heard representations made to the effect that western Canada badly needed that Western Bank to permit certain developments. Yet, the British Columbia government last fall made a loan of $100 million to the province of Quebec, which goes to show that there surely is no lack of capital in that part of the country.
On September 15, 1964, the daily Montreal-Matin wrote the following:
Not only is Mr. Bennett lending $100 million to Quebec and $175 million to other governments or corporations, but he holds at the disposal of borrowers a total amount of $909 million, close to one billion dollars. This billion will bring in year in and year out interest amounting to $50 million in order to face what is undoubtedly an easier to meet budget than that of the province of Quebec.
Can one claim that the reasons advanced to create head offices or branches of

May 25, 1965
Private Bills
chartered banks in Western Canada are well founded? I do not believe so.
In fact, if one examines the number of small loans granted in the various provinces, I believe that one will realize that Quebec and Ontario are the provinces which, at the present time, have the greatest needs for banks, because it is in those two provinces that the chartered banks' funds earn the most, through the loan companies, owing to the high interest which they charge the people they exploit and who are at their mercy. That is due to the situation created by our banking system which has not kept up with reality.
Produce, produce, always produce. Yes, but when it is a question of consumption, the individual has to rely on the credit granted by those institutions or on the loans made by finance companies.
As far as production is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the absence of banks in the western provinces has restricted or prevented the development of the west and especially of British Columbia and Alberta. On the contrary, I feel the governments of those provinces have established policies which were more beneficial to their people through the implementation of all kinds of projects. In fact, the leaders of those provinces have encouraged road construction and the development of natural resources for the benefit of their fellow citizens.
I do not believe that the establishment of the Bank of Western Canada in the western part of our country is likely to do more to solve economic problems or the unemployment situation there. In fact, it is in those provinces that unemployment is at the lowest level.
In the province of Quebec you find chartered banks, such as the National Canadian Bank and the Provincial Bank of Canada. Other chartered banks, among the eight existing in Canada, have also been able to increase their branches throughout the province of Quebec. Did that contribute more to the development of natural resources? No. Too often alas the number of bank branches has been increased with one purpose in mind, that of making profits and controlling the life of Canadian citizens.
What happened in the province of Quebec through a French Canadian bank the main directors and shareholders of which were some French Canadians? The savings of Quebeckers were collected and invested in Brazil, or they were lent to Canadians in

other Canadian provinces, and this when, in many instances, a number of our own industrialists were lacking the funds to increase their manufacturing production, or were unable to obtain that credit necessary to develop their industry and use the manpower available. They had to be satisfied with the crumbs falling from the table.
Mr. Speaker, why should the Canadian parliament be asked to issue a new charter to the Bank of Western Canada, when the house will be called upon, in 30 days or so, to review the banking policy in this country?
Mr. Speaker, the mere fact of delaying by a further period of thirty days the granting of a charter to the Bank of Western Canada will not hinder the economic and financial development of the western provinces. As a matter of fact, I feel that if we are considering extensive reforms in the banking field in Canada, we should look more fully into the behaviour of Canadian banks and the role they might play in putting credit into circulation and granting credit to the provinces or provincial organizations to enable them to make full use of their natural resources and their human potential.
Steps should be taken to bring about a state of progress such as Canada has never known up to now by resorting to the Bank of Canada, instead of multiplying by one, two, three and even four, the number of banking institutions now existing in Canada, which have brought us nothing but poverty amidst wealth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I hear exclamations.
One has only to consider the effect and implication of various social measures now under consideration in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada to become aware of the situation.
On the national level, in the speech from the throne, the government stated that war would be launched against poverty. Why is war against poverty necessary in 1965? Is it due to apathy or ignorance, or is it not due rather to the present monetary system, controlling every means for the development of natural resources which are the property of the Canadian people? What has happened to the vast potential of national resources, namely oil, iron and minerals of all kinds?
And what about the control exercised today on the country's productivity by powerful trusts which, thanks to the chartered banks, were able to get the credit they needed to keep their business going and, in many cases, to obliterate small or middle-sized competitors?
May 25. 1965

Private Bills
It the government Intends to fight poverty, I feel that it should consider using the credit of the Bank of Canada instead of increasing the number of chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, I am not denying that the chartered banks were extremely useful and even made possible the development and processing of various raw materials, that they contributed to the development of our highway system, helped our economic activity which expanded through the initiative of those who managed to get loans. But I think that the time has come to assume our responsibilities.
In some circles, Mr. Speaker, they talk of nationalizing everything. They even talk of nationalizing powerful companies such as the Bell Telephone of Canada or some public utility system or other. But there does not seem to be any question of nationalizing credit and making it more social or any willingness to face the facts as regards monetary issues. They rather talk of increasing the number of those who, by controlling credit, also control our lives, because when you control the economic blood stream called money, it is rather easy to control the private individual.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we examine this measure seriously before passing it and granting the new bank charter requested by Mr. James Coyne and others. As a matter of fact, Mr. Coyne once held the great freedom enjoyed by chartered banks responsible for the inflation which occurred in 1952. In my opinion, he should get, in 1965, exactly the answer he deserves as a result of what he did in 1952, when his credit restrictions began to bring back to Canada the conditions of hardship amidst plenty that we experienced in the years 1955-56.
[DOT] (5:30 pjn.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delaying a vote any longer. The sponsor of the bill must be pleased to note that as time goes by the value of the company which is the subject of the bill gains considerably. In fact there has been increased capitalization of a company which has not yet really been formed.
There are several questions I would like to ask the Liberal Party Whip, as I think he has some responsibility in these matters. One of the charges made, and legitimately made in the Senate, was that several members of that body's banking committee were associated with a number of established
banks, yet they took part in the committee's deliberations during discussion of the proposed Bank of Western Canada.
Some of them can be named. There was Senator Crerar, who was connected with the Great West Life Assurance Company; Norman P. Lambert of the Empire Life Insurance Company Ltd., and Senator Beaubien, also a director of that company; and Senator McCutcheon who has connections with the Bank of Nova Scotia.
The question has been raised, can these people really take a look at the six existing operating banks? There are actually eight banks but I am speaking of the six main ones. Can these people really take a proper, impartial look at an application submitted on behalf of a new bank? Even more important, can they give the appearance of impartiality in their examination of the application? I think the answer is no. These people should be highly criticized for taking part in the committee's work while they are directors of other banks.
I would like the Liberal Whip to assure both himself and the House that the House of Commons Banking Committee will not come under the same type of criticism, by assuring that none of its Members can be objected to on that score. I am asking him to do this because I think we would like to establish in this House the means of looking into problems such as those raised by the application of the Bank of Western Canada, and so far we have not been able to do so. There is no question but that the House of Commons has been shoddy in its treatment of banking and commerce matters, leaving most of the responsibility for a detailed review to the other place.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I wonder whether he would exclude any Member of the House of Commons who had a bank loan or a mortgage on his home, or anything like that?


William Arnold Peters: If we were discussing the Credit Union of Canada, I would say yes. The fact that you have a loan from a credit union allows some control over that corporation and you likely have voting stock in it. A loan from the bank is a different matter.


Maurice John Moreau: You are subject to pressure.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, and it is pressure you would probably resent if you had an opportunity of doing anything about it. I do not see it in the same light.

