1965-06-08

PRIVILEGE


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. During the adjournment debate last evening, as set out on page 2806 of Hansard I stated that the hon. Member for Greenwood had moved an amendment to the Student Loans Act on behalf of his colleagues on the grounds that the Act was not within the constitutional power of this House. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre intervened to question the accuracy of my statement. I have now had an opportunity to check the record, and I wish to state to the House quite frankly that I was in error. The amendment raised by the hon. Member for Greenwood dealt with the constitutional position of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The hon. Member and his colleagues made it abundantly clear that they were supporting the principle set out in the bill.
I hope this explanation removes any injustice that may have been done to the hon. Member and his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



TRANSPORTATION


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, for the information of all hon. Members, a copy of an announcement being made today of the Government's intentions with respect to studies of transportation between the rest of Canada and the Atlantic Provinces as well as within the Atlantic Provinces. These studies are to be undertaken pursuant to the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission. This announcement is being made after consultation with the Premiers of the four Atlantic Provinces.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. It arises out of a speech that he made on Sunday at St. Romuald in which the Minister said that the policies in connection with the war on poverty would be administered by the Provinces. Would the Minister, in view of his lengthy explanation, tell the House what will be the function of the Federal Government in connection with this policy; and where does Mr. Kent come in?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, as I spoke in French in St. Romuald I will read from the text what I said. I will read it slowly in French:

Now, the Liberal party has decided to have, first, a social assistance program-

This is the Canada Assistance Plan. [Translation]
-that, naturally, we shall have to develop with the provinces and will have to be administered by the provinces, in view of our constitutional problems. This social assistance program will at least meet the medical and other needs of people belonging to what, from a statistical standpoint, are referred to as the poor classes.
Mr. Speaker, that is what made some people come to the conclusion that all programs in the war on poverty would be administered by the provinces. I feel that this was a misinterpretation of the text I gave and I shall be glad to supply the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of that text.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have here the report which says:

The war against poverty federal program will only be administered by them-

It makes very clear that the administration will be a matter for the Provinces. Was the
June 8, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister speaking for the Government when he said there would be a Federal-Provincial conference on July 19 dealing particularly with this matter?


Maurice Sauvé: No. What I said was very clear, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned that the Canada Assistance Plan, because it dealt with provincial responsibilities and also Federal responsibilities, would be administered by the Provinces. I did not talk of any other program of this war on poverty, which has already been mentioned in the House of Commons in the Speech from the Throne and is being implemented item by item, as has already been announced two or three times in this House. I did not go any further than that.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Minister announce that this matter will be dealt with at a Dominion-Provincial conference to be called for July 19 next, dealing particularly with the program of the war against poverty? Did he make that statement, and is that in accordance with the facts?


Maurice Sauvé: I said that a federal-provincial conference had been announced for July 19, I think, in this House and that one of the items would be the Canada Assistance Plan.


John George Diefenbaker: And on July 19 there will be a Dominion-Provincial conference?


Maurice Sauvé: That was announced in the House last week, I think.


John George Diefenbaker: That's fine.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago in the absence of the Minister of Finance I directed a question to the Prime Minister regarding the Municipal Development and Loan Act, pointing out at that time that the funds for some of the provinces have now been completely depleted. The Prime Minister said that he would refer the matter to the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the latter whether the Government has now made a decision to ask Parliament for further funds so that the municipalities may know that funds will be available if they proceed with some of the projects which they now have under contemplation.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question put last week I said that this matter was under immediate consideration by the Government and that I hoped to make an announcement within the very near future.



CONSUMER PRICE INDEX-ALL-TIME HIGH LEVEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-minque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister any comment to make on the announcement made today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to the effect that the consumer price index has reached an all time high and the yearly increase is, in fact, higher than the maximum indicated as safe by the Government's own economists?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where my hon. friend obtained the information on which he based that last comment. I am not aware of it. The consumer price index for May stood at 138, which was a rise of one fifth of one per cent from the April level. There are a variety of reasons for this. One is a change in the time at which the normal increase in the price of fresh vegetables occurs. Usually it is a month later, but this year it was in May.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, does the Minister agree that the consumer price index has now reached an alltime high and that the increase is higher than that considered suitable by the Government's economists?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The index is certainly at an all-time high but I do not think I would agree with my hon. friend on the latter point, except to say all of us would prefer it very much if there were no increase in the price index at all.


Mr. Crouse:: Take off the 11 per cent sales tax.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would also remind my hon. friend that while any increase in prices is deplorable it has been less in Canada than in any other industrialized country with the exception of the United States, a fact which I have mentioned previously.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Can the Minister say what the Government is going to do about this situation?
June 8, 1965


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once more we seem to be developing into a debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what is the percentage increase for the past 12 months?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It was 2.2 per cent.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
If Canada goes through an inflationary period, will the Minister state, like the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), that the Social Credit party is to blame?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would hate to think what might happen if my hon. friends ever got charge of things.



CANADIAN OWNERSHIP-JAPANESE INVESTMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to report, for the moment at least, but I shall do so as soon as I have news about the matter.']
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the public pronouncement in the Speech from the Throne and in view of the Minister's pronouncement in the budget speech regarding the desirability of Canadian control and ownership of Canadian resources, may I ask the hon. gentleman what position he takes now, having regard to the statement by the Premier of British Columbia on his return from Japan that $600 million are to be invested by that country in British Columbia? Where do his plans for Canadian ownership and control stand in the light of this new development?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have not seen this announcement by the Premier of British Columbia but I will be interested in looking it up.
While I am on my feet may I take this opportunity to say to the hon. gentleman that I am delighted at the change of attitude shown by Members of his party respecting the British Columbia Premier's interest in banking.


Harold Edward Winch: There has been no change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry CHAS. E. FROSST & CO.-ACQUISITION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Is the minister aware of the fact that the Chas. E. Frosst & Co. of Westmount (Que.), one of the few large Canadian manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, is giving favourable consideration to an offer for the sale of its A and B shares to the Merck and Co. Inc., a branch of an international company? [English]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I read some newspaper reports to this effect.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Could he not use his good offices in an effort to discourage the directors of the Frosst Company to sell its shares to Merck before offering them to other Canadian companies? [English]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think this comes within my responsibility. However, it has been generally known for some time that the Frosst Company may be for sale. I dare say that anybody interested in buying it would have been able to get in touch with the principals concerned.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Government been apprised of the views of the Premier of British Columbia with regard to the alleged right claimed by him for the province of exclusive jurisdiction in the negotiation of international agreements dealing with natural resources which fall under the jurisdiction of the Province? If so, what is the view of the Government with regard to this alleged claim?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the only information I have on the matter is that which I have been able to ascertain from the newspapers, but that information was so interesting I am trying to get the text of what the Premier of British Columbia actually said on the matter.
June 8. 1385

Inquiries of the Ministry DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Four weeks ago today I asked about the theft of 245 barrels of cobalt, some 150 tons, stolen from a Government warehouse in Deloro, Ontario. Has the Minister any word yet on the theft of this strategic material?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to report, for the moment at least, but I shall do so as soon as I have news about the matter.



WATER LEVELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport, and I would ask him to give me his attention in order to provide a fairly precise answer.
With regard to rain-making operations, the Quebec minister Rene Levesque stated that the Americans were also involved in those experiments in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec. Could the Minister of Transport inform the house whether the U.S. government or American companies have held negotiations with officials of his department so as to obtain permission to pursue those experiments over Quebec territory?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such negotiations. I have asked my Department to give me any information they had about these activities. As I said before in the House, the Department of Transport has had no connection with any rain making activities since 1963. I also asked the Vice President of the company that is engaged in these activities from Dorval-Weather Engineering, I think the firm is called-to come and see me last week. This gentleman assured me that no activity was being carried on by their company in the Lake St. John district at all. I asked him to put that in writing so I could communicate it to the House. I had expected to have a letter from him to communicate to the House yesterday but up till very recently I have not had it. But he was quite categorical in his assertion that no rain

making activity whatever was being carried on by his firm in the Lake St. John region. Now, I am just saying what he told me, and I have not been able to find the name of any other firm that is carrying on this kind of activity.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
When he met Mr. Denison, the Vice President of Weather Engineering, did the discussion bear only upon cloud seeding by airplanes or was cloud seeding by land-based machines also discussed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This gentleman told me that neither from the ground nor from the air were they doing any rainmaking in the Lake St. John region. I am not accepting responsibility for what they are doing, but I think it is quite reasonable for me to repeat to the House what I was told. He made that statement very categorically. I asked him to put it in writing so I could communicate it to the House, but as yet I have not received that statement in writing.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, is pursuing, as are the officials of my Department, an investigation into the question as to what jurisdiction this Parliament and the Government of Canada may have in relation to these activities, and what the jurisdiction of the legislature and the Government of a province might be. The question is such that, because of its novel character, a precise answer is difficult to obtain.


Some hon. Members:: On a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The subject is very important, but it is not exactly new. I realize the interest of many Members in the subject, but let us take these questions in sequence. I believe the hon. Member for Lapointe started this discussion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that Mr. Denison stated that Weather Engineering had not used rainmaking machines operating from the ground nor from the air, would the hon. Minister ask the R.C.M.P. to investigate this matter if we pointed out to him the locations of the rainmaking machines in the Saguenay and Lake St. John districts?
June 8, 1965	COMMONS


Guy Favreau: I already said and I repeat to my good friend, the hon. member for Lapointe, that as soon as specific facts are given and I must admit that he started to give us some-such as those he just referred to, not only will we carry out the usual study but we will also take action if necessary.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister of Canada and I would also like to make a suggestion.
In view of the importance of rainmaking operations and the jurisdiction between provinces and the Canadian government, does the Prime Minister intend to add this question to the agenda of the next federal-provincial meeting, in order that the said problem might be discussed by the Quebec and Ontario premiers and that an agreement be reached to settle this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The question of jurisdiction is being looked into, but I should not like to indicate whether this will or will not be on the agenda of the forthcoming conference until we have received the results of our own investigation into the subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it would be of interest if the Prime Minister could tell us whether or not there is jurisdiction by either over rain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has been able, during his discussions with Mr. Denison, to ascertain whether or not Weather Engineering has been conducting rainmaking experiments and, if so, when were they discontinued?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been informed that at no time have they ever done any of this rainmaking in the Lake St. John area, but that they had carried out these experiments farther down the river.


Mr. Woolliams:: Why is it raining farther
up river?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can merely repeat, as I have said before, what I have been told. It would be very interesting if some of those who are most interested could furnish factual information that would refute what
DEBATES	2093
Inquiries of the Ministry this company has told me, and I am very sorry I do not have that in writing. I think it would be valuable to have their statement in writing, and I have asked them to provide it.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The minister asks us to give him facts and to pinpoint some places. Now, I have sent to the Department of Transport a geographical map on which at least some 40 places are marked where rain-making machines are operating in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. He has that map on hand; therefore, he has the facts and should not ask for them anew.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are now getting into a debate on this subject.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
During his meeting with the vice president of Weather Engineering Corporation, was there any mention of the cloud seeding which is taking place in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it was very difficult, because of the noise in the House, to hear what the hon. gentleman was asking. But if he was asking whether I had inquired from the official of Weather Engineering about rainmaking in the Abitibi district, I would say that he told me they were not doing it there either. That is only his word, but he told me that.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether he is giving consideration to an amendment of the Criminal Code to guarantee to every person accused of a crime, on being held by the police for questioning, the right to be represented by legal counsel if he so desires before being questioned by the police.
June 8, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions which I have in mind to be possibly referred to the Committee on Correction.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister would look into the case of a Mr. James O'Connor of Toronto in this connection, who was not permitted to have his counsel present when he was questioned, because the one phone call he was permitted to make by the police did not locate his counsel.


Guy Favreau: I should be pleased to do this, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Is he in a position to tell the house when Canadian dairy producers will get their first cheque in compliance with the recent dairy policy announced by the Minister of Agriculture?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the decision is up to the committee on agriculture.

BRITISH COLUMBIA-FRUIT CROP LOSSES On the orders of the day:


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: On Wednesday last the hon. Member for Okanagan-Boundary directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On his behalf I should like to make the following reply: To date no request has been received from the Government of British Columbia for assistance in connection with losses suffered by fruit growers in the Province as a result of frost damage last winter.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Twelve weeks ago the Minister advised that the study on a rail-carrying causeway from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick
would be finished in a month or six weeks. Can he advise the House if he now has the report and the effect of that report on whatever plans the Government has for the construction of this great project?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: The Department has received this report and is now studying it, before submitting it to the Government.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of PubUc Works, as a socialist interested in the efficient administration of publicly owned facilities and on behalf of numerous wives and many widows.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. Member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. After the most careful examination, it is an ideal question for the Order Paper.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Sainl-Maurice-La-fleche):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Since the present debate on procedure looks more and more like obstruction from the official opposition and the speakers are somewhat winded, could the minister step up the investigation suggested by the hon. member for St. John West (Mr. Cashin) last week to locate the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who could take over for a day?



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Why did the Government establish a price of $4.90 per pound for uranium for stockpiling purposes when, as I understand, United States authorities are paying $6.80 per pound in United States funds?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in all of the circumstances that seemed to be the proper price, having regard among other things to the price of the English

June 8, 1965	COMMONS
contract with uranium purchasers. Many considerations went into the calculation of that price, and that seemed to be a fair price.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the Prime Minister explain to the House something that is now the subject of considerable curiosity? In that price of $4.90 is there not a 60 cent bonus? What is the nature of that bonus and to whom is it payable?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any bonus in that price. I may say the price is being criticized by certain producers because it is too high and it is being criticized by others because it is not high enough.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there any bonus provision in this at all?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I wonder if the Prime Minister could not, in some way or other, give the House the formula the Government used in arriving at this price of $4.90?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have given one consideration. One factor was the price established with the British Government for their purchases of uranium. This is about as near to the world price as we can determine for this commodity.



SHARING BY BANCROFT AREA IN GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he assure the House that the mines in the Bancroft area will be included in those companies eligible for Government support mentioned in the Prime Minister's announcement of last week? Does he not feel that the restrictions inherent in the announcement will hinder future commercial sales?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the offer contained in the announcement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons includes all mines that have been in production in the past, and does not exclude Bancroft. The Prime Minister made it quite clear in his announcement that the Government stands ready to buy an appropriate amount of uranium from all mines that are willing to sell at $4.90 to the Government for stockpiling purposes.
DEBATES	2095
Inquiries of the Ministry
While I am on my feet may I say that one of the considerations that was in the mind of the Government when it reached its decision on price was that it wanted to leave plenty of incentive for Canadian producers to sell as much as possible to buyers outside Canada. That price of $4.90 is only a price for the stockpile. It is our hope that in due course the world price for uranium will be considerably higher than $4.90.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question may I ask the Minister whether, when the world price exceeds the $4.90 stockpiling price, the benefit of that increased selling price will go to the mine operators or to the Government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the present intention is that the Government will sell from its stockpile, which it will have purchased at $4.90, at the world price then prevailing. It will have to avoid any competition with producing mines that would interfere with the regular expansion of output in the Canadian uranium industry. However, to answer the question specifically, this is an outright purchase and, if there is a profit, the Government will retain it. The mines concerned do not have to sell to the Government. This is an offer to purchase at $4.90 pending the development of world demand.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE APPROVAL OF PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the calling of the Dominion-Provincial Conference on July 19 met with the approval of all the provincial Premiers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to be able to make a statement in respect of this conference and its agenda later this week.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. The Daily Bulletin issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics states today that American made cars imported into Canada in the first four months

June 8, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry of this year reached an all-time high of 9,682, or approximately 10,000 more cars than in the same period last year. When the Minister was drawing up the Canada-United States car treaty did he anticipate such an increase and, if so, how does he justify the immediate removal of the 17\ per cent duty?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order. It seems to me this is more of an argumentative question than a true question asking for information. To make a statement and then ask for confirmation or denial hardly constitutes a proper question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The matter is current, Mr. Speaker, in that the figures were released just today, and I think the Minister has an explanation for this.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I was just about to enunciate the remarks you have made, Mr. Speaker.



TAX ON POTASH MINED BY SOLUTION PROCESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, having regard to the resignation by one of the Ministers in the Saskatchewan Government, the Hon. "Hamy" McDonald, and the widely accepted rumour that he is coming to Ottawa, whether the suggestion made in connection with taxation on potash mining to meet the demands of the people of Saskatchewan is acceptable to him and whether action will be taken thereon.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on this question about political rumours as to changes of position of leading members of various parties I have no comment to make, although we do hear rumours all the time in connection with various people.
In reply to the more substantive part of my right hon. friend's question I may say that the Department of Finance has had no representations from any company that is alleged to be interested in engaging in the solution form of potash development, with the exception of one company that is now in production using this method. If there are any companies which have plans to mine potash or extract potash through the solution method, and if my right hon. friend knows of them, I would be very glad to hear from them direct.


John George Diefenbaker: Were no representations made by the Government of Saskatchewan in connection with the solution method of potash mining, to the effect that if changes were made there would be considerable investment in Saskatchewan which otherwise would be denied? Has the Minister not had that sort of representation from Premier Thatcher?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think my right hon. friend heard my answer to his question. I said that the Department of Finance has not received any direct representations from mining companies contemplating this particular method of extraction, other than the one company that is now in production.


John George Diefenbaker: For some reason, Mr. Speaker, there is still no answer to the question I asked. Did the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan ask for action in this regard?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly. I am sure my right hon. friend knows that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is true that there is only one company in Canada which is doing solution mining of potash. If there is only one company, is there any reason why it should not be treated in the same way as those engaged in shaft mining operation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think this particular question, with great respect, might well be answered when we reach the budget resolutions. I will be glad to deal with it then; otherwise it seems to me we could get into quite a discussion.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement that studies are being made of transportation problems in the Atlantic Provinces. Will the Minister assure the House that transportation legislation to be introduced this session will not be allowed to affect the position in the Atlantic Provinces under the Maritime Freight Rates Assistance Act, until such time as the studies now being undertaken have been completed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, Sir, it is against the rules to
June 8, 1985	COMMONS
anticipate legislation that has not yet been introduced, but I am sure the hon. gentleman knows I am deeply concerned to keep down the costs of transportation in the Atlantic Provinces.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. I note by a news story in the Ottawa Citizen of June 5 that there is to be the largest ever military parade in Ottawa on June 12. The story outlines the various pieces of hardware which are being brought from various parts of the country, and I want to know whether the Minister can give us some estimate of the cost of this parade?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I will have to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



STATEMENT ON ARGUS &quot;SPRINGBOARD&quot; EXERCISE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked a question of the Minister of National Defence. In his absence today I would like to inform the hon. Member, with respect to a particular part of his question, that three canvas Mae West containers were found and three Mae West life-jackets were recovered. It is assumed that these were spare items of equipment and it is most probable that these life-jackets worked free from their containers while in the sea following the crash of the Argus. The inflation bottles on the Mae Wests were still "witnessed wired", which would indicate that no attempt had been made to inflate them.
Mr. Speaker, because of the depth of water in the area of the crash it was not possible to recover any sections of the aircraft. Every other factor such as the history of the aircraft was carefully examined. Unfortunately no evidence was found that would suggest the cause of the crash. This case is therefore being closed with the cause assessment undetermined.


