1965-06-04

INDUSTRY


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of hon. Members a proposal which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and which will be submitted to the House for approval in the Supplementary Estimates of the Department of Industry. It is a program for the advancement of industrial technology, which is designed to promote the growth of Canadian industry by the application of scientific and technological advances to the development of new products and processes of benefit to the national economy.
The basic concept of the program is to help industry help itself to improve its technological capability and to expand its innovation activity by underwriting development projects which involve a genuine technical advance and which, if successful, offer good prospects for commercial exploitation. Assistance under the program will be available to individual firms or groups of firms which have the capabilities and facilities to undertake the development work, and to manufacture and market the results.
Support will be concentrated on the development of producer goods and manufacturing processes, which serve to increase productivity and contribute directly to economic growth. Wherever possible, advantage will be taken of Canada's natural resources, skills and environment to establish a unique capability or technical leadership. Preference will be given to projects which offer maximum return to the economy and the broadest distribution of benefits to the nation as a whole.
The initiative for proposing development projects and responsibility for their direction and execution will rest with industry. Costs will be shared by the Government and the industrial firm, and in the event the project is successful and the results are brought into commercial usage, the firm will be required to repay the Government's contribution. In order to ensure expeditious and effective exploitation of the results of the development projects, title to patents, designs, information and equipment resulting from the project will vest in and remain the property of industrial firms. However, firms will be expected to exploit the results of the project in Canada.
It is hoped this program will improve the position of Canadian industry in relation to its foreign competitors who enjoy the advantage of substantial government financial support for their research and development endeavours. It is also expected that it will help to create an industrial environment attractive to our best qualified scientific, technical, and managerial personnel. The program is envisaged as a catalyst for technical progress, and since investment in research and development is economically regenerative, the potential return to the economy could be many times the original outlay.
It is estimated that expenditures in the fiscal year 1965-66 to initiate this program will be $5 million, which amount will be included in the Supplementary Estimates of the Department of Industry and placed before the House for approval. For future years it is expected that the rate of expenditure will build up progressively, depending upon industry's needs and ability to expand its level of technical activity.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Minister's announcement and will read it carefully later on. At the moment I would say it is a platitude of flowery words.
This proposal is going to cost the taxpayers approximately $5 million and will come before the House in Supplementary Estimates, at which time we will examine it very closely. I sincerely hope it will do all the things the Minister has intimated it will do for the promotion of industry in our country, and that it will have just as much value for the small industries and small operators as it will have for the large ones.
I hope that when the Supplementary Estimates come before the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal further and to ask many questions concerning it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's statement is in such general terms that one cannot really calculate precisely what is likely to occur.
June 4, 1965
1976	COMMONS
Technological Advancement Program
It seems to me that the Minister is finally recognizing the fact that this country has not been promoting, to the degree which is necessary in this technological age, the research that is required so that the country may be able to meet competition from so many of the other industrialized countries of the world.
We in Canada have a problem which does not present itself in many other countries. It arises because to a large extent our industries are controlled from outside, that is, from the United States. Since our biggest industries- the automobile industry, for example-are dominated by their United States owners, basic research is done, for the most part, south of the border. I do not know how the present proposal would help to change that position. Small companies are just not in a position to carry out the kind of research which the Minister hopes will be done as a result of the encouragement he proposes.
We shall, of course, examine this proposition in greater detail when the supplementary estimates come forward. But I believe there are two matters we should look into almost immediately. First, the Minister says the initiative will be left to industry. It seems to me this is wrong. Up to now, industry has failed to make the progress in this field which might have been expected, and in these circumstances it seems to me the Government should be taking the initiative. Here is a program which the Government is initiating financially. We are told that if there are practical results-and I think I am quoting the Minister correctly-the patents would remain the property of the individual companies concerned. If the Government is putting up the money and starting this program the patents ought to be the property of all Canadians, not just of individual companies. These are some of the factors we shall have to consider.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: course each time an announcement made in the house is aimed at improving the economic situation and helping industrial development,
I think we must rejoice and congratulate those who take the initiative.
The minister has announced that help will be available for the development of research and new processes and that the government will allocate $5 million this year for that purpose. Needless to say, it is hard to evaluate to what extent this program will really help private companies to develop certain production lines already in operation. However, I


cannot condemn that project without knowing what its results will be. The two hon. members who spoke before me made negative criticism but personally I do not like that attitude and I congratulate the minister on his efforts to help private as well as public enterprise to increase employment in our country.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to point out that the minister has been saying for a very long time in the house that he has bills to promote industrial development in underdeveloped areas, in need of new industries. We hope that in this field, he will propose to the house constructive legislation which will result in the creation of new industries and the development of those already existing so that Canada may be self-sufficing to the greatest possible extent as concerns consumer goods. It is on that point especially that I should like to congratulate the minister.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the few minutes available to me will not allow me to analyse the future implications of the legislation presented by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), to assist our Canadian industry in the field of scientific research.
Nevertheless, this announcement makes us realize one thing: the Minister of Industry and Defence Production wants to provide the private industry with, at least, some incentives for research in the scientific field. This is a good step forward taken by the minister. We hope he will continue in that direction. We shall have the opportunity to come back to this when we study the full particulars of the coming legislation relating to this aid.
On the other hand, should these experiences prove successful they will be considered as a loan to private enterprises, but, should they prove unsuccessful, they will mean a loss to the Canadian taxpayers and to the government.
We have also noticed that while the Minister of Industry and Defence Production is trying to help the various Canadian industries, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) is increasing their fiscal burden.
We would certainly have appreciated this project still more if the Minister of Industry and Defence Production had been able to tell us that the funds earmarked for scientific research that could be useful to private industries would be deductible for income tax purposes.
June 4, 1965

Industry is doing research work at the present time and it fosters the economic development of Canada. But in matters of income tax, the Department of National Revenue takes back what the Minister of Industry is trying to give.
Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of any form of assistance to Canadian private industry and we congratulate the Minister for his idea. However, we do not want to see private industries forced to give away to Peter what they got from Paul.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, having consulted the representatives of the other parties, I believe I will have unanimous consent to move the following resolution. By unanimous consent I move, seconded by Mr. Rinfret:
That the number of Members on the Standing Committee on External Affairs under Section 65L of Standing Orders be reduced to 24 and that the committee be composed of the following: Messrs. Belanger, Brewin, Brown, Deachman, Dube, Forest, Gelber, Haidasz, Klein, Knowles, Mrs. Konantz, Messrs. Lachance, MacEwan, Mandziuk, Martineau, Matheson, McIntosh, Nesbitt, Nugent. Patterson, Pugh, Regan, Walker, Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, by virtue of Standing Order 26 I would ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Last November in a meeting of the Special Committee on Food and Drugs I made mention of the concern of my fellow medical practitioners about the long term effects of some of the potent drugs we are now using in the treatment of psychiatric patients. I referred then to a paper delivered to the Canadian Psychiatric Association making observations about skin pigmentation problems following long-term treatment on high dosages of the medication known generically as chlorpromazine. I referred also to a report in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association on liver damage, and deaths resulting from the use of this drug.
Use of Chlorpromazine
At that time I asked the witness drug manufacturer, who was not the original developer of the drug, about his studies and clinical testing of his product. He stated that he had none; that he was not making, nor did he seem to intend to have made, any clinical studies on the ground that this was only the responsibility of the original developer. I also discovered that this manufacturer had no staff physician to whom physicians could immediately refer if they encountered some unexpected side effect in the use of this potent drug.
Medical integrity insists that the best interest of the patient is served by treating him with medicines compounded under the most scrupulous conditions, that have been clinically proven for efficacy as to purity, solubility and stability of the active chemical and the dosage form offered to the patient, whose supplier's processes are under continuous medical supervision, and who have a staff physician available continuously for consultation by the patient's physician in the event of unexpected reactions.
It was my intention to wait until the deliberations of the Committee of this House offered an appropriate moment to accent this problem and concern. But in a recent issue of the Canada Gazette, part I of May 8, I observed a notice that a chemical company was applying to the Commissioner of Patents for the right to a manufacturing patent developed by another pharmaceutical house. As I understand it, there is no legal block to the Commissioner ordering this. As it is not regarded as a new drug, the Federal Government requires no clinical tests, no studies, no reporting of any nature of the dosage form to be presented, simply the right to compound the chemical.
Yet this is even more potent a drug than the one with which the scientists were concerned at the Canadian Psychiatric Association. Trifluoperazine, as I discovered the application to concern, is the most potent of all the potent phenothiazines. The tablet form of it never contains more than 10 milligrams of the active ingredient. The present manufacturer's literature states that:
At the dosage levels used in mental hospitals, neuromuscular reactions are seen in a significant number of patients. These side effects are manifested not only as a transient stimulation or jitteriness, but also as dystonias, or pseudo-Parkinsonism.
Obviously it must not only be administered with great care, but the physician and patient must know that it is manufactured under the

June 4, 1965
Use of Chlorpromazine conditions and to the standards upon which medical integrity insists.
I submit therefore that this is more-much more-than a simple patent matter to be settled by even good technicians. I hold no brief for the owners of the patent per se. But I do hold a brief for the protection and welfare of the Canadian people. So I urge the Minister to bring this immediate matter into the purview of her Department and also all future applications for the licensing of potent medicines made under patent; or I urge that all arrangements between the owner of the patent to make potent medicines and other drug manufacturers shall be conditional upon:
(a)	Being in possession of a certificate indicating that the proposed new producer complies with the manufacturing standards of the Food and Drug Directorate of Canada;
(b)	That the new producer is in possession, and prepared to submit evidence to the Food and Drug Directorate of Canada, of studies of a controlled laboratory of a clinical nature demonstrating safety and availability or efficacy of the dosage form offered;
(c)	That the dosage form employed in the aforementioned studies shall have been manufactured by the same method and process as that proposed to be sold by the applicant;
(d)	That the processes of the proposed new product are under the medical supervision of a physician licensed to practice in Canada and that a physician on the full time permanent staff of the applicant is available for consultation at any hour by any physician in practice in Canada or by the Food and Drug Directorate.
I, and other physicians in medical practice, realize that the drugs we have have proven efficacious when made under the supervision of the medical profession. Yet they can be a two-edged sword. So for the sake of the people of Canada I ask the Minister to act now, under an emergency order if necessary, and set strict standards before we encounter a situation that should-and could-have been prevented.


Mr. Speaker:: Do any other hon. Members wish to make some remarks?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with regard to this matter, although not specifically to the technical matter raised by the hon. Member for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones). [DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister and the House Leader to the following paragraph which appears in the

Speech from the Throne of April 5, two months ago.
My government will propose the re-establishment of a Special Committee of the House of Commons on food and drugs, and will facilitate its work with the aim of reducing the prices paid by the public for drugs.
That is a special committee and not one which has to wait for the passage of procedural matters such as we are now discussing. It is my belief that had the Government done what it promised to do the kind of discussion raised by the hon. Member for Saskatoon would not have been raised today. Perhaps we can get some action from the Prime Minister and the House Leader in this regard.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should answer that suggestion first. We will undertake to bring in a motion on Monday respecting this if we can have the assurance of hon. Members opposite that the motion will be dealt with immediately without debate.