May 25, 1965
Private Bills
We were opposed to the introduction of these two bank bills originally on the basis that there was a third bill before the banking committee; that favourable treatment had been given to two banks and unfavourable treatment to the third. We have since seen amendments to the Bank Act which have made some changes, I would not like to say whether for the better or the worse. But there has been an indication of Government policy which was not available then, and the third bank to which I referred is now in the process of application to the Senate and will probably receive more favourable consideration because of the changes the Government has seen fit to propose.
We are concerned about the creation of a new bank. We all know that considerable amalgamation took place among banks a few years ago. Most of us have wondered why the Government allowed the amalgamation of large financial institutions of Canada without expressing any view as to whether such amalgamations were good or bad. During the 10 years in which the Government has been reviewing the position of the banks it has given no indication whether it regards such amalgamations as beneficial or not. Obviously amalgamation must make some difference one way or the other, and the reverse must also be true. If new banks are added-and we are adding two, probably three banks-there really should be some effect on the currency of this country, the loans, the deficit, the interest rate and all the other factors involved in banking. If additional banks do not make any difference I think it would be wise to get rid of all these banks and have only one bank with branches in every town.
It is not true that there is great competition among banks. I was talking to a bank manager at one time-he had been manager of a number of banks-and he told me there were two kinds of bank managers, the lenders and the collectors. The policy at head office was to send in a lender for a while and then, after four or five years, to send in a collector who tried to get all the money back. In due course they replaced him and sent the lender in again. It may be true. I have had many complaints from people whose applications for loans under farm improvement or housing improvement legislation had been turned down. Their applications had been turned down by every bank in the community, though in another community, maybe one with a "lending" manager, they were able to obtain the desired loans. It seems to me we

should understand what all this means to the Canadian economy.
To be specific, the Bank of Western Canada should be considered in relation to the larger scheme of things. I see no reason why this bank should be placed in the same category as the other bank whose incorporation I originally opposed on the grounds that it was a wholesale banking outlet for a retail credit finance company. This particular company is larger than that. It is interesting to note how it is formed and what it really is. If members would care to look at the Financial Post for October 14 they will find there a breakdown of the financial structure. The table set out is not hard to understand. This company is really British International Finance (Canada) Ltd. It is based on Toronto. The President is Mr. Sinclair M. Stevens and the executive vice president is Mr. Philip B. MacDonald. The total assets of the group amount to $78 million.
It seems to me one does not have to have much money in order to control a bank if you go about it in the right way; you can have somebody else put up the money and then arrange for the appropriate degree of control. This company owns 42 per cent of Canadian Finance and Investments, Winnipeg, with assets of about $3.5 million. The company also has 51 per cent control of the Wellington Financial Company of Toronto with assets of $58 million. It owns 21 per cent of Canadian First Mortgage, Toronto with assets of $7 million, 51 per cent of York Centre Properties, Toronto with a proposed equity of $2 million. The Canadian First Mortgage Company is the one in which Mr. James Coyne has an interest. The B.I.F. Company has a 51 per cent interest in York Centre Properties, Toronto, with an equity of $2 million. It has a 51 per cent interest in the British International Finance Trust of Nassau.
Let us see how some of these subsidiary companies can be broken down. Canadian Finance and Investments of Winnipeg has 51 per cent control of Fort Garry Trust, Winnipeg and 18 per cent control of the Bank of Western Canada, with an equity of $13 million. The Wellington Financial group has 32 per cent control of the Bank of Western Canada and 100 per cent control of the Simcoe Retail Acceptance Corporation of Toronto, who also have 100 per cent control of Scarboro Finance, Toronto, with assets of half a million dollars. Wellington Financial has, in addition, 51 per cent control of York Trust and Savings with assets of
May 25, 1965

Private Bills
$33 million and 51 per cent control of Lamb-ton Loan and Investment of Sarnia which also controls a subsidiary, the Lambton Trust, with assets of $17 million. The group of subsidiary companies includes Wellington Credit, 100 per cent control-a Toronto concern with assets of $2J million; 100 per cent of the Interior Credit of Winnipeg with assets of half a million dollars, and 51 per cent of Wellington Bank of Canada, Nassau.
This picture gives an indication of the way in which an international group may decide to control a large number of interests by investing a relatively small amount of money. It is true that 500,000 shares are being offered in the Bank of Western Canada, but it does not really matter how many shares are issued; the British International Finance group will control the bank no matter what the extent of the participation. These are really dummy companies. The B.I.F. group has an international charter in the Bahamas and Nassau. It makes no pretence that this is not a dummy charter. This charter really does not serve any purpose except to give the group a basis for international financial operations. The Minister will have to give some attention to this when the question comes before the Banking and Commerce Committee. I also think it is above and beyond the ability of an individual to ascertain whether or not this is in the interest of the public.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think that originally the Senators who have an interest in this particular Bank of Western Canada, who also have a sort of fraternal interest, I believe, in Mr. Coyne to see that he becomes firmly established in one of the legitimate banking agencies of Canada, for other reasons, paid little attention to what may be the real implications of the Bank of Western Canada. I believe this information can only be obtained if the right people are called before the committee. I would like to know why they set up this terrifically big organization; why they have all these finance and trust companies; why they have all this property held under one international group; why they should be in the international field for obtaining credit; and why they are interested, as I understand they are from press statements, in establishing banks in the United States and other countries. I am interested to know how this fits in with the actual borrowing, credit and deposit relationship of the banks upon whom we have depended for some time to provide the banking institutions of Canada.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. Members will allow this bill to go to the Banking and Commerce Committee of the House of Commons. I would also ask that the Whip give special consideration to this matter of the pecuniary interest that Members may have, so that the charge cannot be levied at the House of Commons as it legitimately is at the Senate, namely that they are not impartial in their examination. I believe the banking institution is important enough to warrant an impartial and factual investigation before we grant these charters. If it meets the requirements and needs of the nation, I hope we will be able to endorse the establishment of this bank.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Last
session those two finance companies had a bill introduced in the Senate in order to obtain a bank charter. This session those two companies are again asking the House of Commons for a bank charter.
In my humble opinion the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank of Canada, whose bills are on the order paper, are neither more nor less than real finance companies exploiting the people not only in Canada but in the United States; they want to extend their banking activities by having a bank charter which would authorize them to create credit.
A few days ago we had a debate in the house on a bill amending the Bank of Canada Act. Last week we had another debate, to be continued this week, on a bill respecting banks and banking. I do not think that, for the time being, the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank of Canada should have another bill introduced in the House of Commons to grant them a bank charter.
Chartered banks have full control over the Canadian banking system. Under the act they can, by a stroke of the pen, create credit called scrip money or bank money.
We have been fighting for more than 30 years this financial system which is basically wrong, and we fail to understand why the government, which has full control over its financial system, is allowing individuals to control the economic blood of the nation.
Today, how does a bank function? Let us take it for granted that 10 businessmen doing business with one another deposit $100 each with the same bank. Assuming that depositor No. 10, on account of expenses or taxes which he has to pay, is short of money
1634	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures and applies for a $100 or $150 loan. The banker, finding that it is more convenient for the depositors to draw cheques on their accounts and knowing that only 8 per cent of the other depositors withdraw their money, authorizes a bank loan at the interest rate of 6 per cent and deposits $100 or $150 to the account of depositor No. 10, thereby allowing him to pay off his creditors. When depositor No. 10 reimburses the bank, he pays a 6 per cent interest and also pays back the $100 or $150 loan. And the other nine depositors are not even aware of the fact that a new credit was created for depositor No. 10.
That is why we are opposed to the control of credit by a group of individuals. We have a financial institution in Canada, the Bank of Canada, which must be sovereign and absolute master of the Canadian economy, absolute master of our financial system. That is why we are definitely opposed to new chartered banks being instituted in Canada.
We have to wait until the bills concerning the Bank of Canada Act and the amendments contained in Bill No. C-102 are referred to the committee on banking and commerce, after which we will be better prepared to decide whether or not we should create new banks in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock?	[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.
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: '[DOT] 1