Harold Edward Winch: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask whether the Associate Minister is
DEBATES	2097
Inquiries of the Ministry prepared to file with the House of Commons the report of the investigation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the report I have seen is very short. I do not know whether another one exists, but I will look into the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: There must be a copy of a report of the investigation of an accident. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister file with the House of Commons the official report of the official investigation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have personally no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Offices of the National Employment Service are advertising for help in areas where a shortage of help prevails, and these advertisements are believed to be having a disturbing effect on employer-employee relations in the affected areas. Would the Minister make inquiries concerning the economy in cost and the psychological effects of running these advertisements in areas where there is now not enough help to fill local requirements?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the National Employment Service, in discharging its obligations to employers, advertises in local areas where there is an insufficient number of workers registered for employment. The purpose is to present the need locally through advertisements. If the need cannot be filled locally, then an effort is made to advise local offices elsewhere in the country which might be able to supply needed workers who have registered for employment.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: As a supplementary question, would the Minister inquire into the psychological effects of these advertisements on employer-employee relationships?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether Dr. Perry has been successful in getting the two parties together respecting the strike at the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator terminal in Vancouver?
2098	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Dr. Perry yesterday had informal meetings with the employers as a first step in the mediation process.



MARITIME UNION TRUSTEES-AGREEMENT BETWEEN SEAFARERS AND FOREIGN POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Minister inform the House whether in his opinion the powers of the trustees of the maritime transportation unions permit those trustees to approve any financial arrangement or agreement between the Seafarers International Union and a foreign power? Does the Minister consider this to be a correct constitutional procedure?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is a very interesting question-


Mr. Speaker:: Once again I am very grateful to the hon. Member for sending me notice of this question and for giving me an opportunity to bring to his attention citation 171(m) of Beauchesne which points out that-
A question oral or written must not:
(m) ask solution of a legal proposition, such as interpretation of a Statute, a Minister's own powers, etc.
I suggest that in the circumstances the hon. Member should rephrase his question because in its present form it is out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all respect, could I ask a supplemental question in proper form? Has the Minister received a legal opinion with respect to this question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have not, but I will inquire of the Secretary of State, when he returns, whether he has received one.



HAL BANKS-RETENTION OF OFFICE IN SEAFARERS CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Is he prepared to table in the House documents to show that Mr. Banks is no longer President of the S.I.U. Builders Corporation Ltd. and bring the record of the Secretary of State up to date, to show the veracity of the statement he made on Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for the

DEBATES	June 8, 1965
records kept in the Companies Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your trustees are.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and whatever is in those records is quite irrelevant to the point at issue. But I will be quite happy to table now, with the consent of the House, a copy of a letter from His Honour Judge Lippe confirming the facts which I gave to the House on Friday last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he now in a position to provide what he termed an adequate reply to the question I posed several days ago concerning Nova Scotia coal interests?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. Member asked me on June 3 a question regarding the interdepartmental committee on the Cape Breton coal situation and I confirmed that I have some responsibility in this respect.
The interdepartmental committee has been engaging itself for some time in a study of this question and we have decided that in order to make the necessary progress and to reach a quicker conclusion it was desirable to obtain some outside help. Accordingly the Government has retained the services of Dr. Ritchie Donald of J. R. Donald and Associates of Montreal who will advise me and the interdepartmental committee, and will be in touch with the Government of Nova Scotia as well as with the Dominion Coal Company and other interested bodies. Dr. Donald will be in Halifax this week where he will be meeting with Premier Stanfield and the provincial committee. He will then go to Sydney where he will be having discussions with Lord Robens and his associates.


Robert Muir: May I ask the Minister if he could suggest how long it may take Dr. Donald to finish his studies?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have given him instructions that we would like to have a report as
June 8, 1965	COMMONS
quickly as possible, consistent with an adequate study of this very complicated problem.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: As there is no opportunity in the course of the debate regarding the rules to ask any questions, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in the interest of getting on with the business of the House he would be prepared to divide item No. 14 on the order paper and place Standing Order 15-A as to be amended before a committee of the House for the fullest possible consideration regarding the principles which ought to apply in connection with the guillotine. If this were done there would be no hold-up whatsoever, because the rest of item No. 14 is acceptable; and in so far as No. 15 is concerned our attitude would be one of almost complete co-operation, except to advance an argument regarding the length of the question period.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the House leaders could meet and come to an agreement in regard to a date for a final disposition of these two resolutions, say by the end of this week, then I think consideration could be given to a division along the lines suggested by the right hon. gentleman. If there could be agreement on such a division, coupled with a date on which a final vote could be taken on the rest of the resolution, perhaps that could be discussed.


John George Diefenbaker: If I might reply to the Prime Minister, an opportunity not being given to bring this matter up in the debate, if that be so, why wait until Friday? Why not do it today? Let us agree on that now, and in that way, in a spirit of co-operation- and this is advanced in that spirit-we would be able to do it today instead of doing it on Friday. No one wants to continue debate until Friday if such an arrangement as the Prime Minister suggested could be achieved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the right hon. gentleman
and the other party leaders agree that these two resolutions in their present form could
be disposed of by Friday, then I think we could agree now to make the division which he suggests.
DEBATES	2099
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: And that would apply, then, if this agreement could be made today, so we could get right on. It makes a great difference in the arguments advanced. If we are trying to save the time of the House, while at the same time preserving the legitimate cause of objection which we have, why wait; why not do it today, instead of waiting until Friday and continuing debate at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not suggesting we wait until Friday. I am suggesting that if we could agree now on an order of the House by which these resolutions would be disposed of before Friday, then we could agree at once to a division along the lines suggested by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, our party is ready to accept the suggestion made just now by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want as an individual Member to register a protest against the fact that this matter was raised in this way. With all due respect to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition as officers of this House, it seems to me that it brings into contempt our rules when we have a resolution before us and arrangements are settled and bargained for in this way. I just feel that it has to be brought to your attention, and I think you should not have permitted this particular exchange.


Mr. Starr:: That is nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say in reply that the hon. Member is speaking after the fact. One has to at least listen to the previous statements before he can reach a conclusion; and if in order to assist the business of the House we could have reached a solution in the last two or three minutes, it would have been of great material advantage, it seems to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, lest there be any question or suggestion raised that the Prime Minister and I had any communication of this kind, let me say we did not. But I think each of us is trying to bring about an arrangement
June 8, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry that will preserve Parliament. That was the reason I made the suggestion, in the interests of assuring parliamentary procedure being maintained, while at the same time not carrying on an unnecessary debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: You are out of order. You had better check with your deputy leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If any agreement is made among the House Leaders along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister, should not provision be made for the amount of time that is to be devoted to No. 14 and the amount of time to be devoted to No. 15? Does the Prime Minister not realize that if there is passed the kind of order of the House that he suggested, we might spend all week on Order No. 14 and have no chance to deal with Order No. 15?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I should say at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that there was no corridor collusion between the right hon. gentleman and myself. In order to be helpful I did suggest that perhaps the house leaders could meet-and perhaps they could meet immediately-so there would be an arrangement among all the parties while the first speech is going on and the debate resumed, and at the end of that speech perhaps the house leaders could come back with an agreed solution to this problem along the lines suggested.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us do it now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether at any time he has had a clear and complete representation respecting the amendments for which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking. It appears that they are asking only to split resolution No. 14, and I think before this House Leaders' meeting gets under way we ought to have from the right hon. Leader of the Opposition clear and complete detail as to all the amendments and conditions that will be necessary, so that we do not have them being raised one at a time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house leader for the Official Opposition could make that clear at the meeting, which could take place immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at some of the monkey wrenches that are being thrown into the system which I have suggested, which would be efficient, and has been accepted so wholeheartedly by the Prime Minister.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of a report by Victor Mackie in the Winnipeg Free Press a few day ago to the effect that insistence by the Canadian Government that there must be a route for a Canadian air carrier between Winnipeg and Minneapolis, and perhaps Chicago, has been one of the main reasons for the air talks between this country and the United States being stalled, can the Minister give a statement to the House as to what progress is being made in these talks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member knows as well as any other hon. Member in this House that it is contrary to the rules to ask for or give confirmation of news reports. I have told the House repeatedly that we have made an agreement with the United States that we would not talk about the details of these negotiations till they were completed, and I intend to keep my word.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I wonder whether I could reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North concerning the pension plan of the Canadian National. The hon. gentleman asked me a rather lengthy question, which I will not repeat; but as I did not have the information yesterday, and because of a certain implication in the question, I think I should make an answer today. While the C.N.R. is engaged at the present time in discussions with the Government about the adjustment of its own pension plan and its integration with the Canada Pension Plan, there is no proposal whatever for any drastic re-
June 8, 1965

duction as suggested by the hon. gentleman. In order to remove any fears of that kind I thought I ought to make that clear today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is one of the points being considered by Canadian National Railways and the Government the question of raising the pension factor from what it is now to U per cent, as it is now after the first 30 years of service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the Executive is responsible to Parliament for what it does, not for what it is thinking about. Until the discussions are concluded and I can make a definite statement, I think there would be less misunderstanding in the country if I did not speculate as to what might eventually be arrived at.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY REQUESTED REMOVAL OF UNSATISFACTORY PORTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the disgraceful and inadequate conditions of Highway No. 17 west of the capital of Canada, and in view of the fact that that highway bears the proud Maple Leaf designating it a section of the trans-Canada highway, is the Minister considering removing those disgraceful sections of it which are known as part of the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Speaker:: While this is very interesting, it could easily be put on the order paper.


John James Greene: I should like to debate this question at ten o'clock.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bell.
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House;
and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, 22620-1341
House of Commons Procedures
this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1. (a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-four members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these orders, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
* 2. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read -as follows;
Standing Order 15-A
' 15-A. (I) 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.
[DOT]	(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
June 8, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures
have the same effect as if it were an order of the
House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
(9)	The term "allocation of time", wherever used in this Standing Order, may include the allotting of time to any item of business, to any stage thereof, or to any part thereof, and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches.
3. That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Mr. G. L. Chalierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a lew remarks to make in addition to my comments last night on the adjournment. I hope that the committee of the leaders of the various parties which is now meeting will come back very shortly and report success. I might say that the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) indicates our anxiety and wish to get the business of the House moving.
Last night I said I supported the amendment made by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). His amendment is to the effect that the motion that a Minister may make to allocate time would have to be approved by 60 per cent of the Members in the House. It is all very well to say that in a democracy the majority rules, but to me it is a perversion of democracy when a majority can close off debate by a substantial minority in any group. I might point out

that if all the Conservative Members of this House voted against such a motion by a Minister there would not be enough Members to defeat the motion. So even the approval of such motion by 60 per cent of the Members in the House is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent, but it would at least offer a certain measure of safeguard for the protection of a very large minority. At the same time it would ensure that a very small minority could not delay indefinitely the decision of the House.
Last night I suggested to the Government a measure which they might consider to amend the guillotine proposal. My suggestion was that the allocation of time shall not become operative or effective until the bill or the matter under discussion had been referred to a standing or special committee of the House and such committee had reported back to the House. Since that time the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) has pointed out to me that this might raise a difficulty in that the matter would have to be referred to such committee before second reading had been given in the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my suggestion now is slightly modified in that the limitation of time as to the committee stage, which is two days, and the limitation of time on third reading, which is one day as a minimum, shall not become operative or applicable unless the subject matter of the bill has been referred to a standing or special committee and such committee has reported back to the House. That would mean that the Government could apply a two day limitation on second reading, but the limitation at the committee stage and on third reading could not become effective until the standing or special committee of the House had reported.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
My proposal would overcome two objections. In the first place, as I now read clause 2, subclause 2 of Government Order No. 14, a Minister could move an allocation of time even before the Members of this House had seen a bill. As a matter of fact, as I read the wording of this subclause a Minister could move an allocation of time at any stage, perhaps even before a resolution appeared on the order paper.
In order to obviate that possibility, it seems to me that subclause 2 of clause 2 should at least refer to an item of business standing on the order paper; but even if that reference was made, a Minister, while not able to make a motion for the allocation of time unless the
June 8, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	2103
subject matter had been placed on the order paper, could move such an allocation of time during the resolution stage. In other words, there could be an allocation of five days for a debate before any Member of the Opposition had an opportunity of seeing the bill. My suggestion would overcome that possibility. I realize that it is not very likely any Government in the future would so abuse the rules as to do that kind of thing, but the mere fact that it is possible should give concern to Members of this House.
The second effect of my proposal would be to overcome the objections of many Members who are afraid that at some time in the future a Government could rush a bill through this House without the opportunity for adequate scrutiny or investigation. If we are given the assurance that a standing or special committee of the House will have ample time to give thorough examination to a measure, then there would perhaps be some justification, though in my opinion not adequate justification, for a limitation of time on debate in the House following receipt of the report of that standing or special committee.
As I stated last evening, using the Canada Pension Plan, that complicated measure, as an example, under these rules it would be possible that the total amount of time available to this House for consideration of it, apart from the one day which is now allowed at the resolution stage, would be five days. Even if the standing or special committee had considered the question, the five day limitation would be possible, but at least there would be some assurance of an opportunity for thorough examination and scrutiny of a bill.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the objections raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) about the 60 per cent amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), I take it the Government will not accept my suggestion, but I do ask the Government to give it serious consideration because I feel that although it will not completely remove the danger of abuse by the use of the guillotine proposal, it would remove to some extent its adverse effects.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at once that the remarks I am about to make would be considerably different, had the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) not accepted the suggestion I made in good faith in that same spirit.
House of Commons Procedures
I think during this debate Parliament has been most effective, but it would have been preferable, as has been stated, had we been able to consider this question in committee, so that in a community of discussion we would have been able to arrive at decisions in keeping with Parliament, and with the assurance that this great institution, now 700 years of age, would be carried on in the tradition of its greatness and its grandeur throughout succeeding generations, not only in Great Britain, but in the various parts of the Commonwealth that have followed the parliamentary system.
I say at once that the speeches that have been made have been unusually well prepared and thoroughly considered before delivery. An example of the type of speech we have heard is that of the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) who, in the suggestion he made today, exemplified the study he has made of this problem. What we have been trying to do is assure that parliament shall be effective without at the same time emasculating this institution. Naturally, there has been division of opinion. As I said a moment ago, it has been striking, in the comprehensiveness of the discussion that has taken place, that this debate has caused hon. Members generally in all parts of the House to make a study of parliament as an institution, for everywhere within the Commonwealth today there are criticisms of parliament, and there are many who claim that it does not operate with the effectiveness that it should operate. That criticism, however, has been answered over and over again. It was answered on one occasion by the greatest parliamentarian of our time, if not in all British history, and I refer to Sir Winston Churchill who set out in detail, on one occasion in the House of Commons, his conception of parliament and what it means.
Parliament is not measured by the number of statutes that are passed. Parliament is not a sausage machine into which is poured material by parliament and out of which, finally, after a couple of turns flows the output. It is nothing of the kind. Parliament is an institution which is effective, not in the amount of legislation it passes, but in the care and attention it gives to that legislation for the maintenance of freedom.
I criticize no one when I say that many of the speeches made by hon. Members, not on the front benches but the back benches, have not got through to the Canadian people. In
June 8. 1965

House of Commons Procedures other words, the people do not know the nature of the arguments that have been made. [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This is a serious matter. Hon. Members know that my attitude through the years has been that it would not be beneficial to parliament to broadcast, either by radio or television, a portion of each day's sitting. However, I am beginning to come to the point where I believe that this would be the course of reason, and the only way in which Canadians as a whole will be able to appreciate parliament, its mission, and the manner in which it discharges its responsibilities. This is a tremendous change in my thinking. It has come about because I believe that we will never make parliament effective by simply changing the rules. I think that is generally acceptable. I think of a speech delivered in this House by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) in 1963. I had intended to refer to that in some detail, but I will do no more than say that he, as a parliamentarian who understands parliament, expressed it as his view that a mere change of the rules would not bring about efficiency or a change in the general attitude of parliament. With that, I agree.
I mentioned broadcasting a moment ago. In the Province of Saskatchewan when the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-I always find it difficult to remember the constituency since I think only of the Member himself- was premier, they brought about radio broadcasts. I was not one who believed they would be beneficial. I think they have been. In Australia the matter is receiving consideration as to its continuance. The Australian radio industry is convinced that radio has made a comeback in the face of the challenge of television. The Prime Minister of Australia, Right Hon. Sir Robert Menzies, one of the great parliamentarians of the Commonwealth and a man who is cast in the mould of Churchill, Sheridan and Fox, has stated that radio broadcasting has not been beneficial in one particular, namely in the art of parliamentary debate. He believes that too often when Members are speaking with the radio before them during a broadcast, they forget the intimacy of the House of Commons and think only of the presence of their constituents far removed from parliament. However, I am coming to the conclusion that parliament can be made more effective if Canadians as a whole know more about it and its operations. I would welcome consideration by this House of broadcasting a portion of the daily sitting by radio, and also by television, provided it was in the

nature of an experiment. It is the only way I can see whereby young men and women in this House, new Members, can be projected to the people of Canada directly.
There is nothing more discouraging, and I have gone through it as a backbencher- there is no backbencher here who has not gone through it-than having prepared a most careful and thoughtful speech, and then find no reference to it in the press. Naturally, being human, one looks the next day in the press to determine the degree to which it has made an impact, only to find there is no reference whatever to the speech. I repeat what I have said on other occasions. Some elements of the press, and I think of the Toronto Globe and Mail, have gone a considerable distance toward providing a picture of parliament. However, no newspaper in our country has begun to approach the daily reports in the London Times which make parliament live. No one objects if there is a reference to his speech, but there is nothing more discouraging to the young Member of Pariament, and to the older ones who are backbenchers, than having burned the midnight oil only to find there is no reference to anything he said during the course of his speech. It is because of that I am turning more and more to the need of parliament to give consideration to allowing other media the privileges that they receive in other countries. I should like to see how it would work out. This is what we are here for to make this institution live.
During the last few weeks I have been reading, particularly and in detail, about the period from 1200 to 1350, the beginnings of Parliament as they were undertaken within a country in the British tradition. Throughout the years I have studied parliament. No one can be effective unless he understands the great history of this institution. At all times we, as parliamentarians, must guard against shortcuts, guard against the god of efficiency which from time to time raises its head in this institution. Shortcuts too often deny freedom. William Pitt summed up the situation, and I know the Prime Minister agrees because in his opening speech he dealt in a most philosophical way with the problem of parliament. Pitt said:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of the tyrant; it is the creed of slaves.
* (4:00 p.m.)
That is why we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have been most carefully examining the suggestions made by the Government. We have not done so in a partisan
June 8, 1965

way. Sometimes I read that I am opposed to changes in Parliament. Nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker. But I do not want changes made for the sake of change or for shortcuts the bureaucrats want; rather, I want changes that will maintain the mission and the greatness of this institution.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for answering the argument that I am a reactionary in this regard. In fact I can do no better than quote his words, as recorded at page 1480 of Hansard for May 19, the opening day of this debate, when he referred to extending the time of the House by working during the dinner hour:
I must acknowledge again, Mr. Speaker, that this important proposal to increase the sitting time of the House was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Next he went on to quote my words in this regard and stated that his purpose in pointing out three suggestions that the Government had accepted was that he was trying to be very non-partisan and to associate the Leader of the Opposition with these proposals in order to acknowledge his paternity for some of them. Well, this is one kind of putative paternity that I have no objection to having ascribed to me, and I want to thank the Prime Minister for speaking in such authoritative tones.
Then he went on to quote my words as follows:
As far as questions are concerned, it is not for me to suggest, but I think that the number of these questions could be greatly reduced: and if we were also to have a self-denying ordinance that, under ordinary circumstances, we would not go over half an hour on questions before orders of the day we would save 15 full days in an ordinary session without, as I see it, losing any ground that might be gained through questions or in any way interfering with the rights of the Opposition.
These are changes I want to see made. So far as the question period is concerned, we are not always consistent in our views and I would hope the Prime Minister, in that spirit of co-operation which was displayed today, would agree that on one day a week the question period should be extended to an hour.
The attitude taken by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been to endeavour to bring about agreement. As I said today in the question that I asked and in the subsequent discussion between the Prime Minister and myself, we are in agreement with most of the ideas that are still on the order paper but we still take a strong stand against this new
House of Commons Procedures form of closure that masquerades under the guise of being an allocation of time.
But I say to the Prime Minister that, as a result of parliamentary discussion and the spirit of give and take, the degree to which we have been able to agree has been quite amazing. The attitude of the Prime Minister in this regard has fully exemplified the responsibilities of his position and I, as the other officer of Parliament, have tried to reciprocate equally the spirit of give and take to the end that through discussion we will preserve this institution while extending and expanding its effectiveness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the question period is concerned, I have said and I repeat that if we get answers to the questions on the order paper without having to wait weeks and months many of the questions that today are advanced as of immediate moment would not be asked, and if the answers given are straightforward answers much time would be saved. I am thinking of a recent example to which I intend to make extended reference later. Recently I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) whether in effect the Government is contemplating changing the social security card to remove the Coat of Arms with its Crown, unicorn and the like and substitute a maple leaf. After a great deal of difficulty I was finally able to secure an answer that while the Government had not made a decision the matter was being looked into. Parliament has a right to say whether or not that change should be made. It should not be made behind closed doors just because there are some people who object to the Crown within this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a matter that should not be decided by the desires or predilections of people who are forever casting aspersions on our British connection. The answer that was given had to be pried out, which should not be necessary.
Another thing I want to mention is something that is becoming almost a disease. Whenever we ask for the production of papers and it would be embarrassing to the Government to produce them, immediately there is recourse to the formula, "Let us transfer this for debate". This formula has been used throughout the years but it is simply a subterfuge to deny Parliament information, or to prevent the public knowing that what has
June 8, 196S