David Orlikow: What Monday?


George James McIlraith: This important legislative program has been foreclosed from being brought forward by the inordinate time taken on some other matters.


Mr. Monteith:: That is no way to get things done.


George James McIlraith: The subject raised in the motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss an urgent matter of public importance is undoubtedly a matter of great importance but I do not think it has that element of urgency at this time which requires immediate debate.
The point before the House at this moment, and before you, Mr. Speaker, relates to the urgency of debate and as to whether or not the regular business of the House should be set aside to discuss this important matter. I suggest the subject matter of the motion is not of that kind of urgency which would warrant that kind of action at this time. The kind of urgency involved in a motion of this kind is that kind of urgency which would warrant the setting aside without notice of the important business now before the House. That kind of urgency was not established by the hon. lady's remarks. Indeed she rather refuted that suggestion in her own presentation when she said that this matter arose from an item she saw in the Canada Gazette of May 8, a month ago. Perhaps that statement answers the question as to the urgency
June 4. 1965



of this matter at this time, and whether it should be debated today.
Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this matter is not of the nature that would warrant the setting aside of our regular business as indicated for today.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, before the
Minister sits down will he permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister be prepared to file notice before six o'clock today of the Government's intention to set up the drug committee? Perhaps there could be a meeting of the party leaders between now and Monday to ascertain whether this motion could be passed without debate.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will be pleased to do that.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, when you are considering the motion of the hon. Member for Saskatoon I hope you will keep in mind the seriousness of the subject under discussion. This matter should not be brushed off lightly. We have had experience in the past in respect of drugs which have had bad side effects, and I think there is general public concern at this time. When a distinguished member of the medical profession raises a matter like this it is not raised lightly.
The Government House Leader suggested that this may be dealt with by a committee and suggests that we should now rush ahead and appoint a committee by Monday without debate. Why was this committee not set up following the Speech from the Throne? We have now again received the suggestion by the Government that, having been reminded of its deficiency, it will now rush forward, without debate, and appoint a committee.
In the course of his remarks the President of the Privy Council said the House was using an inordinate amount of time for the present debate on a subject which involves fundamental changes to the rules of this House. I think the Minister should have been more careful, as he usually is, in his phraseology, because it is when the Government attempts to force something on the House of Commons that trouble begins in this chamber.
We have been making reasonable progress during the course of this week. Now the Government House Leader accuses the Opposition of using an inordinate amount of time to discuss a subject of vital importance. In order to restore friendly relations I think 22620-127
Use of Chlorpromazine the President of the Privy Council should withdraw that word from his statement.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the motion made by the hon. Member for Saskatoon may I say that I am now informed that that hon. Member wrote a letter to my Department, a copy of which I received just as I came into the House at eleven o'clock.
I suggest to hon. Members of this House that the urgency for debate, for which the rules call, is not pertinent at this time since that hon. lady has asked that immediate action be taken in respect of what she fears may possibly be harmful to the safety of the public of Canada. Perhaps the action which the hon. lady requests can be expedited by a cessation of this discussion. I would be very happy to discuss this matter personally with the hon. Member.


Some hon. Members:: Get down on your knees.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Of course it was under the
aegis of the former Government that the thalidomide trouble was allowed to occur. Great strides have been taken since that time to prevent any similar difficulty from occurring.
What the hon. lady is suggesting-


Eloise May Jones: Mr. Speaker, on a point of-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps the hon. lady will allow me to complete my statement.


An hon. Member:: You always have to get nasty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that the Minister be allowed to complete her remarks.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What the hon. lady is suggesting is that action be taken for which there is no provision in law. I suggest to hon. Members of this chamber that an urgent debate at this time, interrupting the regular business, could not in any way provide a new legal basis upon which action could be taken.
I assure the hon. Member for Saskatoon, and all other hon. Members, that upon receipt of her letter this morning I forwarded it to the Food and Drug Directorate, and I will be very happy later today, when I receive a report to forward that information to any hon. Member who feels he or she is interested in this matter.
Regarding the Food and Drug Committee, Mr. Speaker, that committee is one which was set up during the two previous sessions. It

June 4, 1965
Use of Chlorpromazine has dealt with pesticides and drug safety, leaving only one subject to be dealt with, and that is drug costs. My colleague, the House Leader, has suggested that perhaps hon. Members will not take up time to debate the setting up of this committee to deal with this one very important point, which is in effect a subject matter which has now been before that committee for some two years.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question in everyone's mind is, can the Minister tell us that she will prevent this patent from being picked up on Monday. If she does not, then the company will be allowed to obtain that patent and, in co-operation with the manufacturer, make this drug available before the necessary precautions have been taken, as was suggested in the motion made by the hon. Member for Saskatoon. I think that is the question to which we want an answer.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were going to be similar to those of the hon. Member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). However, I cannot let the matter go without asking the Minister to retract the inference that the previous Government was responsible for the thalidomide problems in the world. I think that is completely uncalled for.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shameful.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: I suggest to the Minister that if the Speaker is not going to allow further discussion today, the matter should be referred back to the Food and Drugs Committee and that no release be allowed of this drug until recommendations are made to the Government by the Food and Drugs Committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us that undertaking.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank hon. Members for the benefit of their advice and counsel. The Chair has to decide whether the ordinary business of the House should be set aside in order to discuss the most important matter raised by the hon. Member for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones). It seems to the Chair that, in view of the opportunity afforded today of making a detailed statement under Standing Order 26, she has in effect brought this important matter to the attention of the Minister concerned with it, and that nothing is to be gained by setting aside the ordinary business of the House. The Chair, therefore, does not see its way clear to accepting the
[Miss LaMarsh.l
motion as presented by the hon. Member for Saskatoon and seconded by the hon. Member for Simcoe East.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the announcement made last night by the Prime Minister regarding uranium, there are one or two matters that were far from clear. The first is, in view of the existence of contacts with the United States and the United Kingdom for uranium and the revision of the terms of those contracts to assure what the Minister referred to as verification, have consultations taken place with the representatives of those two nations and have they agreed to that amendment of the existing contracts? Second, what is the meaning of "verification"? Does that mean inspection or is this word used in order to allow the Republic of France to make purchases of uranium by simply making a declaration that the uranium is going to be used for civil purposes? What is the meaning of "verification"?
It is obvious that the Prime Minister steered away from the word that has always been used in the past "inspection", namely the right to inspect within the country receiving the uranium, its facilities to ensure that the use of the uranium supplied shall be for domestic purposes?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned there have been consultations, before this policy was adopted, with the United Kingdom and United States Governments because of our previous association with them in regard to uranium policy matters. The Governments concerned understand and appreciate the policy we have announced. This policy, in the announcement, was stated to refer to contracts that will be made, and it is not the intention of this Government unilaterally to interfere with the two existing contracts. We have one with the United States which will be completed, I believe, by the end of this year and one with the United Kingdom on which over half of the uranium has been delivered.


John George Diefenbaker: How long will it take for that contract to be completed?
June 4, 1965


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, some years, Mr. Speaker; I think by the end of 1970 or early 1971 is the completion date. However, more than half of the uranium under the contract has been delivered.
The application of this peaceful purposes policy to the existing contracts is a matter which is now being discussed with those Governments. I cannot say anything more than that.
So far as the meaning of the expression "verification and control" is concerned, this is the phrase that is used in both the International Atomic Energy agreements and the Euratom agreement. The definition of that phrase in terms of effective access and control is spelled out in each bilateral agreement that has been made. We hope other bilateral agreements will be made with other countries-France and other countries-for the peaceful use of atomic energy, and such arrangements will be spelled out in each agreement. We have an agreement with India in which we talk about verification and control and under it we do have the right of both access and control.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for explaining what appeared to be certain inconsistencies in the statement. Is it his intention to apply to France rules similar to those that apply in connection with India?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would be applying similar rules to France as to all other countries with whom we hope to make bilateral agreements for the peaceful use of atomic energy in the future, and we will apply these rules to the United States and the United Kingdom in respect of future contracts we may make with them.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I understood the Prime Minister to say that the present contract with the United States will expire at the end of this year. If that is the case, is it the intention of the Government to exempt from these restrictions on uranium exported to the United States, an amount of uranium equivalent to the amount used by the United States to produce atomic weapons for Canada, or is it the intention of the Government that Canada should manufacture its own nuclear arms in the future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not our intention to manufacture nuclear arms in any way, shape or form. It is the purpose of this policy to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms in the world.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



SAINT JOHN. N.B.-REPORTED DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Last evening when we were discussing employment practices with regard to the M/V Boylen, the Minister quoted from a letter which had been received from McKelvey, Macaulay, Machum and Fairweather, which firm presumably was asked to look into this question of employer-employee relationships. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to table that particular letter and to table the addendum to the service contract which was referred to in that letter?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I have no objection to the tabling of the letter and the addendum. I will have them in the House on Monday and, with consent, I will be glad to table both.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour if, as he stated to the press, he is prepared to make a statement to clarify his original answer concerning Banks being a president of one of the seafarers corporations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, I have had no conversations with any member of the press with respect to the incident in the House yesterday. I did say I would investigate the matter further in a follow-up to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). In a telephone conversation, I undertook to advise the hon. Member for Kootenay West as to the result of my further investigations. If the hon. Member for Kootenay West will relieve me of that obligation I will be glad to answer directly and say that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees has advised me that at the time of Mr. Banks' dismissal on March 18, 1964, he was still a director and shareholder of the Building Corporation. The Chairman, Judge Lippe, advises me that at that time Banks was removed as president of the building corporation.
June 4, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, would the Minister elaborate on what manner, or the procedure through which he was removed, and whether McLaughlin is now the president of that corporation-McLaughlin who was a henchman for Mr. Banks? I think we are entitled to that information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is asking for detailed information and it seems to me it would be much better to put the question on the order paper. The hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour this question. Do not all these unanswered questions clearly indicate that the Industrial Relations Committee should be re-established, and the members of that committee have the opportunity to call the trustees, to call employees of the trustees, to call members of the union and also members of the Companies Branch to get the facts in respect to this enigma, so far as organization and administration are concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no enigma and there is no unanswered question on this point. It is now established by the Chairman of the Board that Mr. Banks was removed as president of the building corporation at the time he was removed as president of the S.I.U. Now, it may be that this change has not been reported in the normal way, because I understand a meeting was held in April of this year, at which minutes were prepared to enable the corporation to comply with the relevant federal and provincial reporting statutes, so that on this point any previously existing enigma has been removed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a further supplementary question, does the Minister know that because of the $50,000 loan from the Seafarers International of America, that organization has an interest in the Canadian property holding corporation? We would like to know how these things were determined, and if they were done according to the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Once more it seems to me these are detailed questions possibly requiring a fair amount of research, and they are not altogether proper at this time. The hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if I might rise on a point of privilege on this matter, my point of privilege comes back to the original answer by the Minister. Briefly my point of