DEBATES	May 25. 1965
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business:
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1.	That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follow:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon 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
May 25. 1965
[Stage Direction]
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.-
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, according to the record we are now on the so-called fourth day of this discussion about a Government- resolution to amend certain rules and procedures of this House; however, it should be pointed out that relatively few people have spoken. During my absence last week I had the opportunity of reading all the speeches made by hon. Members on this subject. I must say that I cannot agree with all that has been said.
A great deal of the four days has been spent on a philosophical dissertation in respect of parliament, at times touching upon the purposes of parliament. In this regard I believe that a great deal of the so-called public agitation which exists has been created by inspired movements on the part of the press and others in an attempt to persuade parliament to act as a board of directors.
It has been pointed out by some of the hon. Members who have spoken before me during this debate that parliament is a place for the exchange of ideas and a forum for the discussion of those ideas. It has also been pointed out that parliament is a forum for the examination of government action; for the discussion and examination of government expenditure, and last but not least, a forum for the granting of supply to Her Majesty. All too often the purposes of parliament are lost, and all too often some people adopt the belief that even though opposing ideas or views are expressed vigorously and tenaciously, no further expression or idea may be heard or considered.
There must be a full and thorough examination of all the business conducted by parliament. Parliament does not in itself exist to absolutely block or reject proposals. There have been incidents during the history of parliament, not only here but in Westminster which, had it not been for determined opposition to government proposals, would have ended with bad proposals in their original forms being inscribed in the statute books both here and in Great Britain. This same situation can be applied to the parliaments of any other democratic countries.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I put forward at the outset a caveat to the suggestion that everything must be cut and dried, and that
House of Commons Procedures discussion of ideas must be locked within the four corners of a limitation of time. This may be a somewhat strange simile, but it is apparent that discussion and consideration can be hammered into or fenced in within four corners of a timetable. I do not suggest that I am coining a new phrase when I say that in respect of the proposals now under discussion, and the proposals that will be discussed in the future regarding rules and procedures in this House, the Government is for some reason or other seeking to govern my ministerial railway timetable.
We have a proposal before us which deals primarily with a consideration of the estimates, and the allocation of time for debate to be affixed by a so-called Business Committee. We also have before us a proposal which deals with the powers of Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say more about that at a later time. The proposal in respect of the limit of time for debate on the estimates imposes a 36 day limit, and includes the consideration of the main estimates, supplementary estimates, interim supply and, for some unaccountable reason, it also includes the six supply motions, which have nothing to do with a detailed discussion or examination of the estimates.
The debate and consideration of the six supply motions, depending upon the generosity of the Opposition, could use up 12 days of the 36 days allowed for the consideration and debate of all the main estimates, supplementary estimates and interim supply.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I am reminded of that time when some of the leaders of the Government were in Opposition; that is, after 1957. It was a strange and rare occasion when they did give up a supply motion. They insisted upon their rights. This was not begrudged in any way. Yet Parliament is now being put under the whip, if not cajoled, to reduce the number of days because there will be pressures from other quarters. Since when has an aura of sanctity descended upon hon. Members opposite? Have they suddenly become anointed that theirs should be that privilege? I would say not, Mr. Speaker. I would hope and trust that the Government would receive favourably the recommendation from Members on this side of the House that the 12 days allotted to supply motions be removed from the 36 days. I think we would see more nearly eye to eye if they did.
I also find that there is a trap in the 36 days, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), with regard
1636	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures to supplementary estimates, and particularly final supplementary estimates. I would say to hon. Members on the treasury benches that, as previous administrations have, they can readily run into emergencies where the only way the emergency can be dealt with is by a supplementary estimate. For instance, there may be a crop disaster in Western Canada requiring that assistance be given to the farmers who are suffering from the ravages of the climate, or emergency action may have to be taken immediately in some other region. This is done through the medium of a supplementary estimate. But if the 36 days have expired or are about to expire consideration of the emergency action that must be taken is precluded or is engaged in only at the expense of consideration of other matters of Government business.
Therefore it is my view that the 36 day limitation on estimates is a boobytrap. Not only is it a limitation on the Opposition but it can impose a very serious limitation on the Government. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the proposal contained in the 18th report of the Committee on Procedure, which involved a flexible formula guaranteeing at least one day's discussion of the estimates of every department in formal sittings of the House, was far better. The present proposal is no guarantee that we will not have the same pell-mell, helter-skelter rush at the end of a session to drive through the estimates. It is very easy to take 20 days or 22 days on more noncontroversial departments. Government Members, by taking their regular time, not extraordinary time, can take up the fully allotted time, or even more, on these matters with the result that when the controversial items come up for discussion there is no time. This is why I say this proposal is an injustice to Parliament. It is an injustice not only to Members of the Opposition but to Government backbenchers.
As I said, the proposals for the amendment of the rules of this House in the last 50 years have been legion. In reading the speeches made so far I noted that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the proposals of 1955. The recommendations made at that time were far reaching, but not too many of them were adopted. But every time there has been the adoption of a rule of limitation it has been for the benefit of the Cabinet, for the benefit of the executive.
It is within the memory of many Members of the House that not so long ago the debate

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was without limit. It was not so long ago that there was no limit on the length of speeches and, as has been pointed out, sessions in those days were not extraordinarily long. As a matter of fact, they were shorter than they are now. I would say that the fixing of a maximum time on speeches means that the maximum becomes the minimum. On many occasions we now have difficulty keeping within 40 minutes. I trust I will not transgress in that regard tonight. The institution of set piece debates such as those on the Speech from the Throne and the budget has been an intrusion into the right of discussion of private Members for the benefit of the Cabinet. We now have proposed a further intrusion into the right of discussion, a limitation of the debate on estimates. I wonder whether it will make Parliament more efficient.
We talk about getting things done more quickly. That depends upon whether the estimates will be sent to the committees early. There is nothing in the proposals to guarantee, and I mean guarantee, the setting up of the committees early in the session. The recommendation of the Committee on Procedure was that the Striking Committee should report by the 10th sitting day. As has been the case before, the present proposal calls for "with all convenient speed". Yet when the present administration was so anxious in 1964 to get on with the tremendous amount of business they took 8 to 10 weeks to name the committees. The initiative rests with the Government to name these committees. So what do we gain? There is nothing in the proposed changes which will speed up the naming of the committees.
The Committee on Procedure also recommended that the members of committees be named for the life of a parliament. There is nothing in that regard included in these proposals. If that were done we could really move forward and develop a corps of men who would be informed in their subject. We agree that the number of members on these committees shall be more limited. Yet we have to go through the business of renaming them every year, another step which permits of delay. The Government's proposal is entirely devoid of any assistance in this regard. Worst of all, you can name all the committees you want early in the session, but if you do not have the facilities for them to do their work, what are they going to do?-serve by standing idly by? That is precisely the situation today.
May 25, 19G5	COMMONS DEBATES	1837
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
True enough the proposal is for 22 committees. They will not get all the estimates immediately; but even now, with 10 departments available for reference to committees, I will wager that if those committees were named tomorrow no more than five or six could do their work. We have not got the clerical staff in the committees branch. We have not got the reporters. We have not got the translators. We have not got the committee rooms. Hon. Members will not sit on Monday mornings. Unless there is a complete revision or review by hon. Members as to what they are going to do with regard to attendance in committees, you will have difficulty in getting a quorum and getting effective work done.
It strikes me that this is, in some sense, trying to deal with the increasing toll of highway fatalities by merely making the speed laws somewhat tighter. It is not going to improve at all the driving habits of the users of the road. Until they do so and become more safety conscious we will continue to have a rising number of accidents and highway fatalities. The same principle applies. In addition, notwithstanding all the consideration of estimates before committees, there could still be, as I said, that pell-mell, helter-skelter dealing with estimates in the last few days and hours of a session. A government might call a department, have it on for a short day and then remove that department from consideration and bring in another one. The controversial matters will be left to the end.
It is true that estimates can be considered more effectively, I think, in a committee, provided the work is done properly. I do not believe a department has to go through an exhaustive committee examination every year. Perhaps once in three years would be sufficient, but let us see it. The Government complains about the lack of progress, but let us look at the number of committees that were not called in the last two years. The estimates committee, which in previous years had done excellent work on a number of departments to the gratification of officials and the government, was not called once by this administration. It is a disgrace. I say, therefore, that the Government proposal is no guarantee at all that the study of estimates will be any more effective. All it is is setting up a tight box, an infringement of the rights of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House for the benefit of Cabinet.
House of Commons Procedures


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think that the present rules of the British Parliament with respect to the consideration of estimates are an infringement of the rights of the Members at Westminster?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a different type of system. The estimates there come before an estimates committee. These estimates are considered in camera, and I think there is some dispute about the validity of that in certain circles in Britain. They have 26 days-