House of Commons Procedures been asked for has been denied by vote of the House.
As I said a moment ago, we must realize that Parliament is subject to criticism. Sometimes people tell me how different it is in the British House of Commons. I am going to add to the examples I gave in my earlier remarks to show that these things happen over there too. As recently as May 27 it was reported that the previous day, when a member was speaking in the British House, Mr. Speaker finally said:
There must be less noise. Members should remember the great privilege of being here and therefore allowed to listen to arguments with which they do not agree, e (4:10 p.m.)
There is not a week goes by that there are not articles on this subject. The Observer of May 2 carried an article entitled "Poor Old Parliament". Parliament is criticized, it says. Parliament must be renewed. Other institutions cannot be modernized if facilities for criticizing and planning are not modernized. As a reason why Parliament is not working the writer says that too much has been taken out of politics; in other words, too much has been given to bureaucrats to determine. I think there should be a full study made in Parliament of the whole problem of bureaucracy.
As I said a moment ago, we are not here to turn out legislation; we are here to preserve freedom. The other day we had an example. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) was asked a question a week ago Friday by the hon. Member for York-Hum-ber (Mr. Cowan). He was asked whether he would consider terminating a practice which has existed for hundreds of years by providing that the names of accused persons should not be mentioned during trial before conviction. All over this country a howl went up. I was shocked by the suggestion. I asked about the matter immediately. Then on Monday the Prime Minister found it necessary, because of the tremendous feeling that had been aroused in all parts of the country, to rise and say in effect that the Minister of Justice had not said at all what he had said, that if he had said what he had said he did not mean it, and if he did mean it the Government did not intend to act on it. This shows the power of publicity. Every newspaper across this country with, I think, one exception took the stand which I had taken, namely, that to follow the course suggested would be a denial of freedom. That is the purpose of Parliament, to preserve freedom.


Guy Favreau: May I put a short question to the right hon. gentleman? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is not inferring that I suggested that course?


John George Diefenbaker: No. The suggestion came from the hon. Member for York-Humber and the Minister, without thinking, I am sure, fell into an answer which was anything but appropriate. No, he did not make the suggestion at all. Let that be clear. But it was only as a result of publicity that this announcement found its way into the limbo of forgotten things. In other words, Parliament is freedom's cathedral. I will quote what Churchill said in this regard.
This House is not only a machine for legislation, it is a great forum of debate, and the process of legislation is not necessarily smooth because it is rapid or violent. The House ought to have the opportunity of moulding and shaping the laws which afterwards have to be obeyed by the people. The people give their obedience to the laws of this country to an extent remarkable, almost renowned. The people are renowned for their obedience to law, but that is because the law comes to them from a Parliament which they themselves have chosen, and because it is believed that all views have had a fair chance of expression in that Parliament, that the minority as well as the majority have been able to put their hand upon the legislative proposals. While the Government of the day naturally carry their own program, the legislation which emerges from our discussions is not simply party legislation, but legislation which bears the stamp of Parliamentary influence.
Also, the House has a function not merely of passing the bills, but of stopping bad bills from passing.
I emphasize that very strongly. It often takes several days discussion before we begin to realize the great weakness of some of the legislation which is introduced. This was the attitude taken by Sir Winston in 1945. He said:
I am most anxious that that process of general discussion should be widened. If the House is not able to discuss matters which the country is discussing, which fill all the newspapers, which every one is anxious and preoccupied about, it loses its contact, it is no longer marching step by step with all the thought that is in progress in the country. Therefore, we should save as much time as we can from routine matters, for the purpose of enabling large debates to take place.
I have strong objection to this allocation of time proposal, this limitation to be imposed by the Government after there has been disagreement in the committee. Take a proposition such as this as an example. We always choose something that is striking when we are looking for an example. Suppose this Government were to decide that Canada was to become a republic and suppose it had in the second Chamber appointees
June 8, 1965

who were of the same view. Even though many of us stood against it, the proposition could be put through in a maximum of three days if these rules were in effect.


An hon. Member:: Six days.


John George Diefenbaker: It may save time if we pass rules which would bring about the throttling of Parliament in this way but they should certainly not be applied in order to prevent debates on great subjects of national interest.
I can point out another example, and I shall not enter into detail. It is in connection with a measure now before the Government, according to information from the press. It concerns an Address from the legislature of Quebec which it has been requested be transmitted to Her Majesty the Queen. It is an Address which would trim the wings of the second Chamber, the legislative Council of Quebec. I am not arguing the question whether or not there should be a second Chamber. The constitution provides that the Legislature of Quebec consists of the Queen, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. Apparently as far back as February Mr. Lesage, according to what he says, was anxious to have an agreement with the Federal Government that whatever Address might be passed by the Legislature would be forwarded to the Queen with a recommendation of acceptance by the Government of Canada.
I say to you, Sir, that this is something that should be debated in this House. How can the Government of Canada maintain that the Legislature of Quebec, which alone has the power to amend the Constitution in so far as Quebec is concerned, does not, as the British North America Act says, consist of the Queen, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly? How can the Government of Canada, whatever undertakings or promises it may have given to Mr. Lesage, circumvent the Constitution and place Her Majesty in the centre of political controversy? [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That is something that should be guarded against. It is because of this that I say to the Prime Minister-I am not going to argue the case at the moment; I hope the opportunity will come in a day or so-that to pass on that Address from the Legislative Assembly of Quebec to amend the Constitution of Quebec is, in the face of the British North America Act, a course that cannot but bring Her Majesty into the political arena and it is 22620-135

House of Commons Procedures one that is not in keeping with the responsibilities of the Government of Canada.
This is something that deserves to be discussed here, for certainly if you accept that proposition we could abolish the Senate or trim its powers by a simple vote of the House of Commons of Canada, with the Government of Canada through its Prime Minister advising the Queen that an amendment to the Constitution should take place in the United Kingdom. It is dangerous doctrine to say that you are going to accept the viewpoint of one-third of the elements of the Legislature of Quebec. To do so will go contrary to every principle in this regard. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the discussions that took place in 1868 when Nova Scotia decided that it wanted to secede or in 1898 when the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia decided to trim the powers of the Legislative Council which Nova Scotia had at that time, it will be seen that the authorities in London said, "This course we will not accept", while not going into particulars as to the reason for the non-acceptance. Let me point out, however, that when the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia was finally abolished in 1928, I think it was, both Houses joined in the Address. Then, of course, the Address could be passed on to the Sovereign as representing the viewpoint of that Province.
This is a question that cannot be laughed off. If we in this Parliament condone the action of the Government in carrying out a promise which the Premier of Quebec says he got in writing on March 11, namely, that whatever Address was passed by the Legislative Assembly would be passed on to the Sovereign with the recommendation of the Government, then we will have struck a tremendous blow at the Constitution. We know what the reason is for this; it is because Premier Lesage has stated that if they wait until the amendment of the Constitution goes through-the Fulton-Favreau formula-they will never be able to trim the wings of the Legislative Council. This is a matter deserving of the consideration of this Parliament, for to accept the proposition now advanced would be indeed to strike a body blow at the sacrosanct nature of the British North America Act.
There is one other matter that ought to be referred to and that is the question of the Speakership. I was not the one who suggested a permanent Speaker, although some have asked me what I mean by a "permanent Speaker". I borrowed the word "permanent" from the Prime Minister. It was he who
June 8. 1965

House of Covimons Procedures raised this question in his original speech; he said that the question of a Speaker having permanency was of importance. I followed in using the expression and advocated the need of this being done. I press it again. I am not being provocative at the moment but we have had the experience of a Speaker who became the puppet and the robot of the Government in power in 1956 and we are afraid to place in the hands of a non-independent Speaker the exercise of the powers that are inherent in the limitation of time for discussion principle. That is why I think we should not run away from the question of a permanent Speaker.
I suggested His Honour who today occupies the Chair. There will be the start. How would we do it? Well, Mr. Speaker, we cannot bind subsequent Parliaments but we can make a gentlemen's agreement as they do in the United Kingdom. I notice that Your Honour, who is occupying the Chair temporarily, points to yourself. If it were not for your innate modesty I might join you in the company of those who might be recommended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We have a Speaker. From what has been said he is universally honoured in this House. Is this not the time to start along this course? The Prime Minister mentioned his alternatives, one of whom was Hon. Roland Michener. He is not here-


An hon. Member:: He is here today.


John George Diefenbaker: -and would have to be elected to Parliament. Mention was also made of the Deputy Speaker. He eliminated himself in a speech in Cornwall in which he said he did not want anything to do with being a permanent Speaker whom he interpreted to be a kind of permanent civil servant. There was no such suggestion at any time, but he eliminated himself as not being interested. I come back to this, that if we want to make this House effective let us start by having a permanent Speaker.
I mentioned a moment ago that the Prime Minister himself had used that expression and I am sure he recalls having done so when he first brought the matter before the House. Let us do the job. Let the committee composed of the various House leaders make this recommendation. Then we would be in a position to know whether or not His Honour would accept. Up to the present time he has given no indication. And that is proper; he should not give any indication. A

Speaker does not ask for the appointment; indeed, the whole essence of the appointment of a Speaker is that he does not want it. That is why when finally the House accepts his name we push him into the Chair. We do so because there was a time, Mr. Speaker, when occupying the Chair was not one of those positions that was universally desired, for too often the paths of glory led but to the grave. This is the reason. I come back to this, Mr. Speaker, and say that I hope the Government will act in this regard. Do not let us postpone this question. We are all in agreement at the moment on the need of this being done. Let us not pass it off until after the next election.
There are other questions I might have dealt with but what I rose to do today was simply this. I rose to repeat our desire, to repeat my desire, that we make this an effective House. The hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said that the matter should not be discussed. I have quite an admiration for the duality of his capacity from day to day. He sits on Mount Olympus and in the press determines the relative position, capacity and ability of every Member of this House.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Churchill:: Except himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman that it is given to few of us to be so high that we can look down on others and point out their weaknesses and then determine their qualifications by numbers. So far as other Members of the House are concerned, we receive daily treatment in this regard. No other Member of the press can do it because there is none so close to us. The others look down to us from above; he is on our level. Therefore he is able to speak with that detachment which comes from knowledge and wisdom. He took the view that we should not be discussing this question but that view was not generally held, and I think rightly so.
I hope we will be able to bring about agreement, the signs of which have been so apparent during the entire discussions that have taken place here. But do not think that these changes are going to bring about the millenium. I again repeat what the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) said in 1963, that changing the rules will not do it and that reducing the period of time in which each member speaks will not do it. It is a difficult Parliament with a multitude of parties, and with several of them endeavouring to be
June 8, 19G5

placed on an equality with Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition it is difficult to bring about agreement. Are we going to be more effective? I hope so. Some of these changes will be tremendously beneficial. They were born with the midwives from all parts of the House making their contribution.
As to the change respecting which there is disagreement, I hope that a committee of House Leaders or a Committee of the House will be able to go into the matter more fully than we can and that, they can come up with an alternative that will assure the preservation of the right of Members to express themselves on great issues and not to be placed in hobbles whenever the Government fears that discussion may be weakening to the position it has taken.
So far as examination of estimates in Committee is concerned, I can only say that no one can tell me that we are going to be able to discharge in 36 days the major responsibility we have of preserving and maintaining the financial responsibility of the Government. In looking into the estimates of this country we would have to examine them at a rate of $50 million an hour. We are not expected to look at the general picture but what we are expected to do is to look into those items which we believe deserve examination. In following what has been the experience in the United Kingdom we do not cover the whole ambit, as it were, and thereby dissipate our energies on unnecessary words or fatuous examination.
I conclude, Sir, by expressing my appreciation of the attitude taken by the Government in accepting various amendments or ideas advanced by the Opposition. That is the proper spirit in which to act, not by threatening an election every now and then in order to browbeat and bulldoze. We should act in a spirit of endeavouring to come to an agreement, not for this side of the House or for that side of the House but for Canada. That has been the attitude in general.
I could have made a very different speech today had not the Prime Minister shown this attitude, and it is in the same spirit that I have spoken. This place is the only location where freedom is maintained, conserved and assured, and we want to preserve that freedom by maintaining the greatness of those things of the past while at the same time making the changes which are necessary in order to assure that the institution shall not perish because of our failure to go forward with the times. However, we must at the same time demand that the changes shall 22620-1355
House of Commons Procedures be made not by way of experiment as to what may happen but based on experience as to what does happen and has happened in various countries of the world, because in some, as a result of alterations in the rules, parliamentary institutions have simply become the instrument to turn out what the Government then in power desires and demands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is just semantics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman suggests that it is semantics to change the requirements in the constitution of a simple majority to a 60 per cent majority vote but I suggest it is a little more than semantics.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You could have more than half or a two-thirds majority and-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this is a little more than semantics, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. friend also quite rightly stressed the impor-
June 8, 1865

House of Commons Procedures tant role of this House and this Parliament in preserving our constitution against unconstitutional change, even if that change is attempted by a provincial Government and its elected Members in respect of a matter which concerns the province alone. As my non. friend has said, undoubtedly we will have an opportunity to discuss this matter. He made a very interesting reference to the occasion when the province of Nova Scotia attempted by an Address to alter the form of the constitution of that province by doing away with the second chamber. That Address was rejected by the Government at Westminster. That Address, however, was not even submitted to the Federal Government, let alone to the Federal Parliament, but went straight from the Governor General to Westminster. But this is a complicated matter and we will undoubtedly have an opportunity to discuss it later.
The right hon. gentleman mentioned again the question of a permanent Speakership. He attributed to me the use of that phrase "permanent Speaker". Undoubtedly, although I have used that phrase in the past, I think it is not a very accurate way of describing what we have in mind when we discuss a change in the office of the Speaker. Because, as my hon. friend pointed out, no Parliament can bind a subsequent Parliament and it is impossible by action of this Parliament to establish a Speaker from one Parliament to another. It would be possible, if Parliament so desired and if the circumstances made it possible, to agree by party action not to oppose the Speaker in a general election, and thereby to bring about a continuing Speakership. That is all I am going to say about that matter, important as it is, because I agree with the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that it is time to stop talking about this matter in terms of personalities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The opportunity undoubtedly will arise for discussions to take place in an attempt to ascertain whether a change of this kind can be brought about by agreement and perhaps we can also agree as to the way in which it can be brought about, but I propose to leave the subject at that.
I agree with what my right hon. friend has said, as I have already mentioned, about the importance of preserving our Parliamentary institutions. I am sure there is no difference of opinion on the part of any hon. Member of this House with regard to

strengthening and preserving our Parliamentary institutions as the very core of our democratic system. I anticipate being in London next week and I notice that in the proposals for the Prime Ministers' Conference- these are off and not on the agenda-[DOT] there are two ceremonies which have very real significance to this Parliament. At Westminster Hall, which is the very cradle of the Parliamentary system, at the Guildhall, which has also made its contribution to that system, there will be a commemoration of the 700th anniversary of Parliament. At Westminster Hall, if that was the first, and it has now officially been decided that it was the first, a Parliament was held 700 years ago by the Father of Parliament, whom we have now decided was Simon de Montfort. Incidentally, he was a French speaking Parliamentarian and all the speeches in the English Parliament for many generations afterwards were conducted in French.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In Norman French.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is an interesting indication of the depth of our Parliamentary roots and the importance of our Parliamentary traditions today, as well as their value in these times of change in the world, change which is not always peaceful. It is also an indication of the importance of preserving and strengthening our Parliamentary roots and traditions and those functions which we have been discussing, and the value of maintaining and strengthening our Parliamentary rights.
The hon. gentleman said, and I paraphrase his remarks I hope correctly, that it is not primarily our responsibility to work here to turn out legislation but to preserve freedom. Undoubtedly it is a major responsibility of Parliament to preserve freedom, freedom of our democratic institutions and freedom of individuals whom we represent. When the right hon. gentleman talked about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), and I am not complaining about what he said for one moment, let me state that the Minister of Justice had in mind the reconciliation of one freedom with the other, the freedom of the press as an institution with the freedom of the individual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If anyone does not appreciate the importance of that freedom, perhaps he should read the editorial page of the Globe and Mail of today which explains how complicated this whole situation is. It is our job,
June 8- 1965	COMMONS
our work and responsibility to preserve freedom, but it is also our responsibility to pass legislation, to make proposals and to put them into operation. Somehow Parliament has to reconcile these things, its function as the preserver of freedom and its function as the producer of legislation, in a way which will make the freedom of our country and the freedom of the individual effective in terms of the day in which we live.
What we are attempting by the proposals before us dealing with procedure and rules is to make Parliament more effective in its legislative function without prejudicing in any way its responsibility to preserve other freedoms through discussion in this House; and discussion is the basis of freedom. That is what we have in mind on all sides of the House in the discussions we have been having as to how to preserve and strengthen Parliament and how to provide for adequate and effective decision. That is what we have had in mind when we have been discussing provision for talk, and for relating that talk eventually to action; and how to adapt our procedure to the action required by changing needs and changing circumstances.
We have often reminded ourselves in this House that 50 years ago the problem of the Government was to find enough legislation to keep Members here for two or three months. Sir John A. Macdonald often worried about how to get enough work to do so he would be here for six weeks. This is a problem that does not seem to worry me very much at the present time.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: In 1904 they had the longest session in history except ours in 1964.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was a very special situation, but normally it was not a full time occupation. Governments did not have to worry too much about the time required to get their legislative programs through. This certainly is a major preoccupation for any Government now, to get time in Parliament to deal with the things that should be done.
In this House, Mr. Speaker, we are asked on this side, as we should be asked: When are you going to do this? When are you going to bring in that? What is your policy on this? It is a major problem now to reconcile full and free discussion with the necessity for quick and effective action in respect of at least some major matters that should come before this House. I agree with my right hon. friend and with others who have spoken in
DEBATES	2111
House of Commons Procedures this debate that we are not going to make Parliament effective necessarily by changing the rules. That will not be enough. It is the spirit behind the rules that is more important than the rules themselves. No matter how much we may change the rules in the hope that they will make Parliament more effective, there will always be those, if they have the desire, who can use the rules for purposes which others will call blocking and delaying.
While new rules themselves will not be enough, out of date rules will certainly make it far more difficult for us to do the things we want to do. We do have an obligation to try to bring our rules into line with the needs and requirements of the times. This is what is behind these two resolutions. My right hon. friend talks about the importance of strengthening the prestige and position of Parliament in the public mind. Of course this is important. I think that we, as Parliamentarians, do have a kind of trade union feeling amongst ourselves when we face the world. We all agree that something should be done in this connection to improve the position-I believe the jargon is the image-of Parliament. How fine it would be if we could get what we consider to be the right kind of reflection of what we are trying to do here, in the press, radio and television.
It is natural that our activities will get the most publicity when they can be interpreted in terms of excitement and conflict. This applies to every institution of which I have any knowledge, national or international. Go down to the United Nations Assembly and you will find you will get more publicity if you make a speech which is interpreted in terms of conflict, especially in terms of cold war conflict. It will get the headlines. Down the hall there may be a committee which is dealing with Viet Nam or Santo Domingo and it will have all the newspapermen, radio men and television men cluttered around giving that committee all the publicity they can. Another committee may be discussing ways of getting more grain to grow in Afghanistan, which will mean the difference between life and death for a lot of people, and there will be no publicity given to it. So, this must be our fate in this House when we are making these learned, quiet, constructive speeches. We do not get as much publicity as if we got into a row with people on the other side.
I do not know what we can do about this except, perhaps, as the hon. gentleman said, to consider an experiment in televising our proceedings. I was interested in his observa-
June 8, 1965

House of Commons Procedures tions on this matter and in noting he was at least moving toward a position where perhaps it would be worth while to try this as an experiment. I do not know of any legislative assembly in the world-I do not pretend to have a very full knowledge of this matter-except the Australian legislature where proceedings are reported over the radio.