privilege is that I suggest the Minister-if he was not making a deliberate misrepresentation, there was misrepresentation given-and I feel after his answer today that it shows on the face of it that there was some misrepresentation.
I will just take a minute, if I might. From a searching of the records of the Secretary of State it shows this is still on record, and that is why I ask whether there are some documents to contradict this, that Harold C. Banks was a director and that Leonard J. McLaughlin and Raymond Doucet were directors of the company. I was able to obtain this information in a two or three minute search.
The Minister said he thought those facts were correct. He keeps saying this in an evasive way which would lead us to believe he is trying to hide facts from the House, but it only takes a few minutes to get this information; yet he delayed the answer for several days. Surely this is a proper point of privilege. He made an answer at first. Then he denied it. Now he says the facts are altogether different. We are entitled to a clean breast from the Minister. Putting it mildly, I put it he has misrepresented the facts deliberately in the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. Member withdraw completely and unreservedly this charge that I have deliberately misrepresented the situation to the House. I ask Your Honour to have that withdrawal made now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), in the height of excitement in his presentation used the word "deliberate" without really thinking, and more on the basis of enthusiasm. It is a well established rule in the House that the answer of a Minister should be taken, and if the hon. Member is not satisfied with that answer there are other procedures that he could adopt. But in the present case it seems to me we are getting far afield and I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw the word "deliberate", although there may be some misunderstanding with regard to the rest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have always had respect for the Chair, and if it wasn't deliberate misrepresentation then it was very careless on the part of the Minister that he does no research before he makes an answer. He cannot have his cake and eat it. I would say this is another case of selective amnesia on the part of the Government.
June 4, 1S65	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to be satisfied with any conditional withdrawal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. Member is
obligated, under the present practice of the House, to withdraw without reservation, and I do not intend to be subjected to the kind of tactics that the hon. Member has indulged in.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to hon. Members that we are not doing too badly for a Friday morning, but in any event in my opinion the Minister is right in asking for a withdrawal. Obviously the hon. Member for Bow River who sometimes gets enthusiastic, like all of us, should withdraw and we should get on with the business of the House. This is far too small a thing, it seems to me, to delay our proceedings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, I have always bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but I say if it wasn't deliberate it was misinformation.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the comment made is still conditional. "If it wasn't deliberate" is a conditional withdrawal, and I insist on my rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I have endeavoured on two occasions at least, I hope tactfully, to suggest that we have a complete withdrawal. Now I will ask the hon. Member for Bow River to make a complete withdrawal, so that we can get on with the business before us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am prepared to withdraw the word deliberate. I have done so already.
I say that the information was not given properly. There is nothing wrong in that, surely. The Minister says he is going to stand on his rights: I have some rights too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The only words I heard were "unconditional withdrawal." I understand that is what the hon. Member implies and means. Therefore I leave it at that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I accept the withdrawal made by the hon. Member as to the deliberate misrepresentation. I accept that, and so far as I am concerned that issue is closed. But I want to say there has been no
DEBATES	1983
Inquiries of the Ministry misrepresentation, because when the hon. Member for Kootenay West asked this question I suggested it was not correct to say that Mr. Banks was still president of the building corporation. I made investigations, very careful investigations, and I did not answer in the House until I had a communication from the chairman of the Board of Trustees, who has supported my original statement that Mr. Banks was removed as president of the building corporation at the time he was removed as president of the union. That is a fact. That is in complete conformity with the original answer. The hon. Member may debate it, but there is no misrepresentation, whether deliberate or otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency just sit down for a minute before he asks his question, in order that the hon. Member for Marquette, who spoke to me last Friday and who, for various reasons, is very anxious to ask a question, may now be heard.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: I
thank you, Sir, and also the hon. Member. My question is addressed to the Minister of Industry and I have given him notice of it. How can the Government account for its failure to retain Agristeel Fabricators Limited, located in Minnedosa, Manitoba, and which is now moving its operations to the United States of America because of lack of Government action, despite representations by the company, the Minister of Industry of the Province of Manitoba and myself since 1963, when this Government took office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. While it is an interesting question it seems to me completely out of order. The hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I gave the Minister due notice two days ago. I discussed the problem with him and I think he is prepared to give an answer. Otherwise, we shall debate this question at the next opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister in a position to give an answer? Does he wish to reply?
1984	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I had the privilege of discussing this problem with the Agristeel Company and I would point out to the hon. Member that the underlying difficulty relates to a trade agreement negotiated by the Government of which he was a supporter some years ago.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I ask the Minister a supplementary question? Since his Government established a new portfolio, that of the Minister of Industry, why has it not changed this agreement with the United States, if it is to the detriment of Canadian industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are endeavouring to do so.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I had that promise from the Minister of National Revenue, and I had the same promise from the Minister of Industry nearly two years ago. My question is: When are you going to carry out that promise?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. Member knows, when negotiations are conducted in good faith, ensuing Governments have to carry them out. I regret very much the agreement which was made by the previous Government because it has produced great difficulty for this Company.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REPLIES FROM PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my question may be a little stale after an hour's wait.
Last Tuesday the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) answered the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) that he had not as yet received replies from all the provincial premiers as regards the coming federal-provincial Conference.
Can the Right Hon. Prime Minister tell us this morning if he is in a position to make the promised statement? If not, can he tell us if the Premier of the Province of Quebec has accepted his invitation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think all the replies have been received, though I did receive, only this morning, an additional reply from one provincial premier concerning the agenda. I expect to be in a position to make a full statement on the proposed conference very early next week.
[Mr. Speaker.)
DEBATES	June 4, 1965



TRIFLUOPERAZINE-REQUEST TO WITHHOLD PATENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would she allay the fears of the Members of this House by withholding the picking up of the patent for the manufacture of the drug trifluoperazine on Monday next?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have not yet received word from my own legal advisers, but as I understand the law I am not in a position as Minister of Health and Welfare to do so. I believe there may be a right possessed by the Commissioner of Patents who is responsible to the Department of Justice. The hon. Member and all hon. Members of the House have my assurance, of course, that I will discuss this matter with him immediately, so as to deal with this question if there is any way by which the law permits. A suggestion was made that an order be issued, not with respect to the new drug but with respect to an old drug, but it is my understanding that no law exists on the basis of which I could take action at the present time. However, I will be glad to look into the question. Indeed, I am already doing so.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Will the Minister undertake to see that this drug is not released to the public. If she cannot stop the patent, will she hold back the drug until the Food and Drug Committee has had a chance to study the matter and make a recommendation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I have pointed out, according to my understanding of the law I have no such power.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could not intervene to see that this patent is not lifted until we know this drug is safe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I will do everything possible. I will have a word with her immediately after the lunch hour adjournment to see what can be done to meet what is obviously a very dangerous situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
June 4, 1965



REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON ALLEGED DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the Minister any comment to make on the alarming statistics which appeared in the press this morning concerning the trade deficit for the first part of this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only comment I should like to make about this is one I have made on several previous occasions, namely that when Canada is prosperous it has an enormous capacity for imports-and we are very prosperous today. I think we shall have to become accustomed to the idea of there being some deterioration in our balance of payments position.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister whether he is in agreement with the Financial Times which states in an article under the heading "Perspective on the Week" that if the rise in Canadian demand for imported goods continues at the March level-27 per cent above last year-it "foreshadows a deficit in our international payments approaching the level which cautious observers, like the Governor of the Bank of Canada, consider to be intolerable for any length of time". Does the Minister agree with that?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure we are all concerned about the prospective balance of payments situation. The Government is doing everything it can to enlarge exports and make Canadian industry more competitive, so that fewer imports may be necessary. I would point out to the right hon. gentleman, however, that it is far better to have a balance of payments deficit in a period of great prosperity than it was in 1959 when we had an adverse balance of $1,500 million, in a depression.


John George Diefenbaker: At that time we were pursuing policies which were apparently enunciated when the hon. gentleman was Deputy Minister. Is this a good sign-that imports are up nearly 12 per cent, and 13.5 per cent from the United States, while exports have risen by only 3.7 per cent? Is that a good sign?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is not a proper question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be quite happy to answer questions such as that outside the House; but we do have rules in this House- rules which, I think, have a purpose-and I only wish the right hon. gentleman would sometimes observe them.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the hon. gentleman's suggestion about the rules is concerned, all I can say is this: He has no answer and therefore he resorts to subterfuge.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Having regard to the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I wonder how much prosperity the Minister of Finance thinks we can afford.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I think we can afford a great deal, and I think we are having it.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce intend recommending to his colleagues the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that this question has been asked, if not daily, then once a week for months.
The hon. Member for Moose Mountain.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: My
question has been put by the hon. Member for Oxford and followed up by the Leader of the Opposition.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF SILVER CONTENT IN COINAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the Government considering lowering the silver content of Canadian coinage following the recommendation of President Johnson to the United States Congress yesterday?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We are considering very carefully the proposals which have been made in the United States. We have been considering this whole question for some time. I am not yet in a position to announce what the Government policy will be.

June 4. 1565
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jay Waldo Monteith: Could such action have any long-term effect on the price of silver in the free world?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think we are straying into hypothetical areas. I have never found it was profitable to engage in this kind of speculation on the orders of the day.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND- BRITISH COLUMBIA ALLOCATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatierlon (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities in their recent convention unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the Federal Government extend the "forgiveness" under the Municipal Development and Loan Act to the end of 1967 and replenish the funds of those Provinces which have used up their allocated quotas.
In view of this, and in view of the request by the Government of British Columbia for more funds to meet the demands of municipalities, is the Government now giving consideration to taking action along these lines?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been giving consideration to this whole question. As my hon. friend will remember, the purpose of this measure was to speed up certain municipal works in order to provide employment at a critical period. The purpose was not to resolve the financing difficulties of municipalities. I think all hon. Members will agree that the purpose has been very successfully met; that the municipal development and loan fund has performed in the way it was hoped it would. It has been a very successful measure. I am not in a position to reply to my hon. friend's question at this moment, which seemed to suggest that the fund might be changed to meet some other purpose. However, I hope to have a statement to make some time next week.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister now implying that unemployment in British Columbia and New Brunswick is no longer a problem?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not implying anything of the kind, Mr. Speaker, but I am suggesting that it has been relieved to a very considerable extent in the last two years.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring a matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the answer the Minister has just given to the hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) was on his feet asking a supplementary question before the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the answer the Minister has just given to the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich is the same answer he gave to me a number of weeks ago, can he not say "No" if he means no, so we will know where we stand?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I hope to make a statement on this matter very shortly.



ESTABLISHMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he had talks with promoters of a co-operative bank for the province of Quebec in which the "Caisses populaires" would hold the majority of shares?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no such conversations.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Following numerous requests from my constituents and others, can the Minister tell the house to what he attributes the delays in income tax refunds?

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the handling of 6| million tax returns between January 1 and,
June 4, 1985

we hope, the end of June is a very comprehensive task to be undertaken by my Department. However, I believe that refunds under the present system are going out to people faster than they ever have in the past. I would also like to point out that tax returns which involve refunds are dealt with on a priority basis by my Department and are processed before other tax returns. One of the difficulties that often arises is that tax returns involving a refund have some difficulty being processed if the return is improperly filed, donation receipts are left out, or something like this. Then they have to be referred back to the district taxation office and it takes longer to process them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a situation to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with Cuba. The United States has no representation there, and we have an Ambassador in that country. There has been a continuation of persecution, on religious grounds, of Baptist missionaries in that country. They have had trials that are, to say the least, not in keeping with the assurance of justice. I took this matter up a couple of weeks ago with the Minister, and I thank him for his intercession at that time. I ask whether he now has any assurance from the Cuban Government that the cruel injustice being perpetrated against these people on purported charges of espionage, that have no basis in fact, has been condemned by the Canadian Government; and what assurance has the Minister received from the Cuban Government that this kind of thing will end?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, of the 60 Baptist ministers and laymen, including two United States citizens, who were arrested in Cuba last April, some 34 were tried in Havana on May 14. I believe that the remaining Baptists have been released. As the right hon. gentleman probably knows, certain charges were directed against the accused, and I would certainly agree with him that it would be difficult to conceive that in the case of the Baptist ministers there was any foundation for these charges.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I asked our Ambassador in Havana to make clear, as he did, to the Cuban Government that harsh treatment of these Baptist leaders would be bound to cause unfavourable reactions abroad, and certainly in Canada where we have a highly respected and large Baptist community. Our Ambassador was informed at the time that the sentences requested by the Cuban prosecutor, under their unusual legal arrangements, on May 14 would be reduced. The sentences mentioned in recent news dispatches apparently constitute a reduction to one third of the sentences which were envisaged originally.


John George Diefenbaker: Were they originally 30 years and 20 years?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I forget the exact period, but in our judgment they were harsh. Our Ambassador was instructed to make known as forcefully and effectively as he could the views which the right hon. gentleman and others passed on to me and which in turn formed the basis of instructions which were given to our Ambassador.


John George Diefenbaker: Again, Mr. Speaker, I express appreciation for what has been done. I would ask the Minister, will he continue to protest against the diabolical injustice of sentencing these people on the basis of, as the hon. gentleman very fairly says, nothing that could possibly be upheld in a court of law? A reduction to ten years and six years imprisonment in Cuba is virtually life imprisonment, and I hope the Minister will continue to protest.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, Sir.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Ontario Government has come close to putting in a rather inadequate health plan that likely would prevent a proper federal health plan, can the Minister assure the House that this Government will take some definite, immediate steps toward the institution of a federal medicare plan that would prevent this provincial fiasco?
June 4, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. Member's premise that the bill presently before the Provincial House would necessarily mean there could not be any nation-wide medical care scheme.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us if it is the intention of his Department to issue a permit to Canadian Pacific Airlines to fly between Bangkok and Rome. If this were done, they would be the first Canadian air line to have an around-the-world schedule.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the other day when I made the statement that certain negotiations were going on at the present time. I noticed the press report to which I think the hon. gentleman refers. Canadian Pacific Airlines are very anxious to have established an around-the-world service, and I can assure him that the Canadian Government would be very happy if this could be done, and that we are going to take every proper step we can to facilitate the extension of these services in the area assigned by agreement between the two air lines and the Government of Canada to Canadian Pacific Airlines.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us if one of the two Canadian air lines is going to be designated as the Canadian carrier between Paris and Rome, where we enjoy one-fifth freedom. The Government has to make a choice in this matter between the two air lines. Could the Minister tell us whether this question will be decided soon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. gentleman would take another look at the statement which I made he would see that this matter involves having one or other of the air lines serving two points abroad. Under the agreement between the air lines it is thought that the problem can be met in another way.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the state of Maine authorities have informed the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that they would not grant any indemnity or unemployment insurance benefit to Canadians working in the state of Maine, is it the minister's intention to take the steps required to have those workers receive unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that this is a question for the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, on reflection, he is now prepared to suggest to the House that in the debate on rules and procedure we temporarily set aside that portion which deals with the new closure rule and pass the other items, with which the other parties have indicated they are willing to proceed immediately?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, no new closure rule under discussion. There are rules to allocate times to proposed legislation which comes before the House, and all parties have supported that in principle. My hon. friend the Solicitor-General (Mr. MacNaught) had a statement to make on this matter yesterday, which I thought was a very fair statement and which indicated the Government's policy, and I think I can add nothing to that statement, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now taking the customary adamant position with regard to legislation which he now brings before the House?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The adamant position to which my hon. friend refers is a nine-day debate on rules proposals-
June 4, 1965


Gordon Minto Churchill: And you have ducked them all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and in that debate a great many proposals and amendments which were put forward by the Opposition have been adopted and have improved the resolution. I now suggest that the time has come when perhaps we can decide this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does not the Prime Minister feel that as a result of the discussions useful changes were made by the Government; and does he not feel that further suggestions are worthy of consideration? Or does he want to follow the view taken by the President of the Privy Council this morning, who said that if we accept it without debate the Government will do certain things? That is the old story of the closure beginnings of 1956.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that some suggestions are worthy of consideration, but apparently my right hon. friend is standing on the position that we do not accept all of his suggestions and that we cannot come to a decision.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has the Government yet taken any steps to establish an automobile construction code so that automobiles made or imported into Canada would be required to be equipped with proven safety devices?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on other occasions, the regulation of safety equipment and devices on automobiles is a matter of provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. The possibility of making advances in this field, however, are now being examined by the Canadian Government Specifications Bureau.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Industry is aware of the fact that his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce recently wrote a letter saying that this matter would fall within the terms of reference of the Department of Industry. Perhaps he should get together with his colleague and
Inquiries of the Ministry come up with a solution to this important problem.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is quite correct, in that initiative in this matter in so far as initiative can be taken by the Federal Government should be taken by the Department of Industry rather than by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe this would make a good subject for ten o'clock on Monday or Tuesday night.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the Minister's fairly optimistic reply to my question on Tuesday about navigational locks on the Mactaquac dam, and in view of the interest this has created in New Brunswick and also in the Minister, to the extent that I saw him looking at a map of New Brunswick a moment ago, and also in view of the fact that there is some immediacy to this matter, can the Minister say when opportunities will be given to bodies who wish to make representation on this question to the Atlantic Development Board, or to his own Ministry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy if any serious representations could be made to the Atlantic Development Board, and I would be awfully glad if any copies of briefs could be sent to me so that my Department could study them as well.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of External Affairs. Can he explain the perplexing situation regarding why Canada felt that, because of its membership in the United Nations, being bound under the United Nations agreement, we could not tender on trucks required by South Africa; yet Great Britain, which is also a member of the United Nations, was somehow able to ease its conscience as a member of that body, being

June 4, 1965
House of Commons Procedures party to the same agreement, and take the order for, and supply, these necessary trucks to South Africa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know of course that my hon. friend did not intend to suggest that the Government tendered to another country; he meant that a Canadian company or an automobile company from another country could make such a tender. It is not a question of what Canada would do; it is a question of Canada's obligations under Security Council resolution of a year ago last July. Canada, the United States and a number of other countries-


Michael Starr: Does that include Great Britain?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to come to that-have taken the position that such tenders would have been contrary to the Security Council resolution. Canada took the same position taken by the United States and others and felt its obligation was clear.
As to the course taken by any other country, that is a course that must be decided by the government of that other country. But I can only say that I am sure the interpretation placed on the Security Council resolution by Canada was the only one which we could take, in light of the clear implications of that resolution.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question. Does the Minister mean that this resolution is interpreted in different ways to suit each country which is a member of the United Nations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: The interpretation is a matter which each country has a right to entertain. The interpretation which the Canadian Government and other governments, including the United States, made with regard to that particular decision of the Security Council is obviously not being followed by certain other countries.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mac-Naught:
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
June 4, 1965
[Stage Direction]
put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for whcih in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. If I had voted I would have voted against the amendment.
June 4, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Mr. McLean (Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. If I had voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Miller Bell: I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Did I, or did I not hear a Member ask that the question be put?


Thomas Miller Bell: I call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, before I move an amendment I wish to make some general comments on this subject. I agree with Members who have paid tribute to the Speakers we had in the House of Commons. Although I do not intend to deal with the subject of the Speakership at this time I am in hearty accord with those who have praised the calibre of the men who have occupied the Chair.
I am one who has always defended Mr. Beaudoin, the Speaker when I first became a member of Parliament. I think he was the victim of certain wild despots who happened to be governing the country at that time. He had one especially good quality. He taught the new Members the virtue of relevancy and warned them against repetition. I think that is a good start for all Members; it is good for them to keep those important points in mind.
I wish also to pay tribute to the committee on the rules which worked so hard on the recommendations we now have before us. It might be said that the Members of this committee were less senior and less experienced than those who have sat on other committees on procedure, but this might have had a good effect inasmuch as they were probably more ready to recommend measures of reform. At the same time I make no apology for criti-

cizing certain of the recommendations which have been brought forward. I feel that, at the risk of being accused of being ultra-Conservative, I can within my party principles make points which in the final analysis will be helpful to a number of these recommendations.
Speaking of the criticism of Parliament which has been made both outside and inside this House, some Members have said that if we cannot stand criticism we should not be here. I agree with this point of view to a certain extent but I deplore the fact that many Members continually harp on unfortunate incidents here and deride Parliament when they themselves are as much to blame as anybody. I recall reading in a newspaper a short while ago that a Member of Parliament had delivered an address in Montreal telling his audience what was wrong with Parliament. He delivered his address on a certain day of the week when, here in Ottawa, we were discussing a most important measure. Another example of what I have in mind is contained in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 20. It is just an example. Very commendably, this newspaper is publishing reports of statements by Members of all parties. In this particular instance the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) dealt with changes in procedure in the House of Commons. Far from being worried about closure and the other proposals which might stifle debate, he said:
The exasperation of the public has a solid justification. Parliament in carrying out the various purposes for which it exists functions inefficiently.
The hon. Member added:
The weakness of the Government proposals is that they do not go far enough, a (2:40 p.m.)
Then the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) who, like the hon. Member for Greenwood, has not been here too long but has somehow become very much of an authority on the rules, takes a position exactly opposite, I am sure, to the one most members of his party would take. He talks about how good everything is now in Parliament. He says:
Those commentators who sit back and take a calm second look at public affairs are saying that in spite of the noise of the fray which disturbed those who watched the battle from day to day in the rail seats, the legislative accomplishment of the Government in the short span of two years has been considerable.
I am not quarrelling with these remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I would like Members to stand up and say that they are proud of Parliament instead of deriding Parliament in the press all the time because we here in
June 4, 1965

this chamber are the ones who are responsible for Parliament. Everybody has their own ideas about what is wrong with Parliament. I think it is quite simple. I think there is too much talk and there is not enough maturity and self-discipline in this place.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


Mr. Winkler:: Come out from behind the curtain and say that.