John Whitney Pickersgill: For every stage of supply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But their system is so much different. I would suggest to the hon. Member that many aspects of these proposals indicate a sort of hit or miss borrowing from the British system and an attempt to impose something out of context onto our machinery. This is where I feel we are going to run into difficulty.
I suggest, frankly, that the Government should have given far more careful consideration to the proposal of the Special Committee on Procedure as contained in the 18th report, the 30 days with a flexible 15 days. In this way, every department would be before Parliament for at least one day. The Minister is hardly in a position to discuss the matter of considering departmental estimates in this House when we consider how the Department of Transport was handled during the last session. However, his department is no different from many others. I think there was a kind of ungainly dance amongst certain Ministers to see who could be the last in line. There was some real one-upmanship in this regard. Mind you, I am not saying that it has not happened before. It has happened on many occasions because many of my colleagues know whereof I speak.
I was a Member of the subcommittee that proposed these changes. It is certainly my view that both in committee, in subcommittee and in plenary committee I insisted that there should be at least one day in the House for each department, provided the opposition wanted to use it. Now, dealing with the matter-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not-
1638	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. gentleman appreciates that my time is limited. If I could get the attention of the House for a few minutes more, I should like to discuss one other matter. I am going to deal with the abolition of appeals. It is true this provision is not included in the first part of the resolution, but so much reference has been made to it that perhaps the Chair will grant me this latitude. Personally, I am in favour of the abolition of appeals from the Speaker's rulings. I trust hon. Members will not feel that I am approaching this matter from a subjective point of view.
However, I do find it somewhat touching that the present administration should bring forward this proposal and that the Prime Minister, in his remarks, indicated that there was a growing trend to use this as a political or tactical tool. I am sure he knows whereof he speaks. If there ever was one flagrant example of it, I think hon. Members who were here on that occasion will remember it. It dealt with the question of whether or not there was an appeal from Mr. Speaker's decision under Standing Order 26 for the adjournment of the House. We saw the majority of the present Cabinet, and many of their followers as well as hon. Members in the third party, on a certain occasion solemnly vote in support of the proposition that such an appeal lay. It was an exercise, not in defence of jurisprudence or any logical argument, but merely a display of political muscle on a certain day early in 1963.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
But what made it such an apparent example of using the appeal as a political or partisan tool was that within a matter of a few months-I would say less than four months-when this administration had taken power they all solemnly stood up and voted that there was no such appeal.
Not only was that an exercise in hypocrisy, it was cynical.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who made the appeal on that occasion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was contemptuous and it was contemptible. It was cynical in that it was repeated on a number of occasions. It was contemptuous of the Chair because it brought the Chair into a political wrangle, not only on that occasion but on subsequent occasions. Also I think it was contemptible in that it was an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House.
I have not said anything about this before, but I would say that if anybody displayed a

DEBATES	May 25. 1965
cynicism for the powers and rights of the Chair it was on that occasion. I would say that there should not be an appeal from Mr. Speaker's ruling. If Mr. Speaker misconducts himself-and such occasions are very rare in this House and elsewhere-a motion for censure can be introduced. The proposers of the motion, those feeling aggrieved, have an opportunity to put forward their points of view, and Mr. Speaker's decision may also be defended.
But as it stands at present, according to Standing Order 12, when Mr. Speaker makes a ruling on a point of procedure he exposes his flanks to an appeal that does not have to be justified; that whether it is frivolous or otherwise brings down no censure on those appealing; and all too often-I would say in nine cases out of ten-the appeal is misconstrued. It is no longer a question of procedure but goes to the substance, and therefore certain political positions and postures are taken.
Here I am not finding fault with any particular side of the House. Ridiculous postures have been adopted generally around the House, and I am speaking subjectively as the individual who at that time, Sir, was occupying the position you are now. This is the only reference I have made back to my tenure of the Speakership, and I must say I felt sore at heart there was so little regard paid to the position and dignity of the Chair. If anything has suborned the authority of the Chair it is indiscriminate use of the appeal, and it is for that reason I would say it should disappear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask a factual question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Only if I could get some extra time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I will answer the hon. gentleman if I get the extra time.
True enough there is some danger, and I think hon. Members hold a bona fide belief that this might give too much power to the Speaker, and that by creation of precedents wrong practices might arise. If that were the case I would put forward for discussion an alternative based on the practice in the West German parliament where a small committee from all parties, composed of those who are versed in the rules, is a standing committee of the House on procedure.
May 25, 1965

If we had such a committee, and if a question were decided de novo, or if it were perhaps a rare occasion-and, Mr. Speaker, as you and I know there are many rare occasions for some rulings-if, say, a minimum number of Members, 10 or 15, were aggrieved, they could request that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure which would examine it, and bring back a recommendation to the House that in future should such and such a point arise the matter would be decided thusly. This would be a safety valve against bad precedents on procedure. I put this forward as an alternative to see whether one can temper some difficulties of an absolute ban on appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings.
For the third aspect of my discussion tonight I wish to deal shortly with the proposal for the establishment of a Business Committee. This is merely selective closure and is the result of trying to import into our Canadian practice a seldom used device of the British Parliament. I refer to the allocation of time order which is brought in under entirely different circumstances.
A Government House Leader who knows his business and is prepared to be tactful and be a proper Government House Leader can, with the other House Leaders, deal with about 90 per cent of the business of the House on a reasonable timetable. Mind you, there have to be some safety measures in that all discussions within the House Leaders' committee are privileged, off the record, confidential and that people must not, as was done on a regrettable number of occasions in the past, rim from such meetings to the press to disclose what may have transpired, or to leak what may have transpired at the meeting.
This method of selective closure is an attempt by the administration to choke off full discussion of controversial proposals in that a time limit will be set beforehand. Already a number of difficulties have been mentioned. No clarification has been given as to whether this will apply to a whole item of business or one stage thereof.
We have already made some progress in our procedure relating to the resolution preceding a money bill. Discussion on that stage is now limited to five hours. This is on a trial basis and we shall have to keep it in practice for a couple of years to see how it works. So far it seems to have worked reasonably well; but under the new suggested procedure a Minister of the Crown may stand up and ask that the whole of a bill, second reading, com-
House of Commons Procedures mittee and third reading, be dealt with within a certain time, and with no one knowing what amendments may be brought forward. There are many examples of unexpected amendments. The difference between the practice here and the practice in the British House is that, there, notice must be given of amendments and Mr. Speaker can disregard amendments as he sees fit. Certainly any House Leader who does not know what amendments are to be put forward will be chary of consenting to a time limit being placed on the discussion of any bill. And if there is failure to agree, one House Leader can impose his will. Then we get one day's discussion-a Wednesday, maybe, when the normal time for discussion is an hour and a half. Why, the Prime Minister rising in his place could utilize all the available time. Certainly the third, fourth and fifth parties would never get a chance on a short day.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There is another point which has not been settled. What is the determination of a party? How many people would constitute a party so that they might have the opportunity to go into a House Leaders' business management group or Business Committee? Will it be three, four or five, or will there be a minimum of twelve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the two over there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This involves the independents also, though their problem is not the same. On the other hand it is conceivable that four members would be found belonging to a party. Are they to have the vetc power? Or will it be the twelve?
In the committee stage, is it not possible for the Government to indulge in delaying tactics on non-controversial clauses and leave the more controversial clauses to the end, when the guillotine will fall? I would recommend to hon. Members that they read the proceedings of the British House and some of the commentaries at the time of the passage of the National Health bill, the Transport bill, and I believe the measure for the nationalization of steel. There were terrible results. Scores of clauses and scores of amendments, including government amendments, were never considered before the guillotine fell. Remember, too, that in the British House the allocation of time order is usually made only after discussion has bogged down completely in committee and there is no possible way of getting out. The results have been very unsatisfactory; yet
May 25, 1965

House of Commons Procedures we are blithely asked to import an imperfect tool from another system and put it into our system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. Member have the consent of the House to go beyond his allotted time?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: If he answers the questions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will answer questions.
There are many other criticisms one could make as to the details of many of these proposals. I understand that there may be some discussion and that some latitude may be allowed by the Government in dealing with its own amendments-that time will be extended if amendments are introduced from the Treasury Benches. It has happened in the past that as a result of the discussion on second reading the Government has seen the wisdom of bringing in amendments either suggested by their own supporters or by Members of the Opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or by provincial governments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) says "by provincial governments". We need only remind ourselves of Bill C-72 last year to see what would have been the result had the guillotine been operated when that measure was going through the House. I am sure the Government agrees that what was produced was a much better bill than what was initially introduced.
I will discuss the other resolutions on another occasion, and it may be I will come back to some of these more important questions. Now, if the hon. Member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) wishes to put his question I am prepared to try to answer it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question would be more comprehensible in the context in which the hon. gentleman was speaking. Perhaps he will permit me to recall the context. The hon. gentleman took great exception to the fact that a number of Members on this side of the House had voted in 1963 in support of an appeal against a ruling which the hon. gentleman had made. I can quite understand his feelings. He then said we had shown great contempt of parliament by voting against an appeal on the same point, thus showing both inconsistency and contempt. I wanted to ask the hon. gentleman


who it was made the appeal that put us in the position he described. Perhaps he stayed out of the House and avoided the vote, but was it not his hon. friends who had taken exception to the earlier vote, and was this conduct not, therefore, just as reprehensible as any on this side of the House?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not sure, but it seems to me that on that occasion, and I am subject to correction, the appeal did not come from this side. Be that as it may, I found it strange that the former Opposition, once in power, and having utilized the device of appealing the Speaker's rulings to try to bring down the Government and involve the Speaker, should now propose the abolition of the appeal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me to point out that if when he was on this side of the House and I was on the other side he had been willing to support a motion which I made on three separate occasions that appeals from rulings of the Speaker should be abolished, and if he and his friends had accepted that motion at that time, the incident could never have occurred.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not recall those incidents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are on the record.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has been in part consistent. He may have been a loner at that time. But I will make a confession. I did, when I was on the Government side, feel that a right of appeal should not exist against the Speaker's ruling.
There was another question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other question was simply a repetition of the question which the hon. gentleman artfully dodged, if he will accept that expression as parliamentary, when I asked him whether he considered that the much more rigid rules limiting supply in the British Parliament were a serious abridgement of the rights of Members. The hon. gentleman talked about differences in the systems, but there is not all that difference. I suggest he should give a straightforward yes or no answer to that question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Like the man who was asked whether he had stopped beating his wife- if he gave a yes or no answer he got into trouble right away.
May 25, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1641