An hon. Member:: And the United Nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the United Nations and perhaps New Zealand. I have talked to Sir Robert Menzies about their experience in Australia and I must say he has given me some interesting sidelights on certain effects of that experiment which were not in the minds of those who introduced it in the first place. I have just been informed that France televises some of its proceedings.
I know that at the United Nations some proceedings are televised. I can speak with some personal experience on that score, as can my right hon. friend. I recall the experience when I was President of the United Nations Assembly of having those wandering television cameras going around picking you up here and there and very often resting on the President when they could not find anybody else more interesting. I remember getting a great deal of mail from various parts of the United States telling me not to look so much like a bored sophomore and to pretend I was really in charge of the Assembly. I recall, too, that there were television sets in the lounge which allowed the delegates to watch what was going on in the Assembly so that they could hurry back if they wished to do so. I was doodling, as I often do, when I got a note from one of our delegates saying, the television camera is on your hand so stick to those geometric patterns. I am not quite sure, therefore, Mr. Speaker, what would be the effect of televising our proceedings. Presumably it would have to be done at certain stated periods in the day. I do not suppose we would get a sponsor for the whole of the day and the evening.


John George Diefenbaker: We would not need a sponsor for the C.B.C.; it would be considered an educational program.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says that we would not need a sponsor for the C.B.C., that it would be considered an educational program. It might be a kind of enlarged edition of "The Nation's Business". If we had two hours of television time, I can imagine the talk about the allocation of time. Hon.

Members talk about the allocation of time for debate now, so what would we have to do to satisfy all groups and all Members that the allocation of television time was being made in a satisfactory and fair way? Look at what it would do to our own, personal appearance. We would have to be more careful.


An hon. Member:: Turn it over to Max Ferguson.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In any event it is a very interesting idea. Perhaps the House Leaders could get together and decide whether or not we should proceed to consider this matter further.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am told it is five o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House give unanimous consent for the Prime Minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the House for its consideration and I will try not to presume on its kindness.
The changes we are proposing in the rules and procedures are, of course, only a means to an end. As I have said, the end is the more effective conduct of our business, the effective functioning of our system. These proposed changes, Mr. Speaker, are not new. As I said when I spoke before in this debate, they represent about 15 months of very hard allparty work. Most of the proposals were proposals that came from the work of that allparty committee. These proposals were embodied in two resolutions and put before the House because the Government felt it was its duty to take that responsibility. I said at the time they were not put forward in any take it or leave it manner. I think our conduct since that time has justified that statement on my part because the Government has accepted a great many changes to the proposals that have been submitted. These changes, I think, certainly have improved the original resolution. They have managed to get a wider basis of support for the changes and that is very important when we are dealing with Parliamentary institutions.
Perhaps I could just put the changes on the record. They are, removing supplementary estimates introduced after main estimates have been approved and final supplementaries from the order for allocation of time; remov-
June 8. 1985

ing supply motions and lengthening the time for discussion of estimates; supply motions to be reduced from six to four and the days for supply to be increased from 36 to 38. No allocation of time by a Minister's motion can be less than two days for second reading, two days for committee stage and one day for third reading. That is a very important change proposed from the other side of the House, which insists that in any time allocation there will be substantial time for debate, whatever the proposal may be. A provision has been put in that each party must have the right to speak on any stage under any allocation of time.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We have provided that after an amendment the Speaker may extend the time allocated up to two days, that is, if an amendment is made during a debate which introduces something of importance into the resolution there shall be additional time given for its discussion. Further, Mr. Speaker, the motion provides that allocation of time, whenever used, may include fixing of limits for length of speeches. Most important-I am talking now only about allocation of time-this order shall be on a trial basis only.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this gives us the right to say that we have approached this matter in as non-partisan a manner as is possible. The proposals we have now before us are ones which I think meet the wishes of the majority of the Members of the House.
The right hon. gentleman objects strenuously to one aspect of these proposals which has been referred to as the guillotine but which we call the allocation of time for debate. This, of course, is the very heart of our proposals for making our House of Commons more effective in the dispatch of legislative proposals. Surely when the safeguards which I have mentioned and others are included in the proposals, it is exaggeration to call this aspect of them a guillotine or a new form of closure.
I do not wish at this time to go into the resolution itself to show how carefully guarded these proposals are to ensure that the Government will not have its own way automatically and that there will be no possibility of gagging backbenchers on either side of the House, to ensure that there are restrictions around the exercise of authority by the Government, to ensure that whatever business is to be done by the Business Committee will be done through unanimity and
House of Commons Procedures not by Government action, because it is the Business Committee which will try to agree on this time allocation on request by the Government. In that committee the Government representative will be only one of five Members, and if there cannot be agreement in the committee then the matter can be brought forward in the House by the Government through a proposal which is to be carefully restricted along the lines I have indicated and the changes I have just read.
Surely it is not right to consider these proposals as weakening or destroying Parliamentary debate or as a form of closure which would gag the House of Commons. This is the kind of thing which is done regularly in Parliament at Westminster and which has been found almost an indispensable part of the procedure there. It is not done in the same way but the principle of time allocation is in effect in the Parliament at Westminster.


John George Diefenbaker: With the control of the Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the same principle which is embodied in these proposals and I suggest that this principle, if it is put into operation by a decision of the House, will not weaken but strengthen Parliament, will not remove from this House full freedom of discussion but will ensure that after that discussion has taken place, within a reasonable time by agreement or by decision of the House if agreement cannot be reached, there will be a decision made on the matter under discussion. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, this is a most effective way to strengthen, not weaken, parliamentary institutions and in strengthening parliamentary institutions to increase the prestige and the position of the House of Commons and to strengthen the position of individual Members in the House. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is something that is worth doing.
I suggest, now that we have had a good many days of debate, by agreement among the House Leaders-they have been discussing this matter this afternoon-and along the lines I have suggested we will be able in a day or two to come to a decision in respect of all matters within these proposals whether or not the proposals be divided.
I feel quite certain, if anything is certain in this world, that if these proposals are put into operation the result will be that at the end of the first full session of the House of Commons, when under these proposals we are obligated to reconsider and re-examine

June 8, 1965
Private Bills
this whole matter, those, of us in the House at that time will agree they have been good proposals, that they have strengthened, not weakened, Parliament, and they will get at that time, even if they do not receive it now, the unanimous support of all Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: 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 and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND GREAT NORTHERN PACIFIC & BURLINGTON LINES, INC.
Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-5, respecting Great Northern Railway Company and Great Northern Pacific & Burlington Lines, Inc.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to authorize, when the approval of the Board of Transport Commissioners is also obtained, the amalgamation of two American companies, one called the Great Northern Railway Company and the second named Northern Pacific, into a company to be known as the Great Northern Pacific and Burlington Lines, which in turn in a later transaction will merge with the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company.
The consent of the Parliament of Canada is required because one of these companies, Great Northern, operates about 130 miles of railway lines in the province of British Columbia and in addition Great Northern and Northern Pacific own in equal shares all of the issued shares of Midland Railway Company, a company incorporated under the laws of Manitoba which operates a railway system within the City of Winnipeg and has running rights over leased trackage from Winnipeg to the United States border at Emerson, Manitoba.
I am informed that the completion of this transaction will not remove from Canada control of any railway operations which are now controlled in Canada. I am also informed that Canadian railway operations will not be adversely affected by this amalgamation.
I have here a map showing the Canadian lines that will be affected. I could make it

available to any Members who are interested and it will also be available for detailed review in committee. I think that covers the important points in the bill, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


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



INTERPROVINCIAL PIPELINE COMPANY

Ian Grant Wahn: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to divide each of the 40,000,000 authorized shares of the par value of $5 each of the capital stock of the company into five shares of the par value of $1 each. This bill was before the House briefly during the last session. Questions were raised as to the purpose of the stock split and as a result of those questions a great deal of research has been done with regard to stock splits. This research has proved to be valuable and I think it will be most interesting to Members of the House and to Members of the Committee to which I assume the bill will be referred in due course.
Perhaps I could refer briefly to the history of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company in order that Members may be familiar with it. The Company operates strictly as a common carrier under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board of Canada. It transports oil, not gas. It neither buys nor sells any oil. It is similar to a railway in this respect; it is purely a transportation undertaking and it carries all the oil tendered to it under published tariffs. As I mentioned, the Company and its undertakings are subject to the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board of Canada which has the power to regulate the rates charged. I may add that the National Energy Board is aware of this application to Parliament and has no objection to the stock split. It is proposed that a representative of the National Energy Board be invited to the Committee to which this bill will be referred and he will be available there for examination should Members consider this to be desirable.
Over a period of years the company has gradually developed what is believed to be
June 8. 1965

the longest oil pipe line in the world and since it first commenced operations it has steadily reduced the rate per barrel charged for the transportation of oil, the total reduction amounting to about 42 per cent. It is believed the rate charged by the Company for the transportation of oil is the lowest per mile charged by any oil pipe line company in the world.
The officials and directors of the Company, the management, are all Canadian. I have their names should any Members be interested. The shareholders also are largely Canadian. The figures I have reflect the position as of December 31, 1964. At that time approximately 88 per cent of the outstanding shares were owned by Canadian individuals or companies, 11 per cent in the United States and 1 per cent elsewhere. In fairness I should say that included in those figures for Canadian ownership are shares owned by such Canadian companies as Imperial Oil, British American Oil and Shell of Canada Limited, which in their turn have the majority of their shares owned outside Canada. Nevertheless, the Company is in its management and in the nature of its operations essentially a Canadian Company. It is also a fact that it is a Company very highly regarded throughout Canada and by the investment community.
I come now to the reasons for the stock split. It is believed that if the stock is split in the manner suggested the effect would be to increase the number of individual Canadian shareholders. Questions were raised with regard to this point when the bill was last before the House and as a result, as I have mentioned, some extensive research was done to establish the truth of this statement. A well known investment Company has made a complete review of stock splits in recent years in Canada and the United States. It has concluded that after a stock split without exception there has been an increase in the number of shareholders far greater than in the case of companies which have high priced shares and do not split their stock.
In the case of Interprovincial the price of the stock on the markets is approximately $90 a share and this is regarded as a very high price stock. It has also been established by the study I have mentioned that when the price of a stock reaches the $80 to $100 range it becomes impracticable for investors to buy or sell small numbers of shares at advantageous prices. Accordingly it is not economical for small investors to invest in stock which
Private Bills
sells at the price of Interprovincial stock at the present time. The study to which I have referred indicates that Canadian investors have a preference for shares selling at between $10 and $25. The evidence on this point is conclusive. Perhaps I might take a few seconds in which to mention it.
No less than 41.7 per cent of the shares traded on the Toronto stock exchange fall within this price range. An analysis of stocks traded during the whole of 1964 shows that 42.7 per cent of the total volume were within this range, $10 to $25. This high percentage of trading activity means there is a narrow margin between the bid price and the asked price with the result that price movements are less erratic and small investors may buy or sell shares without sacrifice. The study concludes that the marketability of stock is, without question, greater when the price falls within the range I have mentioned.
I feel the desirability of the split can be conclusively established. Perhaps the question then arises: Why should the stock be split in this particular ratio, five for one? The reason is that, as indicated, the shares would then be worth between $10 and $25 and would be within the most marketable range. A five for one split of Interprovincial stock would reduce the price to around $18 and this seems to be by far the most desirable split. Not only would it bring the price range into the area of maximum marketability but it would mean that shareholders who now own shares would own multiples of five shares. This works to the advantage of individual investors because stock market practice is for holdings of multiples of five to be by far the most frequently traded. For this reason they can be traded most cheaply.
However, following the debate in the House last session the company did review the effect of a smaller split, say three for one or two for one. This would result in a higher price per share and would reduce the marketability of the shares. The possibility of a larger split was also considered. A split of ten for one, for example, would reduce the price to $9, and a split of 20 for one would reduce the price below $5. The study indicated that this would attract speculation in the stock rather than investment. There would be people who would buy the stock simply because it was cheap, and this would not be in the interests of the investor or for that matter in the interests of the company.

June 8, 1965
Private Bills
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The study indicated that this is true not only in Canada but also in the United States where the question ol stock splits was considered by the New York Stock Exchange. In particular, the New York Stock Exchange considered the ratio in which stocks should be split. I should like to quote the views of the New York Stock Exchange as contained in the following paragraph:
A split-up of a stock already selling in a low price range and a split-up which may result in an abnormally low price range for the split-up shares will be carefully scrutinized by the Exchange.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the New York Stock Exchange feels that care should be taken not to split a stock too far. For these reasons it was felt that the five for one stock split proposed in this bill was just about right. I might also mention that this particular stock split has been approved by the directors of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company and has also been approved by the shareholders. In addition, it has been very strongly supported by the employees of the company who belong to the employees' savings plan which the company has established. Under that savings plan employees can save in cash or they can authorize their savings to be invested in stock, including stock of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Following the debate in the House last session a questionnaire was sent to all the employees who participated in the company plan to see what their views were with regard to the stock split. Very careful precautions were taken so that employees could answer the questionnaire without divulging their names. The first question put to the employees was this:
Would it be more attractive to you as an avenue of investment of your Plan savings if the stock were subdivided on a 5 for 1 basis, so that each new share would have a market value of approximately $18?
The answer to that question was 90 per cent "Yes". The second question was:
If you presently allocate your Plan savings to cash savings, or are contemplating doing so some time in the future-
Rather than authorizing investment in stock.
-would the lower unit price of the Company stock encourage you to change your allocation from cash savings to the purchase of Company stock?
The answer to that question was 78.7 per cent "Yes". There is very wide participation of employees in the employees' savings plan and there was a very wide participation of employees in answering the questionnaire. I

believe that Interprovincial has just under 600 employees. The total number of employees polled was 561 and the total number of replies received was 508.
To summarize very briefly what I have said, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the stock split is in the interests of the shareholders of the company and in the interests of the public generally in that it will help to distribute these shares more widely across Canada, and it has been approved by the directors, shareholders and employees of the company. There seems to be no objection to it on the grounds of public policy, and for these reasons I hope this bill will secure the support of the Members of the House.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill No. S-7 because it permits an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the people certain facts embedded in this question which the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) has not taken the trouble to explain and also the officials of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company have not taken the trouble to explain, nor did they explain them when this bill was before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines about three months ago on March 11, 1965.
In view of the relationship between the ownership pattern of these various companies and the prices they charge one may talk about any phase of the oil industry and still be on the beam in dealing with the basis of the great unrest among the people of my riding of Macleod and also throughout the whole of Alberta-I understand this is also true of other parts of Canada-with regard to the situation of constant, almost ever-increasing increases in gasoline prices. It has got to the point that people who wish to travel must think twice because of the cost of filling their automobile tanks with gasoline or of propelling their tractors and other farm equipment. These prices are going up continually.