Thomas Miller Bell: We are following the British system. We have not the necessary ingredients of maturity and self-discipline, and we have superimposed on us some of the weaknesses of the American system in the form of lobbying and reading speeches. Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the role of the Opposition. Many have said that the duties of the Opposition are easy to define. I have been here a considerable time. I checked before coming into the chamber and found that in fact I have spent more time in Opposition than I have in government, and I do not think too many Members of the Government can say they have been in Opposition more than they have been in government. This shows that there are two different points of view in this argument. I recall the stories in 1962 toward the end of the previous Government. They were that the trouble with Parliament was that the Government could not organize the business properly. Then the Government was changed and now it is the Opposition that is to blame; they are opposing everything. I have always been more proud of the fact that I have been a Member of the Opposition than even of being a Member on the Government side, if that distinction has to be made.
I remember that when I came here it was at the time the Russians were first visiting Canada. A former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, who was, incidentally, in my opinion a very good Minister, very kindly included me in the visit to parts of New Brunswick with the Minister of Fisheries from Russia. I wondered for a time why he was giving me this attention, a poor little Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. When I was introduced to the Russian minister I realized what was behind it. I was introduced as fisheries critic and a Member of the Opposition and of course the Russian minister immediately said, "I have never heard of the Opposition".
This Parliament may have its troubles. I recall reading in the paper the other day that someone had done an anthropological
House of Commons Procedures study of the Indians in Canada, and after a great deal of research it was found, as most of us know, that the Indian is competent, mentally alert and capable of anything. In this story it was suggested that perhaps some day an Indian could become Prime Minister of the country. Someone else, knowing Indians have a very desirable trait of not talking unless they really have something to say, added that it might be a good idea if we had a House of Commons full of Indians.


Mr. MacEwan:: We have it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, instead of all chiefs.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I intend to bring to the attention of the House some of my thinking with regard to the role of the Opposition. I intend to point out six dangers there may be in time limited debates and to state my own position on the matter of time limitation or the guillotine or closure as it has been called. We have the traditional statements from the authorities. Jennings said:
The Opposition demands that policies be formulated openly, and the consequences of policies revealed. Parliament compels the Government to defend itself by open and rational argument;-
He also adds, which is important:
-but it also compels the Opposition to state what is the alternative.
Gladstone said:
Your business is not to govern the country. It is, if you think fit, to call to account those who do govern it.
Although I could not find the reference, I think it was Disraeli who said that the Opposition's duty is essentially to oppose. I do not agree with the statement another person made, nor do I suggest it is in the same category as these authorities I have quoted, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when in Opposition at the end of the twenty-fifth Parliament said that the Government should be defeated at any cost by any means. This, of course, was one of the manifestations of the boys in Opposition in those days. I think most of our problems here now can be laid at their doorstep and I said this in Windsor, the home city of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not very long ago.
Parliamentary debate is not just for the presentation of the public views of each Member's constituency. These ideas must be brought together by some meeting of minds, by some national consensus. Even with rigid party discipline, which we would all hope was not as strict as it is, it behooves a good Government to pay attention to those grass
June 4, 1965

House of Commons Procedures roots opinions and then to take the stand on particular legislation that they deem best for the nation. So if an autocratic government such as that in 1956 decides on legislation that is questionable, the only weapon the Opposition has is to talk and expose the issue to the public. That is why I think there is a great deal of wisdom in the thought that was put forward by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) of a week's delay in order to allow the issue to be made known across the country, to be considered by the people in the ridings and to give us time to receive their opinions.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Part of our responsibility as Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to prevent any form of tyranny or oppression. This is one of our main functions if we are to preserve the institution of Parliament and all its freedoms. Since coming to this chamber I have heard there are three freedoms in Parliament, freedom to speak, freedom of assembly and freedom of organization. I have often wondered where these three freedoms came from and, although I did not find the original source, to a certain extent I found them credited to the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), and this gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the work that he has done here for many years. May I also refer hon. Members to a recent address he gave to the Chamber of Commerce in Winnipeg, which I think is a must for everyone interested in the rules regardless of whether they consider themselves great reformers or are people like myself who feel there is still some good in the rules which we now have.
For these privileges, these freedoms I have mentioned to be effective, there must be in existence a set of rules which among other things gives the fullest opportunity to expose not only the weakness of any legislation that may be brought forward but, just as important, an opportunity to expose any highhanded illusions that a particular Government may have developed, whatever the reason.
In our British parliamentary system the checks on the misuse of power are concealed in the rules and are not defined in particular ways. They are certainly not as apparent as in written constitutions such as in the United States. However, the fact that these rules, these restraints on the misuse of power, have been developed through their use in our procedure, causes me to guard them more jealously. Should we forget any of these parliamentary freedoms for any reason, then our
[Mr. Bell.)
loss and damage are greater than that suffered by those bodies which follow the written constitution system.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the proposals before us have two separate divisions. There are the proposals which have particular reference to time limits on debate and the other individual measures. Then there will also be brought forward for discussion in Committee the latter proposals, such as removal of appeals from rulings of the Speaker and the reduction of the question period to half an hour. I am confining my remarks to the first part of these proposals having to do with closure and the like and I will save my criticism of some of the others until such time as we get into Committee.
I think there are six inherent dangers involved in any sort of time limit on debate. First, I think it would be silly, merely to get things done, to bring into Parliament reform measures which limit our freedom of speech. I recall last year, when the student loans legislation was brought forward, that we were all aware as Members of Parliament that this legislation had to be passed before the beginning of the September university term. Everyone buckled down and got into a good mood. We made some amendments and the legislation went forward without too much trouble and in good form. If we want to do the job we can. I do not think, just because we took time off last summer, rightly or wrongly, to debate a very important matter for some people, the question of a new flag which scrapped our old traditions, that we should have this put forward as the main justification for rule changes.
Second, I do not think that merely because a rule is not working we should scrap it. In his introductory speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred to appeals from the Speaker's rulings and said that they were being used for political purposes, thus leaving the implication that they should be abolished. I admit that to some extent they have been used for political purposes but I do not think they have been used in any overall, strategic way except at the time of the pipe line debate when closure was used. Therefore, such a reason as this would to me seem highly dangerous.
Third, as everyone knows, any decrease in our legislative power means an alternative increase in the power of the executive or the Civil Service. I am highly suspicious, Mr. Speaker, of such a move knowing that the Government is run by many former civil
June 4, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1995
servants. I do not say this is intentional, but I do want to go on record as saying that I am highly suspicious of civil servants such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), and I could also include the Prime Minister, who have spent many years in the Civil Service and who want to reduce the important legislative branch of our system of Government.
Another danger to me, Mr. Speaker, is that any reduction in time, which would undoubtedly affect the backbenchers first, would mean that there would be a corresponding reduction in the matter of local constituency references in Parliament. The question period is an opportunity for backbenchers and others to bring matters of urgent national importance from their local regions to the attention of Parliament and hope for action as a result. I for one feel that any reduction of or time limit on the question period will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the backbencher and his ability to bring matters forward which are of a local nature.
Another danger, which is probably as important as any of them, is this. I object to changes in our procedures merely to deal with a particular situation. We have in this House a minority Government situation and many of our problems result from this fact. To begin with, it would be incorrect to assume that we should implement permanent legislation because of this situation. If we had an occasion when the country was at war, I would think that many members would be willing to accelerate business expediently as is necessary at such time. But I would hate to see rules brought in in a time of war on a permanent basis which might determine future action. In view of those dangers, Mr. Speaker, I find that I must take a firm and hard position against any time limit on debate. I am opposed to any restriction whatsoever on the freedoms I have mentioned, particularly the freedom of speech.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
As I think everyone will agree, rules are made primarily for the minority. The Government under normal circumstances has a majority and can operate successfully within the rules. Some of the rules are designed for the Government but primarily they are designed to protect the rights of minorities.
The Opposition must at all times be in a position to debate and expose any measures that are even slightly controversial. If my
House of Commons Procedures opportunity to speak as a private Member on either a local or national matter is denied, dire consequences may result and the rules themselves will be twisted in a clandestine way to prevent Members from being heard. I am not referring to time wasting by appealing Speaker's rulings or by phony questions of privilege and the like but rather the basic opportunities for private Members to express their opinions. If these are denied the ultimate result will be a tragic breakdown of Parliament and perhaps our democratic way of life will be placed in jeopardy.
Surely the election of 1957, when those rascals responsible for the pipe line debate were unceremoniously kicked out of office, is still in our minds and is a sufficient lesson for those who sit across the aisle from me. How late we work at night, how much time we take for meals, how long we sleep and the efficiency of our operations are of little interest to the people back home. I recall when first coming to Parliament that the late Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said he was always available to give fatherly advice and encouragement to young Members of Parliament and particularly to those coming from the Maritimes. He advised me to remember one thing and that was not to forget my constituency and the folks back home. That is good advice.
Having referred to the late Member perhaps I can take this opportunity to pay tribute to him. That hon. Member, no matter how great a national figure he became, always maintained in his own inimitable way an identification with his constituency and his beloved Maritimes.
When the time arrives that I have occasion to present grievances on behalf of my constituents and to expose injustices, then as a private Member of Parliament I must be given an opportunity to be heard. Anything short of that opportunity places a restriction on the freedoms to which I have referred. If such freedoms are curtailed the rights of an individual are subjugated and they might just as well then move and make room for dictators and autocrats.
I have attempted to indicate the things which are important to those of us in the Opposition, and the dangers inherent in any kind of a time limit on debate have been pointed out. I have mentioned the seriousness with which I would view any restriction placed on freedom of speech. With those admonitions, I hasten to say that a trial
June 4, 1965

House of Commons Procedures period has been suggested for these initial proposals which is of some assistance in easing the blow of any full implementation. There are areas for improvement.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan), an amendment which I think will be of assistance because it shortens the big stick the Government holds:
That the motion be amended by inserting in the tenth line of subparagraph (6) of paragraph (2) thereof after the words "if agreed to", the following words:
"by at least sixty (60) per cent of the Members voting."