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have said too much already.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will say this: As far as the British system is concerned I know from personal experience, having discussed this with Members of the British Parliament, that the view exists that discussion on important estimates in that Parliament is truncated and perfunctory because it is done in committees. However, I feel that in view of the fact that we have had open-end discussion with regard to our estimates in the past under our system of open sessions of committees, and the staff difficulties in this regard, it is inconceivable that we can immediately come down to the position the Government is requesting. After all, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new request. Hon. Walter Harris, if I am told correctly, made a similar suggestion to the Speaker back in 1954, and to his credit His Honour of the day refused this limitation in the Committees structure. But the limitation then was for 20 days. I do not care how you coat the pill. Whether you now apply three or four coats of sugar, the pill is still the same; it is roughly 20 days for all the estimates- and we cannot get around that.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
If the hon. Member can guarantee that the committees system they suggest-and I suggest it is a poor framework-will do the job, then the danger that I have mentioned within the House is lessened. But we have been given a mere pittance in so far as committees are concerned. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if I may use the phrase, we are going to send a boy to do a man's job; because the committees, as I see them, as proposed under these amendments, just will not do the job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman, who is much better informed about this than I am, a factual question. Is it not true that at Westminister there is only one committee to which estimates go, and that it takes about three or four years before all the estimates there come before any committee at all? Surely even if we have only half a dozen committees considering estimates, we will have a more effective instrument for getting them before the Members who are really interested than if we had only one committee?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider -and this is the last thing I shall say-that the British system is the epitome of perfection. I know there are hon. Members who feel that the estimates only going before
House of Commons Procedures this small estimates committee every three or four years

I believe the estimates committee there is composed of only 15 Members -does not meet the case.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Member a question? I would like to ask him whether the basis of his argument is not the fact that the calling of parliament is basically for the consideration of the estimates of government spending?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think when my speech is reviewed it will be found that I said this was one of the integral parts or purposes of parliament, namely the granting of supply. I wish to thank hon. Members for the extension they gave me.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the rules and procedure of this House is of intense interest to quite a number of Members. It has always been of interest to me, because the rules and procedure deal with the fundamentals of the operation of this chamber. I have always considered that the rules, under the careful guidance of the Speaker, are very largely for the protection of individual Members of this House so they may have the opportunity to express their opinion without being dragooned into submission by the Government side.
Over the years a great deal of time has been spent on the question of rules and procedure. You have only to read Hansard of years ago to discover that the subject of parliament and how it should conduct its business has engaged the attention of the leading Members of the House of Commons from time to time. It is not anything new to have criticism of parliament. We were subjected in 1952 to a whole series of newspaper articles criticizing the parliament of that particular period, and I recall that when we had the Rules Committee of 1954 and 1955 we took into account some of that criticism. A lot of it was uninformed. There was similar criticism of parliament back in 1903, and I suppose no year has gone by when people have not criticized parliament. Very frequently it has been criticism by people outside parliament who do not understand the operation of this institution; and some of them, I fear, are not too keenly aware of the importance of parliament.
The regret I have at the present time is that over the last two or three years Members of the House have themselves indulged in what I consider to be rather careless criticism of this institution. They have encour-
May 25. 1965

House of Commons Procedures aged people outside the House to add their criticism of this place, and it has done some damage to parliament. I think this should be corrected and the basic factors underlying the purpose of parliament should be better understood by the people of this country. I feel there is a great misunderstanding of parliament, and consequently a great deal of serious and uninformed criticism.
Parliament is described as being inefficient, its rules and procedure obsolete, its organization of business antiquated: and "reform of Parliament" is today's catch phrase. People say that the sessions last too long, that Members talk too much, that speeches should be shorter, that time limits should be imposed before debates are commenced; and we are repeatedly told, "Streamline the procedure and get down to business". The weakness of this criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the function of parliament. It has been said many times, but it deserves repetition, that parliament is not an administrative body; it is a place for debate. We look to the cabinet and to the civil servants to carry out administration. Twenty departments have been set up for this purpose and thousands of civil servants are employed to carry on the day to day work.
Parliament's duty is to examine government policy, its taxation and spending programs, and its legislative programs. The government calculates the amount of money required for each fiscal year; it determines how that money may be raised by taxation, how it shall be spent, and presents to parliament its plans for so doing. The government draws up the bills amending the present statutes or introducing new measures; the Members of Parliament examine these various measures or proposals, criticize them, attempt to amend them or have them withdrawn, or to defeat them. The method is by debate; it is the only course open to us.
When a subject is highly controversial, the debate will be long and at times acrimonious. When a subject is non-controversial the debate will be short and without any fireworks. Some bills pass the House in a few minutes or a few hours; others take days or weeks. Some departmental estimates require just half a day; others may stretch out for from three to seven days. When the Government requested authority for the participation of Canadian forces in Cyprus a year ago, the House recognized the urgency and importance of the enterprise and settled the matter in a very short period. Members refrained from debate. But when a new

flag was proposed last year, rejecting the historic symbols of the two founding races, there was a prolonged debate which was brought to a conclusion by the imposition of closure. These two episodes indicate the contrast between controversial and noncontroversial issues. Controversy cannot be avoided in the House of Commons. Some people, including some Members of this House, said that the House of Commons should not be a political arena, but that the national interest should be paramount. That is unrealistic, because there are five political parties in Canada, not counting the Communist Party, each competing for favour, each with a program which its members consider to be appropriate in the national interest. Superimposed on the conflict of political parties there are marked regional differences which require and receive attention.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Members of Parliament may agree on some issues, but disagree on others, and parliament is the place for argument and the place where differences of opinion are aired and resolved. Parliament is the focus of public opinion, and government often has to modify or withdraw its proposals if the debate and controversy in the House of Commons discloses that the course of action should be changed. Those who talk glibly about reforming parliament sometimes overlook the purpose of the institution and seldom acquaint themselves with the facts. Those who say that parliament will accomplish more in a shorter period of time if all debates are limited in advance and if all speeches are shorter have not examined the history of Canadian parliaments.
If you, Sir, will look at the sessions from 1900 to 1927 you will find that in those days there were no time limits imposed on speeches. Members might speak for 10 minutes or for five hours, and some of them did so. The sessions on the average lasted for five months. The session of 1903 lasted for seven and a half months. That was a record not broken until 1961. In 1927 the rules were streamlined and speeches were limited to 40 minutes. That was intended to make a major change in the length of parliamentary sessions. If you will examine the period from 1928 to 1955 you will find that sessions lasted on the average five and a half months, in spite of that limitation on speeches in the House of Commons.
In 1955 the rules were again streamlined and certain major changes were made. Debate on the Speech from the Throne was
May 25, 1965