An hon. Member:: There have been increased taxes.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Yes, there have been increased taxes. I believe an increase in tax was imposed by Alberta but was withdrawn a short time ago. I understand, too, that in Edmonton a committee has been appointed to investigate prices of gasoline and the problems of retailing it throughout the Province of Alberta. There is a tremendous amount of unrest among the dealers in this regard. They are
June 8, 1965

pretty much all tied up by Imperial Oil Company, the B.A. Oil Company and Shell. It is about these three corporations that I wish to say a few words because they are the real owners of the company that is under consideration here, Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, whose management is asking for authority to split the shares. According to the articles of incorporation the management must seek from Parliament authority for splitting the shares and this is what they are seeking to obtain.
What is the pattern of ownership of this corporation, Mr. Speaker? Let me not use my own words but those of the President of the corporation, Mr. Johnston, who said on March 11 last when he appeared before the committee:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Yes, Sir. Imperial Oil, who were the instigators of the program back in 1949 own 33 per cent; B.A. (American) own about 8 per cent which is the stock which originally was sold to Gulf Oil, and Shell, who now own Canadian Oil, participates in the company to the extent of 100,000 shares. If you add those up it is 47 per cent.
That gives exactly the pattern of the major interests in Interprovincial Pipe Lines. So that the policy of the company is controlled by the major interests such as Imperial Oil, B.A. and Shell and it is therefore in a position to operate as a monopoly.
That is the reason why inserted into their articles of incorporation was the provision that they must come back to Parliament and ask Parliament if they can have a split in shares. This also provides Parliament with an opportunity to look at the policies of the company and at what the company has been charging for services and for transporting oil. We are provided with the opportunity of asking for information from this monopoly as to its services and charges and the policies it has been following to promote the oil industry and the economy of Canada in general.
Many things might be said in favour of this Corporation but I think some matters should be given further consideration and discussion. For example, let us consider the pattern of ownership which I have mentioned earlier. Take, for example, the ownership of the President of the Corporation, Mr. Johnston. As reported at page 875 of the proceedings before the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines on March 11, 1965, Mr. Johnston said:
I am perfectly honest about this: there is no ulterior motive in this. There is no intention on the
Private Bills
part of management or the directors to participate in any way in any extravagant bonanza, as you might call it, or anything else. If the stock is split, the price will be reduced accordingly. The dividend will be reduced accordingly. It really is as simple as that. I believe quite often people have a misconceived idea that a board of directors or large shareholders will participate in these stock splits to a large extent. I can indicate to you that I am the largest shareholder on the board of directors. I hold 3,637 shares of stock which is not an extravagant amount.
The President of the Corporation has there put on the line the number of his shares, and I must add that that number is no greater and in some cases probably less than presidents of corporations sometimes own. But in this case there is a vast difference. In this case he is directing a Company that is in a position to exercise monopoly control over the charges it makes for the services it renders.
Let me pursue this matter a little further. There are 5,087,282 shares of this Corporation outstanding. Of that amount 3,166,501 shares can be accounted for as to ownership because it can be ascertained from various publications which have been issued. If you subtract one from the other you arrive at a figure of 1,920,781 shares which is the floating supply. Some of that floating supply is purchased and held on the way up by speculators who are waiting for a split to take place in order to unload their shares on the small people. That is one of the practices of speculators.
What usually happens following distribution, is that the stock declines and there are shake-outs. I am not saying that that is what the pattern of this stock is going to be but in general that is how the market works. Yet these people come here with tears in their eyes and the freshman from St. Paul's parrots what these people have said about splitting stock in order to get the small fry in. Who is going to benefit? These people now own the shares and they are the ones who will benefit, not the small fry they are sucking in. If they hold on to the shares from 5 to 15 years they may benefit eventually but they are certainly not the ones who are going to benefit immediately. It is the people who now own the shares who will benefit immediately.
Let me return to Mr. Johnston's holding of 3,637 shares. At $90 a share his holding is worth $327,330, which is a pretty fair equity in a corporation. What usually happens when stocks are split-the hon. Member for St. Paul's did not tell us this-is that

Company and others on the back and tell them that they have done a good job, but at the same time every Member of this House should believe, as the people of the area believe, that the prices for gasoline are to high and that somebody in a monopoly position is taking too much for the service being performed. If you believe that I do not know what I am talking about just pay a visit to my riding and it will not be long before you hear the people there repeating this same story which I am only parroting.
It is all well and good for the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to suggest that it is not responsible for the fixing of prices because it does not own the oil, but the major owners of the company are setting gasoline prices, such as Imperial and Shell, but let me assure you that is not the complete picture. This brings me to another problem, namely, the regulatory body established for examining the practices of certain corporations. When we were in power we established the Energy Board and charged that body with the task of setting up the necessary machinery to conduct studies of the situation and recommend measures to protect the interests of the people and to confer with provincial authorities in this regard.
It is all well and good for the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) to suggest that this stock split has been sanctioned by the Energy Board, but I have not been made aware of the fact that it has been so sanctioned. That board certainly has made no public statement to that effect. I am in favour of the National Energy Board and I worked hard for the establishment of it, but let me say that when I made a study for the Gordon Royal Commission and put together "Alberta's Economic Prospects", working as an economic consultant for the Alberta Government and assisted by about 50 people from various Departments of the Government of Alberta, after three or four months we found-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Kindt:: May I be allowed to speak for one more minute, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the request of the hon. Member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. One of the recommendations we
Private Bills
made following the study to which I referred was that an energy board be established in Canada and, to make a long story short, a bill was brought before Parliament by the former Government and the National Energy Board was formed.
In conclusion, I believe that in respect of matters of this kind regulatory measures should be adopted to administer properly and consider these resources in the light of the public interest. The members of that regulatory body, as well as the members of corporations dealing with these resources, should be required to appear before committees of this House so that the prices and selling policies can be subjected to scrutiny. I believe that all corporations incorporated under Dominion Charter should be required to give an account to a Parliamentary committee of their policies in relation to the general economy of Canada.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions in this House when we have had discussions involving the general principle set forth in this Bill, which is in fact a proposal to split the shares of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. Members of the New Democratic Party have made it clear on a number of occasions that we view these proposals, to put it mildly, with a jaundiced eye. Some of the reasons advanced for the splitting of shares are viewed by Members of this Party in that way.
From time to time we have presented documentation to this House in relation to the results of share splitting of this kind in the past. The explanatory note in the bill reads in part as follows:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company considers it desirable that the average Canadian investor be encouraged and be given the maximum opportunity and incentive to invest in the equity of a successful and growing Canadian company.
We certainly have some question in our minds when we find this bland assertion as to the real purpose the company has in coming before this House. However, we did have some considerable discussion of this matter during the last session when an almost identical bill to this one was before us. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to conclude my remarks at this time on the understanding this bill is going to committee for detailed study where we may have an opportunity to hear what the spokesmen for the company may say in answer to questions put by the Members of the committee.

June 8, 1965
Private Bills


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I should like to pose a number of questions that are in my mind and were in my mind during the last time this bill was before the House and before the Committee. When the bill was before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines I, along with a lot of other Members, posed some questions concerning the purpose of share splitting. I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) when he discussed share splitting. He said that a 5 for 1 split was reasonable but that a 10 for 1 split or a 20 for 1 split might induce undue speculation in the company's shares. I was interested in this from the point of view that a 5 for 1 split would not do this but a 10 for 1 split would. I wondered how the hon. member could draw the line so closely.
It has been my belief that a stock split helps those who already hold shares. It is no surprise to me that the shareholders are in favour of a share split of 5 for 1. It is no surprise that the directors are in favour of this and no surprise that the company employees, who have an interest in their savings fund, should also be in favour of a share split.
The bill before us during the last session stated that the whole purpose of the proposal was to make it more desirable for the small Canadian investor to invest in this company. The explanatory note for this bill says that the proposal would make it more desirable for the average investor to invest in this company. During the Committee hearings last session I asked how many small investors had invested in this company already. The Chairman of the company who was before us at the time could not answer that question. I thought it rather strange that a company would come before Parliament or before the Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines Committee asking for a share split in order to encourage small investors when they did not know how many small investors they already had or how many they were trying to encourage into the company.
He went on to tell us that 47 per cent of the company stock was owned by Imperial Oil, Shell of Canada and British American. He said that the rest of the shares were owned by a number of people. In fact, he said that 37 people owned 10,000 shares or more. When I asked him, however, how many small investors had invested in the company he could not tell me. He said, as the hon. Member for

St. Paul's has, that share splitting has proven to be a factor in enticing greater participation in a company. Going back over the years as far back as 1958, we find this company had 12,000 shareholders. Surely the stock was not up around $90 at that time. Since that time the number of shareholders has only increased to 14,000. Evidence before the Committee in the last session suggested that the most recent investors in the company had been pension plans and funds similar to pension funds held by unions and other companies. This does not suggest to me that the average investor is being kept out of this company by the high price of the shares.
I suggest that before the company comes before the committee to give evidence they bring with them the number of average investors they have in the company now and the number of average investors they hope to entice into the company by a reduction in the price of the shares. I believe it is common knowledge that this is not a speculative company. It is a transportation company in the sense that it transports oil from western Canada to some parts of eastern Canada and the United States. There is no speculation in the business other than the volume handled from year to year. This figure has remained relatively stable, with an increase each year. Before six o'clock I should like to pose a number of questions so that the company can come to the Committee and give the answers. They should tell us what they hope to achieve by the co-operation of the average Canadian investor. Share splitting will certainly enhance their own position with the shareholders but how will they enhance the position of the average Canadian investor by this method?
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will be sent to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. On that understanding I will conclude my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House agree that I should put the question? tTranslation]


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for private Members' business has expired.
June 8, 1965

House of Commons Procedures



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: (1) The hon. Member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent)-Agriculture-Quebec-Request for announcement of dairy policy; (2) the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)

Transport-Division of fields of operation between railway companies; (3) the hon. Member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume)-Labour Conditions- Designated Areas-Consultation with Yukon and Northwest Territories.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bell:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business:
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders;
1.	(a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-four members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these orders, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the Committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and, if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting, interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, il necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that
2122	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
(9)	The term "allocation of time", wherever used in this Standing Order, may include the allotting of time to any item of business, to any stage thereof, or to any part thereof, and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches.
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, before I touch on the resolution I cannot help but thank the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) for his notice of my activities. I must suggest to him that he probably has been much too assiduous in following what I write if he assumes it appears every day. I might mention to him that that great parliamentarian, the greatest of the great to whom he referred and who is immortal to everyone, can be remembered for the fact that throughout his longest of all parliamentary careers he acted both as a lecturer and a journalist, almost as d steady vocation particularly in his early years, and I know he will appreciate it if I take such a gentleman as Mr. Churchill as my model.


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should now like to remark on a couple of the points made by the Conservative and Liberal backbenchers, particularly one point that interests me which was made by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) because it tied in with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) and the hon. Member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). It relates to what will happen to the role of the backbencher under the new rules, and particularly the backbench Member on the Government side.
My hon. friend from Carleton yesterday made a speech in which he set out an equality,
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
DEBATES	June 8, I9S5
which he insisted was intrinsic in our institution, with regard to a Government Member having the same right to ask questions as an Opposition Member; in other words, whether we are on one side or the other and no matter to what party we belong, we are all peers.
I grant this is the ideal but we also have to face a parliamentary tradition. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona pointed out that during a previous Parliament the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers gill) was given to twitting the Government of the day any time more than one or two Government backbenchers got up to speak on a piece of legislation after it had been introduced by a Minister. I am not being critical of him for doing the twitting but we have here in prospect, as put by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, a different concept advocated by Government backbenchers.
They seem to assume that out of these new rules will come a situation whereby time will be equally divided between the Government and the Opposition Members. You cannot speak with any finality or really draw up any rules that are going to apply here, but I put this to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) who is sitting across the aisle. Suppose he brings in something like the Labour Code. Whether a time limit has been set on the debate or otherwise, are we to suppose that under these new rules 50 per cent of the speaking opportunities are going to be taken up by Government Members who support the legislation and the Minister? If, in the ideal situation, Government Members were going to be critical of the measure or were going to suggest improvements and even move amendments, this would be fine.
But the way I have outlined the possibility I think you can see that there has been a tradition here related to the caucus structure and Parliamentary and party loyalities whereby it is usually acknowledged and taken almost as a right-I almost assume it is a right-that where legislation is concerned a Minister brings in a bill. As the debate develops he may have support on it, but the main role in Parliament is taken by the Opposition in presenting criticisms, suggestions and amendments.
I think we would feel the Parliamentary system in Canada had gone completely haywire if we had a situation like that of last year's flag debate in which the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), supported, say, by the hon. Member for Brant-Haldi-
June 8, 1965	COMMONS
mand (Mr. Pennell), were moving amendments to change Government legislation. In a sense it seems to me that is the goal to which we may be moving if it is implicit in these new rules that the Opposition will have half the speaking time and the Government will have the other half.
The old idea normally was that a Government was anxious to get its legislation through and therefore it would apply party discipline. I do not mean that unkindly, but it would call on party unity and loyalty in order to see that debate was not prolonged by Government spokesmen. Is that all to be changed under the new rules?


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: How does the hon. Member reconcile the argument he is making now with the argument made by his colleague, the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who was objecting to party principle being recognized at all? Is the hon. Member suggesting there is a different class of Member in the House?


Douglas Mason Fisher: My own idea is that this is a delicate subject. I do not want to deprive any Members of the House, particularly those on the Government side, of opportunities to speak, but this is a problem we are approaching if we have limits on debate.
I note that my friends in the Official Opposition have concentrated quite a bit of their time in this debate in making derogatory and downgrading remarks about the role of members in the minor parties. I say to them that under these new rules we have much more to fear than they have because of a tradition, with regard particularly to the position of the Leader of the Opposition, a position from which he cannot be dislodged. I mean he can be dislodged from it by the electoral process but not within the traditions of this House so long as his party constitutes the Official Opposition.
We in the minor parties have much more to fear from the new rules and limitations than many, particularly if there is the practice of timing debates and then dividing the ratio of speakers according to the time, with the Government getting 50 per cent. The Official Opposition may suffer under this but we will suffer much more proportionately.
I do not agree with the figures put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strath-
DEBATES	2123
House of Commons Procedures cona as to the conditions during the regime from 1958 to 1962. Until it has been proven to me by some kind of quantitative analysis, I just cannot believe that our little group of eight took up 35 per cent of the time. I just do not believe that, but I will concede to the Leader of the Opposition, not that he asked for the concession, that during that particular Parliament our small group were never under any tremendous pressure to shut up or put to one side.
That is the one of the things with which I can credit that administration, that in their treatment of the Opposition, whether the Official Opposition or our group, there was never any tendency in any way, shape or form that was harsh or you might say devious in trying to force us out of having our say as long as we wanted to speak.
But in making this point I want to suggest that that may be an ideal for the Government and we need to hear from the Government just what plans it has with regard to rosters of speakers when agreement is reached as to a limit on debate. That is the most serious problem ahead of us under the new rules. In the minor parties-


Mr. Nesbitt:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Can we conclude from his remarks that he is suggesting as to the allocation of time for debate that if Government Members intend to take up half the time this rule would be used for the purpose of preventing Opposition backbenchers from speaking?
[DOT] (8:10 pm.)


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think it is for us either to suspect or not to suspect motives but I certainly think this will be the conclusion which many of us in the Opposition will reach.


Mr. Hahn:: May I ask the hon. Member another question? I am trying to understand the proposition he is advocating. Do I understand him to suggest that backbench Members on this side of the House should have no right to speak on legislation whatever?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Of course I am not suggesting that. The hon. Member knows very well I would not suggest that. What I am suggesting is that somewhere between the point of party discipline being exerted as it has been in the past and allowing 50 per cent of the time to go to Government Members we shall be adopting a tremendous change in our whole tradition of doing business here and handling legislation. It is obvious that we in the Opposition are not anxious to give up a prerogative which has been enshrined
June 8, 1965

House of Commons Procedures almost by tradition here. I assume the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) has a closer relation with the Ministers than we have. He has a party caucus within which he can operate. He has an open sesame to the departments which is given to him by the administration. He can go on the hustings and say: My Government did this; our leaders have brought in these plans. The rest of us cannot do these things and it would seem to me that these perquisites, if one may call them that, in being a backbencher supporting the Government are some kind of compensation for the fact that the tradition here calls for Government Members to sit silent and allow the Prime Minister to be their spokesman in arguing the case, presenting legislation and defending the government.


Mr. Gray:: If the hon. Member's proposition is accepted, would he and the rest of his party undertake not to criticize Government Members who refrain from taking part in debates on the ground that they remain silent instead of participating?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you stand up, now?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. Member will not, of course, expect any answer to a question such as that. I personally have always felt it was unfortunate that Government Members did not feel free to get up more often. I think everyone in the Opposition relishes a Government Member who will get up and speak against something that is going forward. I am not one who would wish to taunt the Government when someone kicks over the traces. I recall the hon. Member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) was critical of the Minister of Finance with regard to surplus stripping. I recall that the hon. Member for York East (Mr. Otto) has been critical of the Government on a number of occasions. I am not suggesting there is no role for individual Members. They should have their opportunity. But let us not accept this fifty-fifty idea.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May I ask the hon. Member a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If he does not want to accept the question-


Some hon. Members:: Ask it, then.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I assume the hon. Member has let the question drop. That was my main point with regard to this division of time.

With regard to the other points which have been raised during this discussion, particularly by Members of the Official Opposition who have been speaking to this resolution for the last number of days, I would say this. Having read their remarks, it seems to me the burden of them is simply that they do not trust the Government. They do not trust this Government. They do not trust the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Therefore, as the hon. Member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) put it so well, the confidence which might exist with regard to this solution does not exist in their minds. I want to express almost exactly the same feelings. I do not trust this particular gang. I do not think they deserve trust. I am very suspicious of a party which has a leader who goes around talking about new politics but whose new politics are always evoked at some party rally where they can be used to club the other guy and be a good fellow with applause built into the situation. If we are to have new politics as adumbrated by the Prime Minister, I should like to see more assurance of it than the right hon. gentleman gave in this House before five o'clock when his speech was filled with such lofty sentiments about the future before us if these rule changes came into force.
But having referred to my suspicion that there is a built-in arrogance on the benches opposite which goes back to the golden days of that particular group I have to concede one important point, and my hon. friends agree with me in this regard. It is that this Parliament, like the previous one, has not been moving through its business with any kind of alacrity or assurance. Suspicious as we may be of the Government and dismayed as we may be by its boondoggling and ineffectiveness in handling Parliament, we recognize that something must be done about this situation. That is why, though we stand to lose most by these rule changes in terms of opportunity to speak, we stand ready to support the first resolution in principle and the second resolution in principle, with some disagreement and hoping that our efforts to amend the second resolution will be successful in bringing a little more sense into it.
The last point I wish to raise concerns the question of a permanent Speaker. I wish to express now a view which is my own. I cannot see any great reason to change our present arrangement. If we adopt the idea put
June 8, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	2125
forward by Mr. McGee of appointing a Member for Parliament Hill or the idea the British are thinking about that the Speaker should be the Member for St. Stephen's, the impression will be gradually created that the Speakership is some kind of Civil Service appointment. If we start with an elected Member and follow a similar course, the same difficulty will arise sooner or later. The present system has served us well despite what may have been done in 1956. One of the meanest things about the way in which the argument has developed about a permanent Speakership is that it has forced the passing of opinions about Speakers we have had, and by the very absence of reference to the Speaker in the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), a disservice has been done both to the office and to that hon. gentleman.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) introduced the notion of televising our debates here and putting them on radio. He acknowledged that this represented a change or development in his attitude. I remember that on other occasions when this question was being argued in this Chamber there was very little support for it from the party which the right hon. gentleman leads. I hope this suggestion will be taken up by the Government and at least given consideration. Maybe it could become part of the new politics. If we cannot have the Pearson film, possibly we can have the hon. gentleman on television "live" from the House of Commons. My conclusion is this: I hope the Government will decide to go ahead and get this measure out of the way by Friday. I have an understanding that this is likely and I hope it will be done by agreement.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
But if agreement is not possible I suggest that one of the things that is part of the responsibility of leading the Government is to take a very strong initiative. All I can suggest is that if the Government is not prepared to take the initiative to get these resolutions through it is jettisoning the responsibility that arises in this Chamber with regard to the very resolutions that we have before us.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit another question? I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member for a second time during his remarks but I did not quite get the point he was making concerning the allocation of time. Am I to un-
House of Commons Procedures derstand that he is now somewhat hesitant about accepting the allocation of time, contrary to the statement which was issued by the leader of his party in a press communique last September?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we accept the allocation of time but we do not accept the argument put forward by Government backbenchers that this is automatically going to mean that 50 per cent of that time will go to Government spokesmen.


Maurice John Moreau: When have we ever had 50 per cent of the time?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No one has ever said you have had it. That is what I was talking about, the tradition. Just let us not get the idea accepted or believed that this is going to be one of the consequences of the reform.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government House Leader may wish to make some announcement to the House at this point before any question is put.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the discussion that took place on Orders of the Day today a meeting of the House leaders has been held. I had hoped that at this moment I would be able to announce that agreement was unanimous but I am not able to do that, not quite, if I may use a limiting qualification. But the points on which we seemed to be in almost unanimous agreement were these: that the proposed amendment to Order No. 14 now before the House would be withdrawn: that paragraph No. 2 of Order No. 14 would be referred to a special committee, to be established later today, for consideration and report back to the House by 11 a.m. on Friday, June 11, 1965; that the report of that committee would be disposed of by the House by 5 p.m. on that day; that the balance of Order No. 14 would be adopted today; that if Order No. 15 was not disposed of by 10 p.m. on Thursday night. June 10, it would be taken up after the committee report on the proposed Standing Order 15A had been disposed of on Friday, and in any event the necessary votes to dispose of both orders, Order No. 14 and Order No. 15, would be completed on Friday at five o'clock, that is to say, all votes required to complete the whole of the two orders.
June 8. 1S65

House of Commons Procedures
I should add that this was on the understanding that when we came to Order No. 15 we would bring forward an amendment that would provide that instead of half an hour for the question period on each day of the week there would be one day on which it would be one hour.