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before you put the amendment I should like to raise a point of order as to the propriety of the amendment. I understand it to mean that before an order of the House is made it must have the support of at least 60 per cent of the Members voting. I respectfully draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the matter now before the House of Commons is a simple resolution affecting the business of the House, to be dealt with by the House, and that the amendment proposed is in conflict with section 49 of the British North America Act which reads as follows:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote.
My point is that any amendment to the constitution would require an Act of Parliament, that is, a vote of both Houses, as well as the assent of His Excellency the Governor General, and for that reason I respectfully suggest that the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It has been moved by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and seconded by the hon. Member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan):
That the motion be amended by inserting in the tenth line of subparagraph (6) of paragraph (2) thereof after the words "if agreed to", the following words:
"by at least sixty (60) per cent of the Members voting."
A submission has been made by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that this proposed amendment should not be received by the Chair because it may be in conflict with a provision of the British North America Act. The only thing the Chair can consider is what it has before it and what the Chair has before it at the moment is a very simple amendment to subparagraph (6) of the resolution. I do not think the Chair

should be called upon to render a judgment about the constitutionality of the amendment proposed.
Under the circumstances I suggest that this amendment should be accepted by the House and that is the ruling of the Chair.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the implications of my argument have been appreciated? The implication of my argument was that the amendment is an amendment to a section of the British North America Act and as such requires to be brought forward in another way.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the Speaker had given his ruling.


George James McIlraith: Well, I am glad to know the Leader of the Opposition has come back to join us.


Michael Starr: You have been away quite a while, too. You just got back.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you appealing the
Speaker's ruling?


Michael Starr: Are you the attendance officer, now?


George James McIlraith: No.


Michael Starr: Then stick to your knitting.


George James McIlraith: I do like to present my argument to His Honour, though.


John George Diefenbaker: A ruling has been given.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair has not appreciated the argument of the Minister to the extent the Minister would have liked it to be considered. However, a ruling has been given and I suggest it should be accepted by the Minister.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days we have had what I consider to be perhaps one of the most interesting debates, certainly one of the most thoughtful and serious debates I have ever heard in the 12 or 13 years I have had the privilege of sitting in this House. This particular debate concerning alteration of the rules under which this Parliament operates is perhaps one of the most serious debates that we could possibly entertain here. The reason is that the result of this debate will place the road and place the boundaries of the road for future pieces of legislation and discussions in this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a great many of the persons who are so anxious to streamline the rules are very sincere in their desire to do so.
June 4, 1965	COMMONS
If I may suggest, Mr. Speaker, a number of the persons who are anxious to do this are new to this House. Some of them have inhabited the rarefied atmosphere of academic institutions and classrooms and others have occupied similar locations. If ever there existed an institution in our society where experience is more necessary than theory, it is the House of Commons. I am sure Your Honour needs no reminding, but I would remind Your Honour that the rules under which we are operating now have grown up not only in this Parliament but in the mother of Parliaments over a period of many hundreds of years. These rules have grown up on the basis of practical experience and they change constantly according to the circumstances.
I think every one of us in this House agrees that because of the increasing complexity of Government in our modern society and because of the various fields into which the Government has now entered which it had not entered a few years ago, the adjustment of these rules is necessary at this time. I do not believe there would be any disagreement on this. It is only a question of the degree to which we wish to change the rules. Naturally, as we have heard during this debate, there are different points of view in this regard. One would expect this in a Parliament made up of 260-odd individual Members, not to mention parties. These views vary depending on which side of the House one sits, whether on the Government side or the Opposition side.
There is one generalization I should like to make and it is this. Many things have been done in human history for the sake of expediency. It is very nice when you are on the Government side of the House-I am one Member who can appreciate this having sat on both sides of the House-to get everything through very quickly and forget the real purposes of Parliament which have been pointed out very ably by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) and yesterday by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The purpose of Parliament is to discuss matters and bring them to public attention. This onus rests particularly on members of the Opposition rather than the Government since, as was well pointed out by previous speakers, the Government usually has the majority on its side as well as the rules.
I believe that one of the things which perhaps precipitated this debate and has led to the introduction of these rule changes by the Government has been the fourth estate or the press. Last summer we had one of the most
DEBATES	1997
House of Commons Procedures lengthy debates we have ever had. Members of the press, not only the Press Gallery here but other people disseminating public information, were very critical of Parliament at that time. Whether or not they were justified is a matter of opinion. I think there is little doubt that the opinions which were expressed as that time through the public information media were badly misinformed. A great many editorials were written and commentaries were made by people who had no understanding at all of Parliament. I should like to say that during this debate those who are responsible for press articles and commentaries on the news have done an excellent job in every respect. This debate has been handled with great seriousness and care as well as thoughtfulness by all those who deal in the various means of disseminating information to the public such as press, television, radio and magazines. I think they have done an extremely good job. However, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that they were largely responsible for pressuring Parliament into introducing these rule changes.
During this debate I believe the varying points of view have been brought a great deal closer. For instance, I believe all of us are agreed upon a limitation of time for the discussion of estimates. I feel it is a great pity that the Government will not accept the suggestion to remove those parts from this resolution on which everyone agrees and let them pass so we can set up the committees on estimates and get on with the business that is supposed to be done. I suppose tactical, political reasons impel the Government to refuse. They want the rest of us to accept the more difficult part of the resolution as well and are attempting to use this as a lever of very unsavory variety. I hope the Government will change its mind so we can get the estimates committees set up and get the business done Parliament is supposed to be doing.
However, there seems to be a tendency amongst many Members of the Government, who are perhaps not really parliamentarians but have been in administrative positions, to lose patience or to lack an understanding of the institution of Parliament. For instance, I would doubt very much-one cannot really know what is going on in another person's mind-that the hon. Member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who is a very distinguished and very able parliamentarian, would entirely agree with all of the arguments his colleagues have been putting forward. I do not expect
June 4, 1965

House of Commons Procedures him to reply to that, but I doubt that he really does. I doubt, too, that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), also a real parliamentarian having been here for 25 years and having seen many people come and go, would entirely agree with these arguments.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Are you going to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to end his vow of silence in this debate?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has suggested that I invite the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to make some remarks on the subject of the rules. I am hoping he might be titillated into so doing by some of the suggestions I have made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is he in his place?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Oh, I see. The next point I want to touch on briefly is that most of the contentious points in the resolution before us concern one basic problem, namely, the rights of the majority versus the rights of the minority. It may be safely said that any responsible student or writer of political science and political theory, from the days of Plato down to the present time, would agree that the mark of a truly democratic society is the protection given to minorities. It is certainly a hallmark in our parliamentary democracy to recognize that minorities must be given protection to express their views and thoughts.
I have heard some rather odd views expressed in this regard by Members of the New Democratic Party who have said that the majority, no matter how small, must always have its way absolutely. On reflection I think some of them would think otherwise. On the other hand, I do not think anyone would agree that the wishes of a majority, even a small majority, should be permanently frustrated by a minority, even a big minority, and provided the minority has its proper protection the views of the majority must eventually prevail if, during the process of discussion, they are not changed or altered.
For this reason I think the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) is an excellent one. I for one am entirely opposed to closure for many reasons, some of which I will express in a moment. I know the Government does not call this resolution closure. It says it is an allocation of time.


Mr. Stewart:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


John B. Stewart: In view of what he has said about the nature of democracy and his abhorrence of closure, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he regards the United Kingdom as being other than a democracy?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am delighted to be asked that question and I will deal with it in some detail in a moment. If the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) would look a little more closely at what actually takes place in the United Kingdom he might not have asked that question.


Mr. Dinsdale:: He got it out of a text book.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Government's proposal is in fact closure. No matter how thin you slice it, not matter how prettily you dress it up and no matter what you call it, it is still boloney. When I went to high school the authorities always tried to make the algebra book look attractive by putting a red cover on it. It looked very pleasant but to most people that did not disguise its unpleasant content, and the nomenclature that is applied to this proposed rule change, allocation of time for debate, does not disguise what is really going on.
The hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough has raised the question of what is done in the United Kingdom. If he would look into the matter he would find that in the 76 years since 1887 when the guillotine, as it is called in the United Kingdom, was introduced, it has been applied to only 57 bills. During the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 the allocation of time rule was applied to only three bills, and from 1951 to 1962 under the Conservative Government it was applied to nine bills.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. Member permit a question at this point? Would he agree that the rule he is trying to compare with the proposal now before the House differs in this respect in that our proposal deals with the creation of an all-party committee to deal with the allocation of time and the part of the rule in the United Kingdom that he is talking about deals only with Government action?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree there are certain differences between the U.K. rule and the proposed rule changes here and I intend to deal with those in some detail, particularly that aspect referred to by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith). The guillotine rule in the United Kingdom
June 4, 1965

has been applied just over 50 times in less than 100 years, but there it is applied only after debate has begun and after it has been indicated there is going to be a long debate and the business of Parliament is not going to be done.
Here the proposal by the Government is something like Alice in Wonderland. We are going to be asked to limit a debate before it even starts and before we know whether it is going to be contentious. I know the President of the Privy Council may very well say, "Oh yes, but we will have a discussion between the leaders of whatever parties may happen to be in the House." There are five now; there may be six or seven after the next election or two or three. Who knows? But it is made quite clear that if agreement cannot be reached in this Business Committee-I think it will give the Parliament the business all right-then the Minister proposing the legislation in question can invoke this rule.
Though I know the President of the Privy Council and many of his colleagues would not think of such a thing, there are some of his colleagues who would think of something like this, namely, to bring in a nice piece of innocuous legislation that nobody would disagree with, have an agreed time limit and after it is introduced stick in some amendment that would change the whole character of the legislation.
The suggestion has been made that we allow one of the two days debate for this kind of an amendment if the character of the legislation is really changed, and it is left up to Mr. Speaker, whether a permanent Speaker or a continuing Speaker should one eventually be agreed upon, to carry this out. But despite this piece of sugar, which is what it is made to appear, if you completely change the character of legislation and introduce something highly contentious, having agreed in advance on how long the legislation is to be debated, you cannot have anything but the most unpleasant results.
Another thing that can happen with allocation of time was pointed out by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) yesterday and by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert today. Since the proposed changes tend more and more to recognize political parties in the House rather than individuals, you would have the political parties deciding who would speak and, as has been so well pointed out by those two members, backbenchers would have little chance to make themselves heard.
House of Commons Procedures
One gets to be a frontbencher by various ways, by being here a long time, by activity in the party and by other ways. We all know this, but in theory at least each constituency in Canada is entitled to one Member of Parliament and each Member of Parliament is entitled to open his mouth in the House to express his constituents' views and raise problems affecting his constituency. If you make rules limiting the time of debate and the question period, then you will have a very queer Parliament indeed where only Members on the front benches and a few others will have a chance to speak. The poor backbencher on the Government side and on the Opposition side will be denied this opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. Member
permit a question? Do not all the general propositions he has just enunciated apply equally to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate, which are already under limitation?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who has been a Member of the House for some time, must, I am sure, know much better than that. It is true there are certain limitations of time applied to debate on the Speech from the Throne and the budget but opportunities arise during consideration of the estimates to make remarks which cannot be made on either of those ocasions.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am delighted to see so much interest taken in my remarks and I will be glad to answer the question of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau). However, I am subject to an allocation of time to the extent that I cannot speak indefinitely, and I would prefer that further questions be asked after I have finished.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. Member not agree that the argument he is pursuing now would apply equally to the amendment moved by his hon. friend from Saint John-Albert?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I will get round to that when I have the opportunity. To return to the original thread of my thought, we cannot all have our own way. We have to compromise. We have to try to meet each other's point of view. Still, I do not like to see a limitation imposed on the time available for debates, for
June 4, 1965