limited to 10 days, and later reduced to eight; the budget debate was reduced to eight days, and later to six; consideration of supply motions was restricted to 12 days in all, and speeches in Committee of the Whole House were cut to 30 minutes. Following those changes, the length of sessions from 1956 to 1963 averaged five and a half months, representing no change from the previous average from 1928 to 1955. A new record, replacing the 1903 session, was set during the session of 1960 to 1961 which lasted for eight and a half months.
If one ignores the sessions which sometimes start in the fall and run over into the next year, but examines rather the number of sitting days per calendar year, he will find that during the post-war period, that is from 1946 to 1963, the sessions of parliament have averaged six and a half months per year.
In 40 years the House has extended its working time by a month and a half. When our ancestors were here they were a hardier group and kept the House open for 31 hours each week. By the changes to the rules in 1955 we reduced the hours of sitting to 254 hours per week. I suggest that the proposal for reforming parliament, or streamlining its procedure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I will be permitted to bring to the attention of hon. Members the fact that there are so many conversations going on in the chamber at this moment it is very difficult for the Chair to follow the speech now being made. If hon. Members wish to transact business, perhaps they will do so behind the curtains.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that any proposal for reforming parliament or streamlining its procedure will fail if its objective is to shorten the sessions. The experience of 65 years, to which I have referred, indicates that Members will find some method by which they will be heard, irrespective of rules and regulations. My stand in respect of alterations to rules and procedures is in support of them, provided freedom of speech is maintained. The allocation of time by order of the House, and the imposition of closure, are means by which governments may have their way in imposing their wills, but the price paid is the restriction of freedom of speech.
It is not infrequent for a person inexperienced or ignorant of the subject under
House of Commons Procedures discussion to suggest that the debate be terminated, but it is even worse when a person who has already spoken during a debate suggests that everything has been said and that a conclusion should be reached. We have heard that suggestion frequently in this House. There may be Members who have a special interest in or specialized knowledge about a given topic who may want to be heard, but it is quite obvious that 264 Members cannot all speak about a subject, because very little could then be accomplished. Common sense prevails generally and the business of the House does get done; sometimes slowly, but sometimes quickly.
Each year parliament assembles and agrees on the Speech from the Throne, passes the Budget, grants supply to Her Majesty and enacts from 40 to 60 items of legislation; inquires into the administration of the departments, airs grievances, discusses private Members bills and motions, holds numerous committee meetings and generally considers in open debate with complete freedom of speech all the subjects that concern Canada.
There will continue to be pressure on Parliament to deal with the manifold subjects that confront it. The Government has grown in size and increased responsibilities have been assumed. A welfare state enlarges governmental problems, and to cope with all this parliament has to make adjustment from time to time. I suggest, Sir, that the frequent statements made to the effect that sessions are getting longer and that parliaments cannot get through their business do not stand up to an examination of the preceding 14 sessions.
I have before me a table in regard to 14 sessions up to and including 1963 which I should like to read. I will give the year, the number of sitting days and the number of bills passed. I intend to leave out appropriation bills which follow the passing of interim supply and estimates, which number on the average four or five per year. In dealing with the number of bills passed by the House of Commons during this 14 year period, I should like to read this tabulation, which sets forth an impressive record:
Session	Sitting days	Bills p1952	87	551952-53	108	541953-54	139	671955	140	601956	152	501957	71	391957-58	78	301958	93	441959	127	551644	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
Session	Sitting days	Bills passed1960	146	481960-61	174	641962	65	291962-63	72	171963	117	42
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In those 14 sessions this House got through 654 bills, either amendments to existing statutes or new legislation. That averages 46 per session. So those people who say, first, that the sessions are getting longer and, second, that the government is not getting its business done have not in my opinion examined the record, because of those 654 bills who is prepared to say that some of those were unduly delayed or that the government was obstructed at the time the bills were going through? This may have been said when we were on the government side. It is being said when the Liberal Party is on the government side. But the facts bear out that this House passes an enormous number of bills each session and the facts indicate that the sessions are not getting longer. The session of 1903 was the longest in Canada's history until 1960-61, which was surpassed by the session of 1964-65; but I hope no one will ever take the session of 1964-65 again as an example of how to run a session of this Parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope not.


Thomas Miller Bell: Three House Leaders on the scrap heap.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think that in non-election years parliament should have fixed periods of adjournment so that Members may know precisely when and for how long they will be in their constituencies. I think there is general agreement in the House with regard to that. I think that just as we have placed an over-all limitation on the Speech from the Throne, the budget debate and the supply motions, we should now set an over-all limitation on the estimates. Sometimes they have taken up to 60 days. My suggestion, which I made a year ago to the committee then sitting and have made since before the extension of the hours per sitting day was proposed, was that there should be 45 days for the main estimates, with an adjustment up or down on the basis of experience after we had tried it out.
I would be inclined to set 150 sitting days as the framework within which the business of parliament should be completed each year. Half of that time should be for government legislation, about one third for estimates and the remainder for the Speech from the

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
Throne, the budget debate and supply motions. I would hesitate to place any further restrictions on freedom of speech. Who is to judge whether a Member should be heard or should be prevented from speaking? If I want to discuss freight rates as they affect Western Canada, or the policy of Air Canada concerning its overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg, I must accord to others the right to speak about problems affecting their constituencies or their province. If a government insists on bringing forward some highly controversial proposal, it must permit full and free debate. Otherwise parliament is throttled or becomes just a rubber stamp.
No government in its senses would keep parliament in session for 11 months of the year as happened in 1964. If there is one thing more than another that Cabinet Ministers and Prime Ministers require, it is time to administer their departments and to develop policy with some leisure for thought. Without an interval of several weeks or months between sessions for planning and careful consideration, a government is likely to stumble rather badly.
I think that the proposed allocation of time in the suggestions put before us by the Government is a mistake. I am surprised that the Liberal Party, which gained some experience of closure in 1956, would be the party to attempt to introduce at this time another form of closure. Here again there has been some misunderstanding. Some accounts outside the House, and the odd statement within the House, seem to indicate that this is a normal practice in the British House of Commons and is worthy of adoption here. I realize that the proposal put before us is a modification of the British system. But when I heard about this matter a year ago when the Committee on Procedure and Organization was dealing with it I opposed the idea, and I very carefully studied the practice in the British House as disclosed in May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition. I read, I think, six of the debates in the British House on occasions in the last 15 years when they have imposed an allocation of time and I reached the conclusion that the British practice should not be introduced into this House at the present time, if ever. Mark you, we have closure on the statute books. It is applied in a different way in Great Britain. We have not given the same authority to the Speaker of our House that is enjoyed by the Speaker of the British House of Commons. With regard to allocation of time May says, as found on page 483:
May 25, 1965