John George Diefenbaker: What day of the week would it be that the one hour would apply?


George James McIlraith: It was not finally decided at the meeting but we were talking about Friday.


Mr. Baldwin:: Never on Sunday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think I am quite accurate in stating this and if any House Leader differs with my statement I should like him to say so. I think this is an accurate report on the agreement. There was the one exception of the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire); as House Leader for his party he had another qualification he wanted to put in which we felt we could not accept, and I believe I am fair in saying that no other House Leader supported his reservation in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement just made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), I admit that we did not accept all the conditions suggested this afternoon for the following reason. Until now, nine changes have been made to motion No. 14 and four others have been suggested with regard to motion No. 15. Moreover, a compromise was reached after discussion between representatives of the two old line parties. We believe that it came about at the expense of the third parties and that it will be prejudicial to them, and we are opposed to it.
We asked for only one change since the beginning of this debate, to protect at least a shred of our rights and privileges, and it was rejected. It has to do with paragraph 2 of Order No. 14 relating more specifically to standing order 12 (2) which takes away a member's right to appeal a ruling by the Speaker in the case of an amendment, a subamendment or any other motion. We believe it goes much too far in trespassing on the rights of minor parties and, for that reason, we cannot accept this proposal, especially since the debate is due to end Friday.

We do not know how much time the other parties will take to outline their problems and we want to have sufficient time to discuss our own, particularly one which we consider of prime importance. Moreover, we believe that standing order 15 stresses some very important points and we were ready to withdraw our own motion, so to speak, in an attempt at least to arrive at some agreement which would improve the business of the house. But since the Government refused to yield on any point and since we believe the object of the compromise arrived at by the two old line parties is to bully or eliminate the small parties-as indeed the Conservative party often gave us to understand-we protest against such a position and we declare that we cannot accept the conclusion of such an arrangement between the two old line parties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the hon. gentleman. Does the hon. gentleman realize that no one is suggesting that the House should now accept No. 15 as it is? All we are suggesting is that we should debate it, and it would be quite open to the hon. gentleman, or indeed to any other hon. Member, to move an amendment to any part of order No. 15 when we undertake the debate on it, so that the rights of the hon. gentleman and all his colleagues, and indeed everyone else in the House, would be fully protected. We are merely seeking to get an agreement on procedure to deal with these matters. But it would not restrict in any way the right of the hon. Member to move to strike out that provision.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Minister of Transport's question, I must say that if we could reach this goal, we would agree with his proposal, but we must keep in mind that we have only two days left in which to debate resolution No. 15. Now, during these two days, it is quite possible that the Conservatives would move an amendment and that the debate be limited to this amendment during these two days.
Should the debate last less than two days, it may be that the New Democratic Party would move an amendment which would take up the whole two days allowed for the debate of the said motion. And even if, perchance, as d'Artagnan, in the The Three Musketeers, who said: "If, after I have killed the first three, I am still alive", if the first two
June 8, 1965	COMMONS
amendments had not taken up the whole time allowed for consideration of motion No. 15, then Thompson men would step in with a third amendment; it would then be almost impossible for us to find a parcel of time to introduce an amendment and have it considered properly. Therefore, this means that we would have no time at all to move our amendment, to discuss it and to try to persuade the Government that the resolution should not be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my answer is sufficiently clear to permit the Minister of Transport to understand our position in this regard.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would feel, in view of the position taken on both sides and in view of the fact that we do not want to restrict debate and, above all, to restrict the right of the House to decide the matter, that this would meet his case? If a situation arose-I do not believe it would be likely to but the hon. gentleman is quite right to seek to secure his position-where he had not had a chance to move his amendment by the time of expiry for debating the motion, then we on this side of the House, indeed I hope the whole House, would agree that the hours of sitting would be extended on Thursday so that the hon. gentleman would thereby have the chance to move his amendment and have the House come to a decision upon it. We would be willing to have sufficient time added so that the hon. gentleman's desire to move an amendment to the proposal of the Government would not be estopped.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Minister of Transport be willing to grant us next Monday for the discussion of this amendment we consider of the utmost importance?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Do I understand from the President of the Privy Council that I am to ask for the withdrawal of the amendment now before the House?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before you do so there is a word or two I want to say.
I am rather in favour of the view the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has just expressed. I think he has a very legitimate cause of complaint. He does not often
DEBATES	2127
House of Commons Procedures agree with anything we do here, but we try at all times to forget some of his idiosyncra-cies when respect for Parliament is involved. I suggest to the Government that in so far as Government Order No. 15 is concerned that might be held over till Monday. What possible harm is there in such a course?
The suggestion that the hour question period shall be on Friday is not acceptable to us. Monday is a day when all of us come back full of vim and vigour, having been away for a couple of days and having developed a lot of ideas we want to bring forward. I suggest that the day when one hour is allowed for questions should be Monday rather than Friday.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I make just one proposal. Perhaps we could settle this tonight and not need to spend a day on the matter on Monday or Friday or extend the hours on Thursday. If the Government would agree right away to withdraw paragraph 2 of Government Order 15 concerning the right to appeal the decision of the Speaker, I think that would completely settle the problem.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all deal with the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I thought I had made it clear in my statement that no agreement had been reached on which day of the week the one hour question period was to be provided. We have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter, other than to agree that it was not going to be on a Wednesday, and that is where the matter stood. I am quite agreeable to having the one hour question period on Monday instead of Friday, if anything turns on that.
As to the other point, it seems to me that it does not quite meet the consensus of this House merely to extend the time for dealing with this matter until Monday next. Based on the discussions we have had, and a great deal of time has been spent since the question hour trying to discuss it thoroughly, there will be ample opportunity for the hon. Member to put forward his amendment to provide that appeals from decisions of the Speaker shall be retained. I would hope that if there were an expression of views from representatives of other parties he would have adequate opportunity to put his amendment forward and have the matter voted on some time before the expiry period, say before Thursday night. We would agree to sit after ten o'clock on Thursday night long enough to permit him to put it forward, so he can feel he has some guarantee of his right to put the matter for-
June 8. 1965

House of Commons Procedures ward for the decision of the House. If there is any doubt in the mind of the hon. gentleman, I would ask the representatives of other parties to agree with me to put forward some kind of proposition which would protect his right to move such an amendment for decision by the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is another way we can get around this difficulty, still meet the representations which have been made by the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and also comply with what appears to be the agreement reached at the House Leaders' meeting to withdraw the amendment before the House at this time and pass the remainder of Government Order 14. That being the case, I presume we would immediately go into Committee of the Whole to consider the balance of Government Order 15, which contains one paragraph the hon. Member for Lapointe wishes to debate and have deleted. If there is a disposition on the part of all parties in the House to move fairly rapidly through the many provisions contained in Government Order 15, we will have an opportunity to move a number of amendments in Committee and have decisions of the Committee taken without extended debate. Surely if the hon. Member for Lapointe has the opportunity in Committee of the Whole to move that the section concerning standing order 12 be deleted from the resolution, he will have achieved his purpose by having the Committee of the Whole House decide the particular point.
As a matter of fact, there are a number of amendments which we in this party would like to move. I admit they are minor amendments to the many provisions in the resolution. We too hope to have an opportunity to move these amendments in Committee of the Whole and have a decision taken very quickly so that we can go through all these provisions. I presume that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) or perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), when the next resolution is introduced, may bring forward some amendments to change the wording of the resolution, but it seems to me that if we were to follow this kind of procedure the hon. Member for Lapointe could move his amendment, a decision could be taken on it, and we could move through this business within the next two days.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion which might be of some value. Could we consider reversing the order of the first two paragraphs of Order No. 15 so that

the proposed standing order 12 dealing with Mr. Speaker's position in the House would become the first item and would be the first subject for discussion? I am sure the hon. Member would have an opportunity at that time to move his amendment.


George James McIlraith: That would certainly be agreeable to the Government. That would mean that the hon. Member for Lapointe would have an opportunity to move his amendment to the motion tonight.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the first item of discussion in regard to Government Order 15 will be paragraph 2, that one Member of each party, by unanimous consent of the House, will speak on this paragraph and that we will be able to present our own amendment?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: If that is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, then we agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: understand the wishes of the House, my first duty is to ask for the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Is that right?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am authorized by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert to withdraw the amendment on his behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. An amendment which has been proposed and discussed can only be withdrawn with the consent of the hon. Member who moved it or the consent of someone acting on his behalf, and with unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of the amendment now before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Bell) withdrawn.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the proposal made a few moments ago by myself was agreed to by unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is my
understanding that unanimous consent was given to that proposal.


Gilles Grégoire: That was agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 8, 1965


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
That paragraph 2 of Order No. 14 be referred to a Special Committee to be appointed later this day, with instructions to the committee to present its report back to the House by 11 a.m. on Friday June 11, 1965.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The House has heard the motion. Is it now ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would you put the motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It has
been moved by Mr. Mcllraith, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill:
That paragraph 2 of Order No. 14 be referred to a Special Committee to be appointed later this day, with instructions to the committee to present its report back to the House by 11 a.m. on Friday, June 11, 1965.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before carrying the balance of Order No. 14, there is a slight grammatical change necessary, and I will put this in the form of a motion after I have explained it.
In paragraph 3 of Order No. 14, it will
be seen that the provisions of this order shall only be effective for one full session after this session and that this relates to both parts of the order now on the order paper. Since part of the order has been taken away the wording will have to be changed slightly by inserting the word "and" after the words "paragraph 1" in the first line of paragraph 3, by striking out the words "and the new Standing Order 15A" where they occur in the second and third lines of the said paragraph, and by renumbering the paragraph as paragraph 2.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Minister read the paragraph as amended?


George James McIlraith: The paragraph would then read as follows:
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, and the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
This is just a grammatical change. Of course, a corresponding paragraph will be put in the
Conduct of House Business other part of the order which has been referred to a special committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Mr. Mcllraith, moves, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, by consent:
That Order No. 14 be amended by inserting the word "and'' after the words "paragraph 1" in the first line of paragraph 3, and by striking out the words "and the new Standing Order 15A" where they occur in the second and third lines, and by renumbering the paragraph as paragraph No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Shall the motion of the Prime Minister in respect of Order No. 14 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lester Bowles Pearson: that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:
1.	That Standing Order 6 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Standing Order 6
6. (1) At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless provided otherwise in these Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day.
(2)	A motion that the House continue to sit after the hour specified in Section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried. No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting. An extended sitting under the provisions of this Section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
(3)	If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1:00 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m. or between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise, the taking of the
June 8, 1965

Conduct of House Business vote shall be postponed until after 2:30 o clock p.m. or until after 8:00 o'clock p.m. as the case may be.
(4)	When it is provided in any Standing Order or in any order of the House that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until the specified proceedings be completed.
2.	That Section (1) of Standing Order 12 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 12, Section (1)
12.	(1) Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and
decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.
3.	That Sections (3) and (4) of Standing Order 15 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 15, Sections (3) and (4)
15. (3) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business for the consideration of the House, day-by-day, after the daily routine shall be as follows:
(Monday)
Questions.
Government orders.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of Motions.
(Tuesday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Private Bills.
Public bills.
(Wednesday)
Questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers. Government orders.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of motions.
Public bills.
(Thursday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
A.	On the first and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Notices of motions (papers).
Private bills.
Public bills.
B.	On the second and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Private bills.
Notices of motions (papers).
Public bills.
(Friday)
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
Private Bills.
(4) When a debate on a motion ''That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for Private Members' Business on that day shall be suspended.
4. That Section (2) of Standing Order 31 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 31, Section (2)
31. (2) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time.
5. That Section (5) of Standing Order 39 be enacted to read as follows:
Standing Order 39, Section (5)
39. (5) Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper, provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed thirty minutes.
A member who is not satisfied with the answer
given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the question period before the Orders of the Day, must be given in writing to Mr. Speaker not later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. the same day.
6.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new standing Order 41-A to read as follows:
Standing Order 41-A
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
7.	That Standing Order 43 be amended by adding thereto a new Section (2), to read as follows:
Standing Order 43, Section (2)
43.	(2) When debate on any motion made under Standing Order 15 (2) is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders.
8.	That Standing Order 44 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 44
44.	When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to extend the sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
9.	That Section (4) of Standing Order 59 be amended to read as follows:
Government orders. Questions.
(Mr. Pearson.]
June 8. 1965

Standing Order 59, Section (4)
59. (4) The Chairman shall maintain order in the
Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to Mr. Speaker; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof. No debate shall be permitted on any decision.
10.	That Standing Order 65 be amended to read as follows;
Standing Order 65
65. (1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
(a)	on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development. to consist of 45 members;
(b)	on Broadcasting. Films and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of 22 members;
(c)	on Crown Corporations, to consist of 22 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(f)	on Fisheries, to consist of 22 members;
(g)	on Health and Welfare, to consist of 22 members;
(h)	on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, to consist of 22 members;
(i)	on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 22 members:
(j)	on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 22 members;
(k)	on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(l)	on Labour and Employment, to consist of 22 members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 22 members;
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of 22 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 22 members-(P) on Northern Affairs and National Resources to
consist of 22 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 22 members;
(r)	on Public Accounts, to consist of 24 members;
(s)	on Standing Orders, to consist of 22 members!
(t)	on Transport and Communications, to consist of 22 members; and
(u)	on Veterans Affairs, to consist of 22 members.
(2)	The special Committee shall also prepare and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees:
on Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
on the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses, to
consist of 21 members;
provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;

Conduct of House Business
Provided that, in the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.
(4)	The Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; and to print, from day-to-day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and Standing Order 66 shall not apply in relation thereto.
(5)	Any member of the House of Commons who is not a member of a standing committee, may unless the House or the standing committee otherwise orders, take part in the deliberations of the standing ^ committee, but shall not vote or move any motion or any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
11.	That Standing Order 99 be amended to read as follows:
ocanamg Order 99
99. No Bill for the incorporation of a railway or canal company, or for authorizing the construction of branch lines or extensions of existing lines of railways or of canals, or for changing the route of the railway or of the canal of any company already incorporated, shall be considered by the Committee on Transport and Communcations, until there has been filed with the committee, at least one week before the consideration of the bill, a map dfawV_ upon a scale of not less than half *"?. t0 the mile[DOT] showin8 the location upon which it is intended to construct the proposed work and showing also the lines of existing or authorized works of a similar character within, or in any way affecting the district, or any part thereof, which the proposed work is intended to serve; and such map or plan shall be signed by the engineer or other-person making the same.
7hat standhig Order 105 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 105
105. Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs canal and railway bridges, to the Committee on Transport and Communications; the bills not coming under these classes, to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks I should like to make dealing with amendments that have been discussed with other Members and which we have undertaken to bring forward. Since none of them deal with paragraph 2 of Order 15 I would suggest, if it meets with the wishes of the Committee, that I permit the hon. Member
2132	COMMONS
Conduct of House Business for Lapointe to speak first in order to bring forward his amendment in accordance with our understanding of a few minutes ago.


Michael Starr: As long as it is short.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the hon. Member for Lapointe proceeds with his amendment, there is one point I feel we should get clear. The President of the Privy Council has some amendments he is proposing and there may be amendments to other paragraphs which other Members will want to propose. What I am anxious that we should guard against is a debate on paragraph 2 taking up all the time from now until Thursday evening when this matter will be closed. We do not need to worry about it this evening, but I was going to suggest that the House Leaders might meet tomorrow and try to arrange that some of the time we have between now and Thursday at ten o'clock will be set aside to deal with all the other paragraphs.
I think we should have a right to move any amendments we have in mind to other paragraphs and not have all the time taken up with paragraph 2.


George James McIlraith: I am quite agreeable to that suggestion, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it not usual, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister to make a statement upon introducing a measure? I have an amendment to move to paragraph 2 but I feel that we should have an opening statement from the Minister. I wonder if the Minister is going to make a statement?


George James McIlraith: I will be glad to make a statement and I will try to make my remarks reasonably consistent with the points with which we have undertaken to deal. Paragraph 1, in essence, provides that the House will sit during the dinner hour and the luncheon hour. In so far as a vote is concerned during those hours, if any five Members in the House object then the vote is taken at eight o'clock or at 2.30 as the case may be.
Then, paragraph 2 is a rewording of Standing Order 12, section 1, to provide that there shall be no appeal from Speaker's rulings. Paragraph 3 makes the changes in Standing Order 15 which are consequential upon having made arrangements to sit during the dinner hour. The business of private Members' hour will be taken up from six to seven o'clock instead of from five to six o'clock as at present. I might add that paragraphs Nos. 11 and 12 contain amendments con-

DEBATES	June 8, 1965
sequential upon other changes and involve no change in principle.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I apologize for interrupting the Minister but there is a little more noise than usual in the Chamber and it is difficult for the Chair to hear.


George James McIlraith: Paragraph No. 4 is just a consequential rewording of the provision that during private Members' hour speeches shall only be 20 minutes in length. The way the rule was worded it described the business of private Members' hour as being conducted between five and six o'clock and the rule was not applicable except between the hours of five and six. This change is merely a clerical one and does not change the rule in substance.
Paragraph No. 6 is new and does raise a small but quite important point. It does provide, in essence, that where a question of privilege is to be raised, other than one arising during the currency of a debate, a Member must give one hour's notice to the Speaker in order to give the Speaker an opportunity to consider whether the proposed question of privilege is in fact a question of privilege. It seems to me that this should provide an opportunity for the Speaker to consider the matter rather than be taken by surprise when hon. Members are raising questions of privilege that do not arise out of the proceedings.


Michael Starr: That is a written statement?