House of Commons Procedures the reasons I have mentioned. An advantage is given to Members who have a preferred place in their parties or some seniority as against newer Members. This, I think, is improper. However, others in this House have different views and we must try to reach some accommodation.
Consider the suggestions which have been made that the question period be limited. I realize that since 1955 or 1956 the question period has become longer and longer. Many of the questions asked, I think we would all agree, are neither urgent nor of national importance as they ought to be. If there is criticism of Parliament by the public and the press I think the question period is a period to which those criticisms might well be directed. I do not think there is one Member in this House who is not guilty. This is an aspect of our procedure which could be reviewed, but if we try to set a time limit upon the question period every day of the week the same thing will happen. Those who speak on behalf of their parties or who sit on the front benches will have advantages which backbenchers are denied. Further, Ministers who are invited to answer questions will spin out the answers as long as they can in order to avoid further questions being asked. No doubt a number of questions will be "planted" and asked by supporters of the Government so that the Opposition may not be able to ask many. This is what is likely to happen. However, we shall have to reach some agreement, I suppose, and I hope that when the time comes the Government will be prepared to allow one day a week when the question period is unlimited.


George James McIlraith: That is contained in the next resolution. Debate the one before the House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry, but I did not hear the President of the Privy Council.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might raise a simple point of order, one which I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford will appreciate. It is that the subject he is now discussing relates to another matter on the order paper.


Michael Starr: You are seven days late.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the President of the Privy Council had been listening more attentively he would have realized that I was raising this point as an illustration of what happens when debate is limited. I was making a suggestion for his consideration, if his mind is not completely atrophied by our suggestions

in this regard. However, I would be glad to revert to the matter at issue. A few moments ago the hon. Member for York-Scarborough asked me whether I did not think that limitation of time was implicit in the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert. I do not approve of closure in any form. After all, Members of this House are paid $18,000 a year and if we sit all year round what difference does it make to our constituents as long as we get through our business? If we have to sit throughout the year to get the nation's business done, let us do it. Apparently everyone here does not think that way, so we have to reach some kind of compromise. The Government insists on bringing in this provision for the allocation of time and apparently it has some support from other quarters. Let us try to reach an agreement or consensus which is half way between the two points of view.
My hon. friend from Saint John-Albert suggested that this proposed order could only be applied if 60 per cent of the Members present in the House agreed. Everyone tends to think of these rules in terms of Parliament as it is today when there are five parties in the House and the Government is in a minority position. If the President of the Privy Council and those of his colleagues who have the responsibility for making decisions will look at this proposal they will see that it does not give the Opposition a veto power over the Government at all. The Official Opposition would have to be supported by at least one of the other parties in the House and it is difficult for the Government to argue that if two of the Opposition parties oppose the rule there is not something wrong with its application. I think it is a safeguard for the Opposition as well as for the Government. If this amendment were accepted it would not be possible for any one of the Opposition parties to frustrate the wishes of the Government. On the other hand, if the Government were making a mistake, which has been known to happen, and two of the Opposition parties combined to object to this rule, the rule could not apply. I do not think this is at all unreasonable.
I realize there are others who would like to speak on this question and I do not propose to take any more time. I trust the President of the Privy Council and those who assisted him in drawing up these proposed changes will give consideration to exactly what this allocation of time rule or closure rule really involves. It means closure before a debate
June 4, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	2001
starts despite the possibility of amendments changing the whole character of the discussion. It will be done simply by the imposition of a majority. We cannot all agree in this House, but if we could take an approach mindful of each other's point of view I think we could terminate this debate and get down to the other business which I am sure the Government has ready for us. With a little unbending on the part of the President of the Privy Council and perhaps the Prime Minister we could make progress and get the thing done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the next hon. Member is recognized perhaps I could bring this matter to the attention of the House. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) proposed-I presume through a clerical mistake-that the motion be amended by inserting certain words in the tenth line. A count of the lines has been made and I believe the amendment should have said "in the seventh line". I presume the hon. Member would have the unanimous consent of the House to amend his amendment accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: This morning the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) referred to the inordinate amount of time this debate is taking. I should like to say a few things. We have before us one of those measures which reflects the failure of the present Government. However charitable any of us may be, this measure outlines in vivid fashion the results of the carelessness of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). His responsibility for the decline in the image of Parliament has become a matter of acknowledged fact. I think, Sir, it would be futile to discuss this whole measure without examining some of the events that have led to its presentation. Surely, Sir, at the same time we must examine the mischievous claim that has been advanced by the Prime Minister and some others that our procedures and rules are at the root of his many troubles at the present time.
The history of the past two years has been a chronicle of the most careless administration in the history of our country. This situation has not happened all by itself but has been the result of decisions and omissions in many cases directly attributable to the Prime Minister. One is almost led to ask the question, what secret and compulsive influence has seized the mobility of the Prime Minister in organiz-
House of Commons Procedures ing the business of the House of Commons? I recall how this Government came to office, and all of us can remember the boast that a government never came to office better prepared to undertake the business of the House. Indeed, I believe it was said that this Prime Minister and this Government came to office with the best brains in Canada available to them.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: I think it fair to recall that the claim was made that these intellectuals opposite would dispatch the business of this House and the business of this country with a new concept of orderliness. As I survey the record of the past two years I can come to no other conclusion but that Parliament has been able to achieve what it has simply and purely because of the conscious effort and the concern of those who have found their place on the Opposition side of the House of Commons. The business of the House of Commons cannot be transacted without some direction.


Mr. Byrne:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be recognized that there is a rule, which has not yet been amended, applying to the procedures of this House and it is that a Member shall not read a prepared speech, a prepared text, which the hon. Member for Rosthern is obviously doing.


An hon. Member:: He had a poor comedian write it, too.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to see the hon. Member in his place today making his usual interruptions, which are the chief contribution he has been able to make to the House of Commons in the years he has been here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order has been raised by the hon. Member for Kootenay East. Although it is not a rule, it is at least a practice of the House that Members as much as possible should not read prepared speeches. But it is also recognized that they may consult what have been called copious notes and I must assume that this is what the hon. Member for Rosthern is doing at this time.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite does not bother me at all because we on this side of the House are used to him.
2002	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
would request the co-operation of the hon. Member to return to the speech he was delivering.


Mr. Hahn:: Return to your "notes".


Edward Nasserden: I really think the object of the interruption was to try to get me away from my speech, Mr. Speaker. The business of the House of Commons cannot be transacted without some direction. No hon. Member of the House need be reminded of the validity of that claim because the Prime Minister is in fact the best witness we can call in that regard. He cannot have forgotten his boast in regard to what would result from the 60 days of decision, nor can anyone in this House forget the first Gordon budget, derelict, shipwrecked, finally abandoned.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps there is one rule that the Chair may bring to the attention of the hon. Member for Rosthern and it is that the comments should be related to the resolution that is before us. There is a resolution before the House, to which the hon. Member referred when he started speaking, and also an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert. I would suggest that the hon. Member try to limit his remarks to the resolution and the amendment thereto that is before us.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been following the speech of the hon. Member very carefully. Rule changes are brought about for a purpose and in my opinion the hon. Member, in saying what he is saying about the Government, is trying to bring to the attention of the House the manner in which the Government has conducted the business of the House. They wish the rules changed and he is asking why should we change them? The hon. Member was giving several reasons for not changing the rules and not limiting debate. In my opinion he is entitled to say why the Government and not the Opposition should be blamed in this regard. We have had long debates in some cases because the Government has brought in many propositions which have had to be changed and changed completely before becoming legislation. I would refer Your Honour to the pension plan legislation which had-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The point I have made is quite clear and I know the hon. Member for Rosthern will want to

DEBATES	June 4, 1965
keep in mind that the rule of relevancy exists in the House and should be respected by all hon. Members.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive how we can discuss this matter if we are not allowed to go down to the basis of why the Government and some others are asking for a change in our procedures at the present time. I was trying to draw a picture of what had happened during the period immediately preceding the introduction of this resolution and was pointing out that the measure of carelessness that has originated on the Government benches with regard to the organization of the business of the House of Commons has been one of the contributing factors.
I come back to the first Gordon budget and recall that at that time, as a result of the mistakes made or the lack of organization respecting that budget, the Prime Minister of this country was faced for the first time in his administration with a demand for the resignation of one of his Ministers. Such was the atmosphere at that time that the Prime Minister was faced with a demand for the resignation of this Minister. It has been said that the Prime Minister failed to discharge his duty in that regard because of his close personal friendship with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). Thus it was that the administration opposite embarked upon a road that fostered and encouraged carelessness in the administration of the business of the House and the administration of the business of the country as well. I say to you, Sir, and to the Members of this House that the image of Parliament suffered because of what the Prime Minister failed to do at that particular time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: I say further that the stage was then set for many of the later troubles that beset the Government and the Prime Minister. Such was the beginning. From there we went on and saw later the shifting of responsibilities of Ministers involving the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. That episode, Sir, revealed another facet of the personality of the Prime Minister, that desire for secretiveness. I recall the orders in Council that were passed which were given less than the usually required publicity. I recall how the time of Parliament was consumed in trying to drag out those facts from hon. gentlemen opposite. Parliament suffered
June 4, 1965

largely because the Prime Minister was secretive and largely because hon. gentlemen opposite would not provide the tacts in answer to questions asked on this side of the House.
I say further that in no way can the rules, the procedure or the Opposition in Parliament be charged with responsibility for those careless acts and omissions which in almost total measure lie on the doorstep of the present Prime Minister. Those who today say that Parliament has suffered cannot assess the effect of this damage on the business of the House and the attitude of Members of the House of Commons without examining the several editions of the Canada Pension Plan. This was a classic example of where the Opposition had to step in and strive to protect the image of Parliament. The Opposition can be lauded for saving this nation the cost of the mistakes which were corrected by the subsequent revisions of that particular plan. Here again, who was the architect of the damage done to Parliament? Who was responsible for the time consumed? This responsibility goes straight to the door of the Prime Minister and his reliance on his Ministers.
I say further that not only was Parliament damaged but the unity of this nation was damaged when the Prime Minister and his Ministers failed to consult the provinces in regard to the Canada Pension Plan to the extent that they should have prior to bringing the plan before Parliament. I regret I also have to say that to the extent that the Prime Minister allowed his Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) to exercise her considerable ability to antagonize the provinces our national unity suffered as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the hon. Member now refers to the question of national unity as it relates to the debate in this House on the Canada Pension Plan, it certainly seems to me that at this point he is going beyond the terms of the resolution now under consideration.