An allocation of time order is not usually moved until after the second reading of a bill and often not until the rate of progress in committee has provided an argument for its necessity.
In other words, it is not determined in advance of the opening of a debate. As found on page 477, he has this to say, and I will not read it all:
-when, in order to secure the passage of specially important and very complex or very controversial legislation, the leaders of the House are confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of unreasonably prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority. In such circumstances resort is had sooner or later to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely, the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill-
Then he goes on to say:
This method is not provided for by the standing orders of the House but is applied, when the need arises, by special orders of the House known officially as "Allocation of Time" orders, and colloquially as "Guillotine" or "Closure by Compartment" orders. They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House.
Allocation of time was first introduced in 1887 and in the 76 years since that time the guillotine has been applied to 57 bills under successive Conservative, Liberal and Labour Governments. During the Labour Government of 1945-51, three bills were guillotined. From 1951 to 1962 under the Conservatives, debate on nine bills was thus curtailed. In 1948, for the first time, the guillotine was applied at the commencement of the committee stage. Normally it has not been used until after second reading, and after from two to five days have been spent on the bill in the committee stage. Then, on the plea of urgency and importance and obvious obstruction, the government has moved an allocation of time order. The order is debated for one full day, just the same as the proposal made here, and voted upon. If the government is sustained, the allocation of time is made.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
At that stage, a business committee is set up to apportion the limited time that has been allotted to the committee stage and subsequent stages. Now, what are the effects of these allocation of time orders? Sir Anthony Eden, when he was in opposition in 1948, when the House was dealing with an allocation of time order with regard to the Iron and Steel bill, referred to the experience of
House of Commons Procedures the House on the Transport bill and the Town and Country Planning bill in 1946-47, which were subjected to the guillotine in the committee and in subsequent stages. This is what he said in part on that occasion:
The Standing Committee on the Transport Bill had 31 sittings.. .At the end the position was that 37 out of 127 clauses and 7 out of 19 schedules had not been considered at all. On the report stage... the guillotine fell at clause 38 out of 127 clauses. The Government themselves introduced no fewer than 200 amendments in committee, of which 94 had not been reached when the guillotine fell.
Then he gives an example from the Town and Country Planning bill, and I quote:
On that there were 25 sittings in committee: 52 of the 108 clauses and 6 of the 9 schedules were not discussed-just about half of the Bill. The report stage ended when 14 of the 108 clauses had been discussed.
These two Bills were altered in another place by 230 and 336 amendments respectively.
We could, by this method, find extra work for the Senate to do, whose activities have been under scrutiny in this House during the last few days. Now, the experience of the United Kingdom is simply this, that allocation of time orders are infrequently used. In the period from 1900 to 1929, 32 bills were guillotined. From 1930 to 1962 only 17 were so treated. It is therefore a declining use in the British House of Commons.
Men of experience there deplore the use of allocation of time. In 1948, the late Herbert Morrison, who was House Leader of the Labour Party at that time, introduced an allocation of time order on the Iron and Steel bill. He was very apologetic about it and this is what he said as recorded in Hansard, page 1435:
I have said before that I do not like the guillotine procedure. It is a last resort, which is obviously necessary in this case. Nevertheless, I do not like it. I do not like moving it and I should not like to be a victim of it. I do not like the austere words of this motion, which sounds severe, when you come to read them in cold print. I shall not like the clang of the blade as it descends at 9.30 on certain nights. I should have preferred an agreed timetable such as was worked with some success...on the Government of India Bill-
Sir Anthony Eden, speaking in the same debate had this to say, and I quote:
How can the Minister tell us which parts of the Bill, when we come to the committee stage, will require more discussion than other parts? We may take a general view now on examining the Bill, but everyone who has served on a committee knows that the general view taken may be proved absolutely wrong when we get down to detailed discussion. All sorts of topics emerge that are not apparent when the Bill is first discussed.
1646	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
Oliver Stanley, also a man of lengthy experience in the House of Commons, as reported at page 1534 of Hansard said:
Frankly, I intensely dislike the guillotine procedure in any circumstances... I learned that it was quite impossible for anyone, however well he knew the Bill, to lay down beforehand how the discussion upon that Bill in committee was likely to go and how long it would take or what time should be allocated to each part.
That, Sir, indicates some of the weaknesses of the allocation of time order imposed by governments who wish to exercise their will on the House of Commons. In a lecture given by L. S. Amery, another experienced House of Commons man, contained in a book published in 1932 entitled, "Parliament, A Survey," we find this:
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.
This, Sir, represents the experienced opinion from Westminster. This gives some indication why I have been opposed to allocation of time orders. I do not believe that freedom of speech should be so confined in this House. I am not of the opinion that necessity has shown that we require allocation of time orders. I do not like the Business Committee idea which apparently glosses over the imposition of an allocation of time order, but I do not want to deal in detail with that tonight because time is running out. We should be loath to indulge in a procedure which is recognized as a very severe form of closure which can effectively prevent debate. Once again I say this to Members of the House of Commons, over the last 14 years what items of legislation put forward by a Liberal or Conservative government have been unduly debated? Almost everything has been passed.


An hon. Member:: The flag.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Someone says, "The flag". We debated the flag during a period that would have been the summer recess. We subjected ourselves to the loss of a vacation during the summertime in order to debate a subject in which we were very much interested and which we thought was fundamental to the rights of Canadians. Had that debate not been in front of the House, the House would have adjourned for the month of August. What prevention was there of the Government with regard to the passing of its

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
other measures? No, Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for hon. Members to find an instance in which there has been obstruction to the point where an allocation of time order was required. The experience with closure in 1956 during the pipe line debate should have satisfied House of Commons people for a generation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think in the proposals before us we should attempt to narrow the differences by negotiation. We have had plenty of experience in the past in making arrangements by negotiation. A great deal of patience is required in this House on some occasions. 1 know as a result of the experience of being House Leader on the other side for three years that you have to be patient. You have to give people an opportunity to speak. On plenty of occasions I was irritated but I do not recall, except on the filibuster on divorce, ever having pressed the opposition to shorten a debate. Arrangements were made informally sometimes with the House Leader of the Liberal Party and others.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot refrain from asking the hon. gentleman if he would allow me a question? Did he not leave that chore to his colleague, Hon. Donald Fleming, who constantly read us lectures on how we were taking unnecessary time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not a question of leaving a chore to him. Hon. Donald Fleming was capable of undertaking a great many tasks and sometimes he felt obliged to give lectures to the hon. Member, as he then was, for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And still is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The lectures were needed but most unfortunately they were not heeded and that was the trouble.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I consider that the citizens of Canada should be concerned not with the length of parliamentary sessions or the length or number of Members speeches, but rather with the function of parliament. I suggest, Sir, the average citizen of this country does not suffer at all when the House has lengthy sessions or when it sits throughout the night.
On the last day and night of the session which closed a month or so ago, some of us stayed here until three o'clock in the morning. Nineteen million Canadians were sound asleep in their beds and did not suffer one bit, but we were doing our duty here and
May 25. 1965

we sat those long hours, from eleven o'clock in the morning, through noon hour, through supper hour until three o'clock on Saturday morning, but no Canadian citizen suffered. In fact they may have benefited because we restrained the Government from certain actions it was attempting to carry out.
Citizens should be concerned with the policies of the Government, with the alertness and activity of the Opposition. For our system recognizes that to maintain freedom and our democratic way of life there must be an Opposition in parliament to restrain the government from arbitrary or autocratic action; to redress grievances; to check unnecessary expenditures; to disclose wrongdoing to public view and generally to express the varying points of view of freedom loving people.
For our system is founded on the freedom of the individual within the law. Members of Parliament are representatives of that freedom. Its maintenance is assured if it is the will of the people that freedom of speech be maintained. Restrictions rigidly imposed on that freedom in parliament would lead inevitably to dictatorship.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to contribute to this debate after the learned discussion which has preceded my intervention but I would like to say a word or two at this time. Following the very skilful speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the speeches of other hon. Members perhaps I should not take part, but on the other hand I feel I would like to make a few general observations with respect to the nature of the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
The hon. Member for Edmonton West was very much concerned with the method under which committees are to be set up to study the estimates. He felt there was a danger in restriction of discussion on the floor of the chamber, but I was very much impressed when the Prime Minister pointed out that actually debating time will be longer in the House of Commons than hitherto. We will be sitting longer hours. We will be sitting through the dinner recess and at other times, and a longer period of time will be available to each Member of the House. I was impressed with the Prime Minister's argument and I feel that when committees are set up all the estimates will be given more attention than they have received in the past.
One cannot argue that no change is justified. It is commonly understood, from one
House of Commons Procedures end of the country to another, that our rules are antiquated and outdated. I felt a measure of personal satisfaction when the Prime Minister introduced this resolution to reform the rules of parliament in order to make them suited to conditions in 1965 because these rules, with few, small, rather insignificant changes, have existed ever since Confederation. The business that goes through parliament today is so tremendous, compared with that done in parliament in years long past, that surely it is high time the rules, after consideration in this chamber, be amended on the suggestion of the Prime Minister, who has assumed the responsibility.
I am wholeheartedly in support of what has been proposed. Changes may have to be made later on, and changes may be made before the resolution is passed in final form. I do not know that; but at any rate a great attempt is being made to create a lasting reform of the rules so that the business conducted in the House will be done in an efficient, modernized way, tailored to meet the problems that arise for parliament in the times in which we live.
I would not think of setting myself up as an expert comparable with others who have taken part in this debate. Accordingly my remarks are general in nature, but I feel I am speaking for my constituents when I say that long needed reform is at last being brought about by the leader of my party, and I am very happy to support this measure. I do not wish to be partisan and I will certainly try not to be but, as I said, I have a lot of personal satisfaction and some measure of pride in the fact that our leader took it upon himself to introduce this measure.
The opening words of the resolution are very meaningful:
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 think most hon. Members are agreed that some reform is necessary. At present we have an antiquated approach to the dispatch of public business. Companies do not conduct their business as they did 25 years ago. They have changed with the times. Parliament must change with the times and I am impressed that we are trying to do the very thing which has been done in the United Kingdom, that Mother of Parliaments, which we all love and respect in our hearts.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Something was said a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre
1648	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures (Mr. Churchill) for whom we all have respect. He talked about freedom, and said it might be abridged. I would say that the true way to serve freedom is to make it effective, and the way to do that is to modernize the rules of this House and bring them up to date in accordance with the times in which we live.
Somewhere the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I think it was, made a statement criticizing absenteeism in the House of Commons. I have not studied his exact remarks, though I should have done so before I referred to them, but I believe he said we were not attending the House of Commons as we should. It is my view that when the changes which are proposed in this resolution are brought into effect attendance in this House will be greatly increased. Prolonged debate, and too prolonged discussion of subjects which come before this House, cause absenteeism more than anything else does. Members of Parliament get tired of hearing the same arguments repeated over and over again by different speakers. I think these proposals will make debate more effective and result in more Members taking part for the benefit of our country than ever in the past, which is what all Members are striving for.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald has an editorial on the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. It strongly opposes the calling of the roll in the House of Commons every day as a means of dealing with absenteeism. The article says:
There always has been a prickly resistance among MPs to all suggestions that they follow the Senate's lead. Always, the roll-call idea has been dismissed without ceremony, and, we feel, justifiably. A full House every day would not merely fail to indicate that the nation's business was being conducted as best it might; it would be one proof, at least, that it was not being so conducted.
Finally, a roll call would be meaningless. After it was taken, MP's could desert the Commons in droves without doing damage to "good" attendance records.
I will merely say that I feel modernized rules would improve the attendance in the House of Commons. Modernized rules will make people respect parliament to a far greater degree than has been the case in the past few years. We must move with the times. We cannot afford the luxury of protracted debate. I think the suggestion that a Business Committee be set up is a good one. If the Business Committee cannot reach agreement unanimously, then a Minister will take the responsibility of moving in this House