George James McIlraith: Yes, he must give notice in writing. I would think that would do away with a certain number of alleged questions of privilege which are not questions of privilege at all and which should not be put forward as such.
Paragraph No. 7 deals with a matter which was not provided for in the rules formerly. There was a provision that caused some concern to those responsible for administering the rules having to do with a motion moved by a private Member. It arose, in my experience, where a private Member was moving concurrence in a committee report. The change is that such a motion, which seemed to have a doubtful or unclear position on the order paper, is now placed under Government orders after it has been debated for one day. There will be a safeguard offered in an amendment we will be bringing forward to give that order precedence. The rules now provide that any item of business under Government orders can be called in any sequence the Government wishes. There
June 8, 1965

will be a safeguard put in to protect the priority of debate of such a motion when it is transferred to Government orders.
The next amendment provides for the removal of the right of appeal to the House from the decision of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. It is consequential on the removal of the appeal from the Speaker's decision. The appeal is from the Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House to the Speaker, but there is no appeal from the Speaker to the whole House.
Paragraph No. 10 concerns the restructuring of the committees of the House. This change in Standing Order 65 deals only with the restructuring of committees and does not deal with other matters that many Members might think could be dealt with in relation to committee reports and the whole management of committees.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In other words, all that is sought to be dealt with in this paragraph is the creation of a new structure for the Standing Committees, one that would enable them better to receive the estimates of the various departments for consideration and which would better describe them in the light of changes that have taken place in legislative practices over the years since 1927.
There is one thing to be noted, that except for the Standing Committee on Agriculture the other committees are reduced in membership to 24 persons. It appears as 22 in the order before the House but at the request of some Members opposite we propose to change that to 24 if this meets with the wishes of the Committee of the Whole House.
Then there was another amendment suggested. It will be seen that the proposed new Standing Order provides that at the commencement of each session a Special Committee consisting of seven Members shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report "with all convenient speed'' lists of Members to compose the Standing Committees of the House. It has been suggested that the words "with all convenient speed" be replaced by the words "within ten sitting days of the appointment of the committee." That change is quite agreeable to the Government and we are quite willing to bring forward an amendment along that line.
That really is the substance of the proposal before the committee. I think I have indicated all the amendments, save and except the undertaking we gave earlier in the debate that when the changes are made they will
22620-136J
Conduct of Hoy.se Business be on a trial basis for the balance of this session and one complete session hereafter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think there was one other that was discussed, unless the Minister stated it and I missed it. Was there not general agreement that the provision for extending the hours of sitting at night would be amended so as to provide that in such an extended sitting we would only deal with matters already before the House? In other words, it would not be in order to call some new item during the extended sitting?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is right, and I am sorry I omitted to mention it. It was intended, where we extend the sittings beyond ten o'clock, that no new or other measure could be brought before the House during that extended time. In other words, the time would be for the purpose of clearing up the item of business before the House or any subsequent stage of that item of business.
There was one other agreement that I should repeat. Dealing with the proposal for the length of the question hour, earlier this evening I undertook that we would bring forward an amendment to provide that on Monday of each week the question period would be one hour in length instead of the half hour proposed in order 15 now before the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not have to tell you how glad I am to be first to speak on behalf of the opposition. This is the honour bestowed upon me tonight, and I take this opportunity to make the necessary comments with regard to the resolution now before us.
First of all, I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who stated that he agreed with us on this point and willingly accepted all the conditions we had laid down, so that we could move our amendment first.
If I am not mistaken, he added that, although he did not always agree with our idiosyncrasies, tonight he supported our demand. I think we have discovered an idiosyncrasy in him, seeing how easily he accepted all the conditions laid down. Surely it is because he realized he was in a mess or in hot water. After having made a filibuster for 11 days and realizing that nobody paid attention to the incoherent utterings of the members of his party in this regard, in short not quite knowing how to find a way out, he was delighted to agree to a last-minute com-
June 8, 1965

Conduct of House Business promise in order to get out of the bad situation in which he found himself.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, as the first speaker and official critic of the opposition regarding resolution No. 15, I wish to point out this resolution raises many problems and some provisions should be amended, more particularly those of paragraph 2 tending to do away with the right of appeal from the Speaker's rulings.
After all, to appeal against a Speaker's ruling does not necessarily mean that the Speaker was wrong and that he made a mistake although some hon. members in certain cases can disagree with the Speaker, this enables most members to give their opinion or make their point in spite of the Speaker's ruling.
In fact, in most cases, the Speaker's rulings are upheld and then it is not prejudicial to the prestige and authority of the Speaker, because the hon. members have generally approved and upheld the Speaker's ruling. But in the exceptional cases where the Speaker's ruling is reversed, it would be advisable then to maintain the right to appeal against the Speaker's ruling, because in those cases, most members will have had the opportunity to air their opinions.
This happened once in three years when the tables were turned, that is, when the Conservatives were in power and the Liberals in the opposition. If I remember well, it was at the end of January or at the beginning of February 1963. At that time it was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who had appealed against a ruling of the Speaker, which was reversed. A few days later we were able to get rid of the then Conservative government.
In addition, I do not remember that any of the Liberal members then in the opposition complained against the right of the members to appeal against a ruling of the Speaker. On the contrary, they did it themselves on several occasions when they were in the opposition. They even did it successfully since they managed to overrule the Speaker, thus causing the government to fall three or four days later.
At that time Liberal members were quite happy about it, they were even delighted to see that a standing order allowed them to appeal the Speaker's ruling. In fact, not one of them complained then that under our standing orders, the house was ruled by the majority of its members.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
That is the first reason why I think appeals from the Speaker's rulings must not be done away with.
There are other reasons. For instance, if the right of appeal from a ruling given by the Speaker is abolished, a member of the house who moves an amendment or a subamendment which is found unacceptable, although he prepared it conscientiously and honestly with the help of other members, thinking that the said amendment or subamendment complies with all the rules of the house, will have no recourse against a simple decision which quite often is not taken by the Speaker himself but by officials of the House of Commons who sit around him.
As a matter of fact, it is not the Speaker himself who decides but advisers who have not been elected and do not sit as members of the House of Commons but help the Speaker. Quite often, these rulings are made by his advisers and the Speaker has only to render the decision they suggested to him. Thus, members who have conscientiously and honestly prepared amendments or subamendments will see their rights to move them denied, because they are called out of order. And, at that very moment they are unable to appeal from the Speaker's decision, a decision that quite often has been suggested to him by his advisers. I suggest this is unfair to the Members of Parliament.
There is also another argument; the Speaker sits in the house during a term of office, from one session to another, from one government to the other, and he is not considered a permanent Speaker, but a Speaker who comes from the ranks of a political party and whose general principle is to maintain, as often as possible, the government's decisions. He may see the problems in a different light, according to circumstances.
For instance, if there were at present in the Chair a member from Abitibi or Lac-Saint-Jean and another member moved the adjournment of the House to discuss the problem of rain-making machinery in such areas, you may be sure that for a Speaker from such areas, the problem would be extremely urgent and important, having precedence over wheat problems and industrial matters, and he would immediately allow such an urgent debate. But if the Speaker came from another area and had never heard about rain-making machinery-such was the case the first time we mentioned this problem-the Minister of National Health and Welfare had never heard about it-while the
June 8. 1965

Minister of Justice wondered whether he had better laugh over it and the Minister of Transport was saying he would inquire, but was not aware of the fact-he would declare the motion out of order because the matter was not urgent nor important. And at that moment the member would not even have any right of appeal from the decision of the Speaker. You will agree, Mr. Chairman, that this would deprive some members of the rights and privileges they enjoyed previously and they intend today to keep jealously.
Let us take another example. It is obvious that if the Speaker were a member for the Island of Montreal or Quebec City and if someone proposed the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter concerning western wheat, he would consider that question less important and less urgent than if he were a member for western Canada. One would render a decision that would undoubtedly be different from the decision made by a member coming from another area. And despite these differences as regards circumstances, time and place, we would have no right to appeal from the decisions of the Speaker.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I intend to move an amendment to paragraph 2 of resolution No. 15.
However, I should like to make a few remarks concerning other problems. I believe this is in order-inasmuch as this was permitted with respect to motion No. 14-concerning other amendments moved to resolution No. 15.
For instance, in paragraph 2 of the resolution, it is suggested to abolish the right of appeal when the House sits as such. In paragraph 9, it is proposed to remove the right of appeal when members sit in committee of the whole House, which means that members will be deprived of the right they had in committee of the whole and in the House. The object of paragraph 9 is the same: to deprive the members of a right they already possess to appeal from the decisions of the chairman of the committee of the whole House. Indeed, the decision will be left to the Speaker and it will be final and without appeal.
We are also opposed to paragraph 9 which is similar to paragraph 2.
Mr. Chairman, we also object to two other points because they would restrict certain rights of splinter group members. Among other things, paragraph 1 provides that under standing order 6 (2), ten members would have to object to extending a sitting beyond the period of adjournment. Formerly, only one
Conduct of House Business member needed to rise; now, ten would have to do so.
Mr. Chairman, for the two old-line parties, which have more members, that would of course be easier. But take, for instance, the case of the Ralliement Creditiste; if, one evening, one member of our group was delegated to the United Nations, a second to NATO, a third to the annual meeting of the International Parliamentary Union and a fourth to the Parliamentary Association of the Commonwealth, it would mean that four of our members would be away on duty or on official business. Then, the Ralliement Creditiste would only have nine members in the house. Our party is officially recognized and has all the privileges of a recognized party. But then, we could not invoke the new standing order 6(2) proposed in paragraph 1 of Order No. 15. Mr. Chairman, you will readily agree that it does not make sense to deprive of that right political parties officially recognized in the house.
According to paragraph (3), since the new rule provides that we are going to sit from six to eight o'clock in the evening, should we wish to prevent a vote from taking place during that period, as it will be dinner time, there should be at least five members from the party in the house. As far as our party is concerned, should one of our members be ill and two others be at official meetings, this means there would be ten left and that some of them would not be able to leave for dinner or would have to do it in a hurry, and the hours of sitting will be quite long. Here again we would be deprived of our rights, since we could be prevented from objecting to a vote during these two hours. While those rights are granted to the two old parties, they are practically denied to the small parties.
Mr. Chairman, we object to these four proposed changes to the standing rules of the house. We believe-and we already said so- that the standing rules of the house need improvement. We do not think it is so much the standing rules that were deficient during the last three years, as the unhealthy atmosphere that prevailed.
In any event, we believe that the Standing Orders must be changed but in so doing we must respect the rights and privileges of each individual. Some of the amendments brought forward this evening do not safeguard the rights and privileges of each and every member.
June 8. 1965

No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.

-the word "ruling" appears twice. We
wish to strike out all the words in the English version following the first "ruling". We believe that those explanations were necessary and will be sufficient.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have proved clearly that this section must be amended along the line suggested. We admit that there be no debate on a Speaker's ruling, but none the less we believe that the house should retain this right of appeal from a Speaker's ruling. Furthermore, it has always been recognized in the British parliamentary tradition that the house is master of its own rules, master of its own rulings, and we believe that in accordance with this tradition, the right of appeal from a Speaker's ruling should be maintained.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardifl: Is the
Committee ready for the question?
[Mr. Gregoire.l


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, before the
amendment is put to the Committee I should like to make just a very few comments on the question of appeals. I think there is one provision that has not been included in the proposed amendments and which should have been included. The hon. Member who has just proposed an amendment has pointed out that there is a provision to do away with appeals from Speaker's rulings and there will be an appeal from a decision of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House to the Speaker. But there has been a point in very great doubt over the years which I suggest could very easily be put into the rules to round out the question of appeals. I refer to the question of appeals from rulings of Chairmen of Standing and Special Committees. For quite some time there has been a good deal of difference of opinion in Standing and Special Committees whether or not there can be an appeal from the Chairman's ruling. Various committee Chairmen have held that there is no appeal from the decision of the Chairman of a committee. Other chairmen have permitted appeals from their own rulings to the committee as it sits and still others have held that there is no appeal except to the House.
This has caused a good deal of confusion. I should therefore like to suggest, although not by way of amendment at this point, that in order to round out this question of appeals there should be a provision regarding appeals from the decisions of Chairmen of Standing and Special Committees. My suggestion would be that the appeal should be to the committee itself, if any appeal at all is to be allowed, and that no appeal should be allowed to the House. That is a matter of opinion, but I think this should be included in order to leave no doubt about the question of appeals from decisions of Chairmen of committees. That is the first point I would like to make and I believe it might well be considered because there has been confusion and this is the very time to correct the situation.
Second, on the question of appeals-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on that one point could I ask a question for clarification? Would the hon. Member propose that such clarification take place by way of a provision put into paragraph 9 of the order following the provision dealing with appeals from the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would not like to suggest the wording but it is a
June 8, 1965

possibility that when we reach paragraph 9 it could be so amended. The only other remark I should like to make is that from my own viewpoint I have always favoured the abolition of appeals from rulings of both the Chairman of the Whole House and the Speaker because such appeals to the House have always in my experience been settled not on the basis of whether the Speaker was right or wrong but whether he had the support of the House. In such circumstances an appeal really has never had any great meaning.
I have one final point and it is the question of appeals from the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House to the Speaker. This can also be considered when we come to paragraph 9, but it does seem silly that the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House is called upon to hear the appeal from his own decision if he is also sitting as Deputy Speaker. I think this particular provision is not at all necessary and that there should be no appeal whatever from his decision. I believe this would make our procedure much more sensible and effective.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, a suggestion has been made in a paper, now an appendix to Hansard, prepared for the Committee on Procedure and Organization which sets out an alternative proposal. I do not wish to elaborate on it at this time or go into any great detail except to say that it does merit some consideration. I want to express in this delicate area of the relationship of Mr. Speaker to the House some thoughts which are held by a great number of Members in all parties and which they have expressed privately but I think are perhaps reluctant to do so in any public way.
Many Members are undoubtedly influenced or are likely to be influenced in their decision about whether or not there should be appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings by the history of the person holding that position. I think this is not the basis upon which we should make a decision. If it were, then I would be unalterably opposed to removing the possibility of appealing Mr. Speaker's decisions because I do not have that degree of faith in his strength or determination. I will refrain from expressing any thoughts about partiality or impartiality because I think this borders too much on the possibility of transgressing common sense and decent debate with respect to the office of Mr. Speaker.
Conduct of House Business
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It seems to me that each person who holds the position of Speaker must of necessity earn the respect of the House. He comes to that position usually fresh from an election campaign, fresh from active participation in partisan political matters, fresh from extremely partisan political debates. Usually, almost traditionally, he comes from the ranks of the Government party. He has to earn the respect of Members of the House in that Members of the House automatically look toward each new Speaker with a somewhat jaundiced eye because of his very involvement in the political scheme of things in the nation.
We have discussed very casually, and I think in the wrong sort of way, the possibility of making the Speakership permanent or continuing and thus starting upon the course of removing Mr. Speaker from partisan political activity of one fashion or another. It seems to me that until we make that choice of removing Mr. Speaker, first, from election campaigns, second, from reliance on a political organization at home to keep him alive politically at the next election and, third, from his membership in a political party and all that that involves, then we are doing him a disservice by saying we do not want the right to appeal his rulings.
In the past Speakers-one in particular whom I will not mention-have bent under Government political pressure. Speakers have made rulings which have been basely partisan. They have made rulings which were dictated to them by the Government in office, So long as Mr. Speaker is a participant in the political field, the likelihood of that happening again is not impossible. Speakers have made errors in judgment; after all, they are only human. Speakers have backed down in their firmness because they have from time to time faced members of this House who, owing to position and temperament, were more powerful than the Speaker, Members who by their very authority, power and presence have been able to make Mr. Speaker in effect quail before them. All of this, I submit, should draw us to the conclusion that now is not the time to remove holus-bolus the right of appeal from Mr. Speaker's decisions, because his present position in the political field militates against full fairness impartiality and judicial rulings and because it places Mr. Speaker, I submit, as long as he does not have the continuity of office which we should give him, in an awkward and delicate position at all times.
2138	COMMONS
Conduct of Home Business
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that any Speaker worth his salt would like to see an avenue of appeal open just in case there is an error of judgment in order to ensure that a mistake does not create a precedent which future Parliaments cannot correct. I say, Mr. Chairman, without delving into the meritorious arguments of Professor Smith, the gentleman who prepared the document for the Procedure Committee, that I think that we should not endorse the proposal of the Government but should support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lapointe for the reasons I have outlined. I hope that upon passage of the amendment of the hon. Member for Lapointe we may be able to proceed to rephrase this particular section in a proper way that is worthy of acceptance.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I think about two weeks ago I prepared a brief intervention for this particular debate on proposed changes in the rules but each day I refrained from participating in the hope and expectation that the debate would be wound up and that we would be able to get ahead and arrive at points of decision. Perhaps my refraining did cut the debate a little bit shorter but I rise at this time to make a few observations on the particular point which has been raised.
We in this group have taken the position, I think quite consistently, that the authority of Mr. Speaker must be maintained if we are to have order in the House of Commons. I am sure every Member recalls that in the many challenges of the rulings of the Speaker we have very consistently supported the Speaker on those occasions. We did so because we believed that, even though there might be times when Mr. Speaker perhaps had exercised less than the best of judgment or possibly had made a ruling that was not completely in accord with what we had hoped, generally speaking his rulings should be sustained because, as I have said, we believe that his authority must be respected and maintained in the House.
I think all of us would agree in looking back over the past several years that there have been many occasions when Mr. Speaker's rulings have been challenged not on the basis of his interpretation of the rules of the House but because his ruling was contrary to the proposal put forward and upon which his judgment had been made. Therefore political implications and ramifications were considered. There were occasions when X personally felt that Mr. Speaker's rulings were challenged in order to try and gain a

DEBATES	June 8, 1965
little political advantage out of the situation. Perhaps I am attributing motives I should not, but that was certainly my feeling on a number of occasions.
In introducing this amendment the hon. Member for Lapointe seems to me to question the judgment, perhaps even the integrity and impartiality of Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I am rather naive.


An hon. Member:: You certainly are.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think it is better to be a little naive than overly sceptical under these circumstances.
I have always felt that the Speaker acts and makes rulings on the basis of his best judgment as to what he believes is correct and in accordance with the rules that have been placed before him by the House of Commons. Therefore, as I stated, I have constantly supported the Speaker's rulings with one exception and on that occasion I sat out the vote. Following that I discovered that the vote was a tie, and I suppose I might have felt very badly had Mr. Speaker been overruled on that occasion. That experience cured me of sitting out votes in this Chamber.
I have risen this evening to state that I believe this proposal should remain and that appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings should be removed. The privilege of appeal has been abused and I am, therefore, opposed to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lapointe and will support the motion without amendment.


Mr. Caouelte:: Mr. Chairman, in reading the provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution No. 15, you see that they are aiming at denying members of the right to appeal from the Speaker's rulings. On the other hand, just as resolution No. 14, resolution No. 15 is intended to speed up the business of the house and particularly to shorten at will sessions which have become too long.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that a paragraph could have been added to this clause so as to settle the problem of the length of sessions by setting for instance fixed dates for opening and adjournments, whereas the government could have prepared and introduced its legislation with a little more dispatch than they do at the present time.
We are now wasting considerable time precisely as a result of the inertia and indecision of the government, even if it told us that it would solve the problems of Canada within 60 days.
June 8, 1965

Mr. Chairman, we have been sitting since February 1964. We did not even have holidays last summer and God knows if we will have any this year. Now the government is submitting amendments to standing orders under the pretext that sessions would be considerably shortened.
If, for example, the government provided in its proposals that sessions would open about September 10 and adjourn on December 20, to resume afterwards on January 10 till June 30, it seems to me that in the meantime the government could prepare the legislation to be submitted for the consideration of the house.
However, the government did not see fit to set the dates for the opening and adjournment of sessions.
I also wish to deal with another point, namely the planning of business and parliamentary procedure. We all know, including the Liberals and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), that it takes the government a long time to prepare and introduce its pieces of legislation. Once they are prepared, we are presented with readymade measures about which no member knows anything. As a matter of fact, some bills are not even printed when we start discussing them. In my opinion, such a situation is intolerable within a so-called democratic parliament. The government could improve the procedure by introducing its measures so as to make us more familiar with their purpose.
Another thing which is quite a waste of time for the house and the public in general is the notorious motions of non-confidence. As soon as the government is dissatisfied a non-confidence vote is called. It is a foregone conclusion that the government's followers will vote with the government, even if that does not suit them, and that the followers of the Leader of the Opposition will vote with him. Therefore, the government should have taken into account in the proposed amendments to the rules these non-confidence votes which are a waste of time.
Mr. Chairman, paragraph 2 of section 1 of resolution No. 15 provides among other things that:
-if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried.
As the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) rightly stated earlier, such provision takes away the right of the minority parties,
Conduct of House Business the small political parties, to appeal against a ruling of the Speaker.
I heard earlier the hon. member for Fraser-Valley (Mr. Patterson) state that we should always maintain the Speaker's ruling. I understand that there are only nine members in his group and since at least ten members would have to rise and ask to be recognized by the Chair, his group could never be recognized since they are only nine members.
But as far as groups with more than ten members are concerned, if some of their members were absent because of illness, because they were delegated somewhere or for some other reason, then those groups could not appeal from the Speaker's ruling.
Mr. Chairman, I think that figure of ten should be cut down to five so that the Chair would have to recognize only five members when they rise.
I think that figure 10 should be lowered to 5.
Mr. Chairman, paragraph 2 of Order No. 15 reads as follows:
That Section (1) of standing order 12 be amended to read as follows:
Standing order 12, section (1)
12. (1) Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum-
Ever since Canada came into existence and ever since the House of Commons was established, always, in all circumstances, Mr. Speaker has had to face opposition, sometimes from his left and sometimes from his right, with regard to one of his rulings made and, then, I think it has been established that an appeal from such a ruling is but a process of democracy.
We have no doubts that the Speaker is a perfect gentleman but sometimes, when we say something that he rules out of order, we have the right to appeal from his ruling. This is the point involved in the amendment of the hon. member from Lapointe. We shall support this amendment, and I hope the President of the Privy Council will understand that we are not casting doubt on the Speaker's impartiality, good faith or good will, but merely recognizing a democratic principle of the Canadian parliament, namely that which allows the opposition, or even the government, to appeal the Speaker's decision when any group in the House wishes.
Therefore, section 12 of the Standing Orders is amended to read:
No debate shall be permitted-
We agree that no debate should be permitted, but we do not agree that there should be no appeal against the Speaker's ruling,
June 8, 1965

Conduct of House Business even if it is claimed that time would thus be saved and the parliamentary proceedings hastened; there are still principles to be safeguarded, principles recognizing the rights of each and every member of the house. Accordingly, the President of the Privy Council should consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe and the government itself should move this amendment prohibiting a debate on this matter but maintaining appeals against the Speaker's ruling, as was the practice in the past.
Once more I say that this will protect and help all members. We are here now, others will replace us in a few years, another parliament will sit in 25 years, and the actions laid down today will have repercussions tomorrow. Then, what Speaker, what parliamentary procedure will we have left, if we go on cutting down and cutting out here and there as we are doing now?
We are prepared to support, in order to facilitate the parliamentary procedure, those changes to the effect that there shall be no debate on a ruling made by the Speaker, but we are bent on having our rights and privileges preserved, safeguarded and respected so that we can appeal from a ruling by the Speaker when required.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there are only three or four minutes remaining which I should like to use up in referring to this matter. First of all, in putting forward his amendment I believe the hon. Member for Lapointe has involved himself in somewhat of a paradox in that he spoke about British traditions, the British Parliamentary system and the rights of Members thereunder. Perhaps he has forgotten that an appeal from the Speaker's ruling has never existed in the British Parliamentary system. It does not exist at all. It does not exist at the committee level. There are other ways of dealing with the matter and somehow or other Speakers


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -have always-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Tardif: Order; the hon. Member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What, a point of order?


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, because I think the hon. Member for Edmonton West just misinterpreted my remarks. I never mentioned that there was a right of appeal in the British Parliament, but I simply mentioned that the British parliamentary tradition recognized that the house was master of standing orders and procedure. It is not the same thing at all.


Paul Tardif: That is not a point of order. It is simply a difference of interpretation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I quite agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that it was a debating point and not a point of order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lapointe will recognize a point of order. In any event, dealing with the question of appeals from the Speaker's rulings, the other day when I spoke on the main motion I made my points in regard to this. Perhaps I would be in a subjective position in this regard.
However, in all sincerity I feel that one of the chief difficulties with the business of Parliament over the past 10 years has been the somewhat indiscriminate use of appeals against Speaker's rulings, not on points of jurisprudence or points of procedure but for political effect. This has been at the basis of it, and I do not wish to attribute motives. May I say in that regard, Mr. Chairman, that the same rule should apply to the Chairman of Committees. Frankly, I do not see the value of the proposed amendment because all it does is carry the appeal one stage from the Chairman to the Speaker. I cannot see how a Speaker is going to destroy one of his Chairmen by not backing him up. We are, therefore, going to get the same thing. Why not have it as it is in the British House where there is no appeal?
Some hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Lapointe, the hon. Member for Skeena and the hon. Member for Villeneuve have expressed what I believe is a justifiable doubt about a wrong decision in law remaining on the books as a precedent which subsequent Speakers may pick up. The other day I made a suggestion. It is one which I see has been incorporated in Professor Smith's book. I do not want to make any claim of authorship but we did discuss this
June 8, 1965	COMMONS
matter before he wrote the book. I suggested we follow the precedent of the West German Parliament where they have a special standing committee, a small committee composed of chairmen, to whom may be referred by the appeal of a limited number of members any question of procedure for future guidance. I think this is a safeguard, and I would put it to the Government for consideration. I think perhaps we may be able to come up with something like that. In any event, those are the points I should like to put forward with regard to this question. I certainly do not support the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Paul Tardif: Is the
Committee ready for the question?


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: No. Question, question.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, since some Members do not see the clock I have a few words to say on the amendment presented by the hon. Member for Lapointe. I might start off, Mr. Chairman, by asking how many Solomons we have in this House. The fact is that we all respect the decisions of all Speakers; we all respect the intentions of all Speakers.
May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



PROCEDURE


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent to revert to motions for the appointment of a committee mentioned earlier today?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House give consent to reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Edgar Walker: I move:
That the Special Committee appointed this day to consider certain procedures of the House be composed of the following: Messrs. Beaule, Churchill. Knowles, Lambert, MacEachen, MacNaught, Mcllraith, Olson, Starr.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
DEBATES	2141
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue discussion of the procedure resolution which was before the Committee of the Whole today and when it is finished we will consider the Bank Act legislation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 I put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture:
In order that dairy farmers, cheese factories and operators of manufacturing plants be well aware of the administrative details of the new dairy policy for the year 1965-66, could the Minister issue a clear and definite statement outlining these details as well as the approximate dates for the payment of adjustment and deficiency payments to producers?
Because of somewhat peculiar circumstances, the question has come up for debate only tonight. In the meantime, the Minister of Agriculture issued a release on June 2, giving certain explanations which we had been demanding since the end of March last on the new dairy policy which is in effect since May 1 of this year. In this press release, the minister admits that all dairy producers in Canada will not receive the minimum price requested by the opposition, by the producers and by all the various farm associations, namely $3.50 per hundredweight.
At the present time the dairy producers throughout the country, and more specially in our province, are asking various questions. For some time they have been asked to be patient, but their patience is exhausted.
In the question I directed to the minister, I asked him to make as soon as possible the supplementary payments on milk shipped last year.
As everyone knows, the government seems to want to fix a national price of $3.30. But to raise this price from 3.30 to $3.50 per hundred pounds of milk, a payment is made for the milk shipped to processing plants during the year 1964-1965.
2142	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Some farmers and dairy producers want the minister to give specific orders to his department so that those payments will be made as soon as possible, as they need that money.
In his statement the Minister said that the first payments would be made during the dairy production year and would begin in two months or so, which means that the dairy producers will get this money in August and even only in September perhaps.
That is why on behalf of the dairy producers I urge the minister to kindly take the necessary steps so that those payments are not delayed, because those farmers need that money.
There is another thing that the milk producers have wanted to know for many weeks now: What will be the standards used by the
price stabilization board to establish the national average for the dairy production year 1965-66?
On this point, the Minister said on June 1: [English]
The Agricultural Stabilization Board will keep a record, on a monthly basis, of the total amount of money farmers receive for milk delivered to approximately 300 processing plants across Canada.
The Parliamentary Secretary told me there are 900 plants in Canada. What the producers want to know is where the Government is taking these plants-in which areas of Canada. If it is taking only one-third of all the plants, the producers want to know exactly whether this one-third will consist only of the big plants or of the plants which are giving more money to the farmers.

Therefore, if, for instance, the government decides to exclude all processing plants receiving cream in order to arrive at the national average, such an average will be higher and the amounts paid for compensation and the deficiency payments made after the dairy production year will be lower.
What I am asking the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Beer) is to provide us with the list of the 900 establishments or processing plants throughout Canada, including the 300 plants the department or the committee for price stabilization intends to use to establish the national average.
Another question which stems also from the minister's press release is as follows:

Thus the national average plant price will automatically include geographic location, products

DEBATES	June 8, 1985
manufactured, premiums for bulk tanks, quality premiums, winter bonuses, subsidized transportation and so on.


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


Bruce Silas Beer: I wish to thank the hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I wish to deal with the policy established by this Government under three main headings, first, the purpose, next, the method by which it will be achieved, and, finally, the result.
The purpose is to establish an average price of $3.50 on manufactured milk for Canada. This will be achieved by providing a supplementary payment of 25 cents on the first
48.000	pounds produced, 20 cents on the second
48.000	pounds and 10 cents per 100 pounds on all in excess of 96,000 pounds. The average of this supplementary payment will be in the neighbourhood of 20 cents a hundred pounds across the country. In addition there will be a deficiency payment in order to establish at the plant a price for manufactured milk of approximately $3.30. If you take a price of $3.30 plus the supplementary payments this will establish a price of $3.50 for manufactured milk in Canada.
It may interest hon. Members to know that in 1964 the national average price was $3.06. The price proposed for this year will be 44 cents per hundred pounds above that figure. The average price for the five years from 1958 to 1963 was $2.89 and the price farmers will receive in 1965 will be 61 cents per hundred pounds above that five year average.
I think that is all that need be said about the policy generally. I should like to answer some of the particular questions asked by the hon. Member. He inquired whether or not all producers will receive $3.50. The answer is, of course, no, because we are dealing with national averages and some people will still receive a price which is probably slightly higher while others may get a price slightly below $3.50.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The second question asked was with regard to supplementary payments being made as soon as posible. It is the hope of the Government that this will be achieved and this is one of the main reasons for the 1964 production figures being used, namely, in order that the supplementary payment may be calculated at an early date and made available to the farmers. The next question had to do with
June 8. 1965
COMMONS DEBATES	2143
the 300 processing plants that are being selected and on which the average price will be established. All hon. Members of the House will be interested in knowing that these 300 plants were selected in a scientific manner and the plants in question will represent some 70 per cent of the total manufactured milk produced in this country.


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



TRANSPORT-DIVISION OF FIELDS OF OPERATION BETWEEN RAILWAY COMPANIES

Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised is not the most specific one in the world but it relates to the Minister's pride in announcing that there had been a voluntary arrangement between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines with regard to passenger service. I pointed out that if the Minister was able to encourage and develop this kind of voluntary co-operation with regard to air passenger service it was about time he did something for rail passenger service.
We have a relatively new president of the C.P.R. who is very vociferous; he has been sounding off about the C.P.R. operation and about the slippery slope of Socialism, and so on. But he has also been quite direct with regard to the passenger service of the railway, and if you look at the last annual report of the C.P.R. you will find this point on page 7:
Railway revenues amounted to $510.1 million, an increase of $32.9 million, or 7 per cent, and were the highest in the history of the Company, exceeding those of 1956, the previous record year, by 1 per cent.
Then it says:
Revenues Included payments of $19.3 million related to recommendations of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transportation and $7.4 million In respect of freight rate reductions.
Over on page 9 of the report, with regard to passenger traffic it says this:
The "Faresaver" plan. Introduced in late 1963, -though attracting additional patronage, did not produce sufficient revenue to justify the drastically reduced fares. In view of the increased use of the private automobile over improved highways in short distance travel and the inherent advantages of the jet airliner over long distance, no prospect Is envisaged by your Company of attracting rail passengers In sufficient numbers, on many segments of our lines, at prices they are willing to pay, to offset the expenses of providing this service.
The Minister was kind enough to table a letter of the President, Mr. Emerson. This
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion letter was dated May 12, 1965, and it is very interesting to note that Mr. Emerson falls back in his letter upon the MacPherson Royal Commission. He says:
The Commission also found that railway passenger service was not generally required because of the many alternative forms of passenger transportation. The Royal Commission, after extensive analysis, then made recommendations as to the handling of this difficult problem. The following excerpts summarize the position taken by that Commission:
"...we do not believe that the railways should be encouraged to remain in unprofitable segments of the passenger business".
Then Mr. Emerson goes on to point out:
In spite of substantial curtailment of unnecessary and uneconomic passenger service during the past ten years, it has not been possible to shrink the passenger deficit on Canadian Pacific in any appreciable degree.
Then he goes on to say that most of this deficit is attributable to the transcontinental service. Communities such as Regina, Moose Jaw, the Lakehead and others across Canada are quite concerned about this threatened withdrawal of passenger service, particularly the main line passenger service of the C.P.R. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), the Roman Catholic Member for Halifax or the younger Member for Halifax, made this point in the House, as the Minister will remember. I have an article here which appeared in the Toronto Star of April 23 headed "C.P.R. Appears Fed Up" dealing with this question. The article pointed out that the C.P.R. had indicated it would like to get out of the passenger business and probably would. It said the railway would be cutting down on some of its passenger service because the public were not using it. It also said there have been complaints in Parliament during the last year that the railway has been deliberately cutting service and revising schedules. I suggest there is a contradiction here between the view expressed on the part of the management of the railway and the policy set out by the Minister. I should like to point out that section 38 of the Railway Act reads as follows:
The Governor In Council may at any time refer to the Board for a report, or other action, any question, matter or thing arising, or required to be done, under this Act, or the Special Act. or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, and the Board shall without delay comply with the requirements of such reference.
In a nutshell, we have fear among the employees in these communities over the indefinite nature of the C.P.R.'s commitments to provide passenger services, particularly
2144	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion through transcontinental services, and these fears are becoming very real and serious. It is not only employees who are concerned but also communities. Yet the Minister apparently takes the attitude in this regard that somehow this is beyond him, that the railways are often at arm's length. When the air lines were often at arm's length the Minister wanted to encourage them to get together and develop a sort of air policy which meshed so that we have a division of air passenger service with some relation to the economics of each corporation. But here is a very different attitude. The C.N.R. has one attitude and the C.P.R. another. Thank the Lord Mr. Emerson does not hide behind any technicality. He wants the subsidies recommended by the MacPherson Royal Commission and wants to get out of passenger service wherever he can.
This situation cannot go on the way it is. My question to the Minister was really to suggest that he quit ducking his responsibility in this regard and come out with a Government policy regarding rail passenger service, particularly for the transcontinental line. That was really the question I put to him, and I would suggest to him there is a good analogy here and that the Railway Act or any other Act gives him no excuse to duck his responsibility any longer.
Hon, J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, the toon, gentleman is perhaps more eloquent than he is factual about this matter because the Government has a policy. It was not evolved by me. It was accepted by the present Government before I became Minister of Transport, and it was to carry out, so far as passenger service is concerned, the recommendations of the MacPherson Royal Commission. I introduced a bill in this House which received first reading and-


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there are no points of order allowed at this time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then I would refer the Minister to what he said today during the question period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman, having been allowed to speak uninterruptedly, would not trespass on my three minutes. As I was saying, it is our policy to apply the recommendations of the MacPherson Commission as soon as this Parliament is ready to deal with that legislation and the time-

DEBATES	June 8. 1965
table will permit it. In the, meantime, the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that any community that is concerned or aggrieved has a remedy under the Railway Act to go before a court of record, the Board of Transport Commissioners, and make its case.
I am not one of those who think it is very wise, just because one can grab a headline by doing so, to substitute a Minister of the Crown with airy-fairy statements about matters on which one is not an expert for bodies set up by Parliament, as is the Board of Transport Commissioners, to deal precisely with this kind of problem according to the laws made by Parliament. That is the position I take and I think it is the proper position for anybody charged with responsibility to take.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Hogwash.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-DESIGNATED AREAS- CONSULTATION WITH YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he would agree to consult with the Governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories at the same time as he was holding consultations with the Governments of the Provinces of Canada in relation to the new criteria to establish designated areas. At that time the Prime Minister answered, as reported at page 2043 of Hansard:
The Governments of the two territories are kept informed of what is going on.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I am speaking tonight to suggest to the Prime Minister that those of us who live in either the Yukon or Northwest Territories are not happy with this kind of an answer. We are not happy when we are told after the fact what the Government is doing. We want to participate in the decision making process rather than to be presented with a fait accompli after some deal has been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the provincial Premiers.
Yesterday the Prime Minister stated, and I quote from page 2023 of Hansard:
The preparation of this program has already benefited from consultation with provincial Governments, who have been made aware of the criteria that we are considering applying to the designation of areas.
Later he stated:
Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of measures which will be placed before you to combat poverty in Canada. The importance of the present pro-
June 8, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	2145
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
posals is that Canadians living in areas where jobs are most needed will have a better chance to improve their lives, because of the scope that this program provides for constructive industrial development and improved skills.
I should like to suggest to the Government and the Prime Minister particularly that if there is any area in Canada that is desperately in need of an incentive to encourage industrial development it is that area located in the two northern territories where, because of the lack of communication and transportation facilities, a situation which is being remedied, industry has not seen its way clear to move in to the extent of providing an economic base for the north.
All I am urging upon the Government is that the Yukon and Northwest Territories be not overlooked or forgotten at the time these consultations take place. I believe this is a valid request for me to make on behalf of the hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and myself. I believe this is of significance at this particular time because every day we read statements of various provincial leaders, such as the Premier of the Province of Quebec, who feel they should take their provinces out of Confederation because their legitimate needs and aspirations are not being met under the present set-up.
Those of us who live in the far northern territories are not trying to get out of Confederation; we are trying to get in and we want to be consulted at every stage of the game. We know that theoretically the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) is capable of representing these territories at these consultations. We also know that there is not very much negotiation when one Minister of the Crown is dealing with another Minister of the Crown. There are councils of both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and there is a Commissioner for each of those territories. All I am asking is that the Prime Minister consult with these two Commissioners and councils at the time new criteria are being developed.
Perhaps I should point out that the council of the Northwest Territories, which meets twice each year, will be meeting on June 14 in Yellowknife. I know also that the Yukon council meets regularly. There is absolutely no reason why the two representative Commissioners could not be given an opportunity to make their views known to the Government and supplement whatever efforts are being made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
I make the plea to the Prime Minister to reconsider his position and allow our representatives to embark upon this new exercise of Federal-Provincial Conferences in an attempt to assist in arriving at conclusions and programs for Canada. I ask the Prime Minister to cut us in to the fullest extent, if only to give these territories experience so that they may gradually work their way into full Government representation and be able at some point to take their place at the bargaining table with the provinces.
In the meantime, it is not good enough, in my opinion, for us to be told what the Prime Minister and the 10 Provincial Premiers have decided to give us. We want to participate in these discussions. I suggest to the Government that we have a lot of good advice to offer as to how these new designations and new incentives can be applied to the remote parts of Canada.
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, since this question falls within the purview of the Department of Labour I have been asked on behalf of the Minister to reply to the hon. Member. If I might make a personal comment before making my statement, I wish to say that following the hon. Member's efforts in the House since coming here two years ago I would have assumed that he would have endeared himself to the ministry to such an extent that he would wait with bated breath until the Department had made a decision that would be favourable to the Northwest Territories.
In any event, the Government is well aware of the special problems of the north and programs are in effect to help ease the difficulties of this particular part of Canada. There are welfare programs related to the Indian and Eskimo populations, vocational training, education, housing and such programs which tend to stimulate the economy, and certainly there is the stimulation of resources development. The Government has kept the Northwest Territories aware of its new policies through the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and, to some extent, through the hon. Member. The normal channel of communication with the territorial governments is, of course, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
2146	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The Government is well aware of the importance of keeping the territorial governments abreast of things that are transpiring in Ottawa. An indication of this concern is that for the first time the territories are going
DEBATES	June 8, 1965
to he represented, as part of the Federal delegation, at the July 19th Federal-Provincial Conference.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.