DEBATES	May 25, 1965
that the debate be limited to a certain period. This is done all the time in the United Kingdom and I believe it should be done in this House.
In conclusion, in spite of all that has been said, there is not a single Member who does not want a reform of parliamentary rules and procedure. I am greatly indebted to what was said earlier in this debate by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, whose study of the rules fills us all with admiration. I will say that. I feel he is giving us a lead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Elisha Brown: I meant to refer to the hon. and much loved Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). What I should like to see is more respect generally for parliament. This institution will receive that respect -I know it will have the respect of my own constituents-and it will have the respect of people from one end of Canada to the other if we show willingness to reform our own rules and give leadership in presenting to the people of this country a House of Commons efficient and competent at all times to deal with the complex items of business which come before it as and when they arise.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in the present debate concerning proposals to reform and modernize our procedure. This is the first time I have had the honour and privilege of sitting in Parliament and I do not think either I or any other Member who sits in this House, especially on the back benches and especially if it is for the first time, will forget the marathon session of the twenty sixth Parliament, which set records we should not seek to match again.
The very even temper of this debate, the fine, balanced contributions from the spokesmen for the various parties in this chamber indicates that we have all reached a general understanding that reform of our rules is absolutely essential if we are to conduct our business not only efficiently but in a way which will permit us to serve the people we represent in an adequate manner. I was impressed by the contributions of the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and others who have spoken. It is clear there is a wide measure of agreement on what is to be done and I think the resolution now before us stands an excellent chance of being passed at an early date.
May 25, 1965	COMMONS
I had the privilege of serving on a municipal council. It was my introduction to public life and I learned the great value of the committees system and the work which committees could do. The reference of the work of the elected body to a committee at an early stage permits a much more careful and close examination of the business which has to be done. It does, or should, permit Members of the House to specialize in a few fields of interest and to follow in closer detail the work of one or two departments of government, and thus contribute to a better understanding of what is being done.
Not only must committees function effectively but there must be some discipline imposed on us as a legislative body in the conduct of our debates. I can remember that in the municipal council the great discipline which was frequently imposed was the discipline of the clock. As the hour of midnight was passed and the early hours of the morning began to go by it was frequently possible to get agreement as a result of the sheer physical pressure of exhaustion. I do not suggest this is a desirable way of getting agreement, but it did have the effect of permitting those members who wanted to say their piece to say it, while allowing council to reach decisions on the business before it.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The elected body of this House numbers 265 Members. There is the double objective of providing the maximum scope for individual Members to have their say, while making sure that the debate does not exceed a reasonable length of time. We cannot have it both ways. It is not possible for every Member to speak on every subject and at the same time to keep debates within reasonable limits. It is apparent, I think, to many of us-it is apparent to me, in the short time I have been here-that a House cannot function without some measure of agreement upon the length of time of debates.
Closure is a clumsy and ineffective way of dealing with the problem, and after the unfortunate incidents of 1956 the government of the day, whatever its political complexion, showed an understandable lack of enthusiasm for employing the closure rule to terminate debate. I think it was clear on a number of occasions in the course of the second session of the twenty sixth Parliament that something akin to this kind of rule, or a reasonable substitute for it, as a procedure by which time could be allocated for each specific item had to be adopted, or else this
DEBATES	1649
House of Commons Procedures Parliament would bring itself into contempt in the minds of a very large number of people in this country. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have come through the process of going through the longest session on record, to some general measure of understanding of the minimum that has to be brought about by way of changes to our rules.
I suggest that the resolution before us is substantially the kind of thing which we all recognize must be. It is highly desirable that the spokesmen for the various parties in the Business Committee, to which reference is made in the resolution, be able to agree. There is no substitute possible for the voluntary agreement of spokesmen representing the different groups. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is no substitute for this; but failing agreement there has to be some measure by which we can impose what is called in the British House the guillotine, however reluctantly we face this; however we know, all of us, in our hearts that it runs against the grain to cut off debate, to deny Members of this House the opportunity to speak when they feel compelled to speak for the people who sent them here.
Nevertheless the balance of interest has to be struck. We cannot have it both ways, as I said earlier. We cannot all speak on every issue. We must recognize that the business has to be conducted, and this is the most important priority. If after a reasonable length of time the procedure which is spelled out in the motion for voluntary agreement is not possible, the resolution proposes that an order for the allocation of time should ensue.
Parliament is a tremendous institution. There are those who would judge it superficially. There are those who would judge it by the attendance at certain times; by the amount which is contributed by way of debate, or not contributed; by external appearances-forgetting that behind all this is that measure of deep understanding of what is our primary purpose. Our primary purpose is to pass the items or reject the items which are presented by the executive branch to parliament. We must do this in an orderly way. If we fail to do this, then we bring discredit upon ourselves and upon this institution. The resolution in effect just proposes this, that parliament will agree to discipline itself. It can only agree to discipline itself if we all agree as individuals, as representatives of different groups, to a procedure by which the time allocated to debate is determined and that the vote shall then take place. It is
May 25. 1965

House of Commons Procedures a very simple concept and it is so fundamental.
It is strange indeed that I believe almost alone among the legislatures of the world the Canadian Parliament functioned as long as it did without something approaching this kind of rule or closure. Without applying either of these we did for a period of time manage to get through our business; but it was almost inevitable that without this kind of rule we would have what was produced in the second session of the twenty sixth Parliament; and a continuation of this kind of thing is not in our best interests.
There is one other small aspect of this matter on which I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker. That is the opportunities which emerge in different parts of the House to participate in public debate. With the multiparty system which is now being increasingly accepted in this House, the opportunities to participate in debate have been much greater, under the rules as they have existed up to this point, for representatives of some of the smaller groups; and the opportunities to participate by the backbenchers of the larger parties have been very few indeed. The mathematical distribution of time, in terms of the number of seats held in the House, or the proportion of votes taken at the last election, or any other reasonable criteria, is very much out of balance. It is very difficult indeed to be interested in the work of the House, to have prepared your material, to have speeches which you could have given and might have given were the circumstances otherwise, and yet to have no opportunity to participate.
The key to this is the reform of the rules. Without reform of the rules there is no equitable distribution of opportunities for Members. The key, further, is the effective
functioning of a committees system. Members of this House, through the committees device which is proposed in this resolution, and especially in resolution No. 15 which will be considered later, will be provided with an opportunity for participation in and review of estimates by the committees, will be a much fairer opportunity to indicate the talent which they have, the interest which they have and the energy which they can bring to bear in examining public affairs.
I believe it is now ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on question of privilege? During the course of my remarks I was questioned by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) as to the first occasion on which there had been an appeal, under Standing Order 26, from Mr. Speaker's ruling. On that occasion the Minister suggested that the appeal had come from the official opposition. I would like to clearly point out that the appeal came from the hon. Member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and that he was ably abetted in that appeal by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George James McIlraith: What year?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was on June 17, 1963.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will be asked to continue consideration of Order No. 14 and Order No. 15, having to do with the procedures of the House; and then Order No. 3, being second reading of Bill No. C-102, respecting banks and banking.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 26, 1965