Edward Nasserden: There are other examples I should like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, but maybe at a later date.
I should like to take a look at another aspect of this whole matter. I refer to the parade of House Leaders with which this Parliament has been afflicted. You will recall how the minority Government opposite came into office. 1 believe it was in a precarious position when it first came into office and I
House of Commons Procedures believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) was the first House Leader.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: I believe the record bears out the fact that he was given the task to buy time so far as the Government opposite was concerned. We saw bargaining right here on the floor of the House of Commons such as we had never seen before, certainly since I have been here.
We also recall how the Prime Minister became so enthusiastic to hold on to his office that he extended to the third, fourth and fifth parties amenities which certainly have not facilitated the business of the House of Commons. I might say that I have some limited admiration for the Minister of Transport but the fact is that he did not last very long as House Leader. That was because those around him on the front benches opposite were not prepared to bring before this House legislation in the state of preparedness required for Members of the Opposition and Members on the Government side as well to deal with it effectively and efficiently, thus utilizing the time of Parliament in the way it should be utilized.


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, while this speech is the best exhibition we could have of why the rules should be changed, may I point out that we have had three systematic, contemptuous repetitions by this speaker in disregard of your ruling. I do not think that we in this House have any hope of enforcing better rules if the rules presently before the House are unenforced. May I ask that we insist on relevance.


Edward Nasserden: What I was about to say, Sir, was that the image of Parliament has been suffering. The other day the Prime Minister made the same statement when he brought in this resolution.
When the Minister of Transport relinquished his post as House Leader, the Prime Minister had to look around for another House Leader to try to repair the damage which had been done to Parliament during the period when the Minister of Transport had held the position. His choice fell on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament has ever suffered more humiliations than it did during the period when the Minister of Justice acted as House Leader. Indeed, Sir, his arrogance and his attitude in regard to democracy and the business of the House of Commons was such that that episode-
2004	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. Member is now resorting to personalities. I suggest that perhaps he is going beyond the bounds of normal usage of words in this regard.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to deal with the last few years and to consider what happened and the time wasted, to say nothing of the provocation which came from those across the way, without dealing with the personalities which entered into the whole history of that period. But I will try to be as careful as I can in that regard.
When the Minister of Justice became House Leader, those across the way sitting on the ministerial benches were unprepared in the matter of bringing legislation before this Parliament. So the Prime Minister of this country threw in a diversion in the form of the flag debate and the various flag resolutions in order to make time to enable them to prepare for the legislative action for which they should have been prepared. The best evidence of this fact is that at the conclusion of the flag resolution several weeks recess was given to Members of Parliament in order to give Ministers an opportunity to prepare the legislative program which they had failed to provide during the months prior to that time. What I am saying is that the image of Parliament has suffered not because of the procedures of this House or its rules but because of the unpreparedness of Ministers opposite and the carelessness of the Prime Minister who did not see that his Ministers did their homework and provided Parliament with a bill of fare into which it could sink its teeth.
Another interesting thing is that during the last session of the House of Commons the Prime Minister found it necessary to issue a code of ethics to the Members of his Cabinet. There has been some speculation that he was a little late in regard to some of them but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again I must remind the hon. Member that he should keep in mind the rules of debate of this House. Perhaps I might read from May's sixteenth edition the paragraph concerning the question on relevancy in debate:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
A Member, when called to speak, must direct his speech to the question then under discussion, or to a motion or amendment he intends to move-When, however, a Member wanders from the question, the Speaker reminds him that he must speak to the question.

DEBATES	June 4, 1965
That is what I am taking the liberty of doing at this time.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me understand how I can deal with this important matter without referring to those factors which resulted in the situation in which Parliament finds itself today, a situation in respect of which the Prime Minister says we must change the rules in order to correct it. All I am trying to do is present evidence in respect of what happened and what effect this has had on the length of Parliament and the efficient handling of the business of the House.
I referred to the code of ethics not because I wanted to delve into that particular matter but because of what that indicates has happened during the last two years here in the House of Commons. I look over at the ministerial benches and find gifted men, university professors and trained successful businessmen, most of them handpicked by the Prime Minister himself. If the image of Parliament had not been tarnished before, certainly when the Prime Minister found it necessary to issue a code of ethics to these people it became tarnished. That in itself could not help but bring into question the whole image of Parliament.
A great deal of the time of this House has been consumed, Sir, as you well know, by Opposition Members of all parties asking questions of the ministry. If the Prime Minister had not been so secretive and if his Ministers had been more frank and less reluctant to give facts we might now have a different situation.
The Department of the Minister of Justice has almost become a pawn in the political survival of that party. The Prime Minister has shut his eyes and ears to these improprieties. Parliament has suffered first of all because of secretiveness on the part of the Prime Minister, who now interprets his duty to individual friends as being greater than his responsibility to the nation as a whole. The Minister of Justice has made that very plain in his attitude toward questions asked recently by the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
The Minister of Justice has now been shorn of his duties as House Leader and has been replaced by the very able and amiable Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). That hon. gentleman has been given the task by the Prime Minister of convincing Parliament and the Canadian people, through the resolu-
June 4, 1965

tion changing the rules and procedures of the house, that the rules as they now stand have been the cause of all the Government's troubles.
Why should an individual Member of Parliament, whether in the Government or in the Opposition, be denied full and free access to this assembly in order that he may represent his people, because of the carelessness of those who sit opposite? That is the price the Government is trying to exact to save the day for its own party. I suggest to you, Sir, that this is a questionable manoeu-ver. The problem now faced is not one for Parliament to solve but one for the people of Canada to decide. Our task is to ensure proper and full opportunity for even the newest Member of the House of Commons to speak freely during the debates of this House, to preserve for the individual Member the right to be heard regardless of party policy at any particular time.
I recall the days when my leader, the hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenba-ker), was the Prime Minister, particularly because there were occasions then when I thought it necessary to place before the House views that were not entirely in agreement with those of the party to which I belonged. Had the policies now adopted by the Government been in effect at that time I would then have had to cross the floor to the Opposition side in order to be heard. I shudder to think of the consequences and disappointment had that eventuality occurred.
We are not elected to the House of Commons as parties; we are elected by constituents to represent them. Indeed, it has always been my understanding that once elected one should not represent only those who supported him but all his constituents. The rights of individual Members in this House should be our main consideration and those rights are of fundamental consideration in a democracy.
All of us have watched the embarrassment and confusion of the Prime Minister and the Government which have grown from day to day. I say to you, Sir, that that is no licence for this Prime Minister and his Government to attempt to curtail debate and the right of the individual Member to the floor of the House of Commons.
We know there are certain restraints in effect today and there is hardly a Member of this House who has not prepared notes for a speech which he has not delivered. We have adopted these self-disciplinary meas-
22620-128J
House of Commons Procedures ures in order to expedite the business of the House. While we exercise these restraints from time to time we should not write into the rules of this institution a denial to any one of us of the right to take part in debate. While we may have a right to take part we do not necessarily have a duty to speak during any particular debate.
I have been here now for seven years and I have come to some conclusions as to what might help expedite the business of the House. I may say that I have sat on both sides of the House and know something of that which hon. Members on the back benches opposite are experiencing and also something of that which we on this side enjoy.
There is a very wide gulf between some Ministers and the Members of this House. Some Ministers of the Crown think they are the servants of the House and are willing to give information and explanations and are willing to listen to suggestions. Generally those Ministers get along well and the business of the House proceeds at a good pace.
On the other hand, there are Ministers who adopt the attitude that the less information they give the better off they are. They seem to think they should not be open to suggestion. It would be strange indeed if they were successful in getting the business they have in hand put through this House quickly and satisfactorily, particularly when one considers that the personalities of 265 Members of the House of Commons are involved.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The present situation is, of course, a little different. The Government is looking for a scapegoat. They know that the image of Parliament has fallen into disrepute. They know the people of this country realize it is the responsibility of the Government to organize the business and prepare legislation so that the Members who sit here will have something to do. They know also that they have failed in large measure to do that in an efficient way.
I cannot help but believe that while there should be some changes in procedure and the rules this is only one of those diversions brought on by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in order to give his Ministry time to prepare or perhaps to do something about the internal problem that exists between Members of his own Cabinet and the backbenchers with regard to legislation that was promised in the Speech from the Throne.
June 4, 1965



COMMOHS

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures I want to say that the right to the floor of the House of Commons should be guaranteed to the individual Member whether he sits on this side of the House or on that side, and regardless of whether he is going to express a view which coincides with that of the party to which he belongs. If we are going to make the rules so stringent that only a party viewpoint is going to be presented, then it will not be long before the House of Commons will be filled with independents or with even more minority groups than we have at the present time.
It has always been my belief that access to the floor of the House to speak your mind even when it differs from the viewpoint of your party, with the possibility of still remaining within your party, is important. Possibly one of the greatest dangers of the changes now contemplated lies in the encouragement which would be given to independent Members and to a multiplicity of parties which would lead to the prolongation of debates and the minority position that we find in this Parliament with all its attendant handicaps for the orderly dispatch of business.
If we want to reform our rules why do we not take a look at the way we vote in this House? We should take a look at the time that is lost whenever a vote is called. This is one of the things that has been ignored by those who drafted these rule changes. I believe that the provision of an all-party committee to discuss the allocation of time will result in Parliament talking about procedure rather than dealing with the problems that face us.
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That will be nothing new.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. gentleman says, "That will be nothing new". This is one of the things we are trying to correct in the resolution that is before us. The resolution should have been couched in slightly different terms.
There are many other things I should like to say but I know there are others who would like to take part in this debate. I cannot help but feel that these rule changes are but a poor excuse that the Prime Minister offers for not bringing forward particular pieces of legislation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the amendment that has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. 

Bell) which makes a serious proposal to the effect that if the Government is going to pursue its destructive policy in so far as the rights of Parliament are concerned it should at least not be able to have its will in this regard until at least 60 per cent of the Members of the House have approved. When this debate began it commenced on a very high level which was established by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who indicated that they agreed that reform of Parliament was necessary. At the same time, both of these distinguished speakers pointed out that if we were going to move forward as a Parliament and come to any agreement as to the form these reforms should take, then it could only be done in a spirit of compromise. This spirit of compromise prevailed up until the time when we reached the impasse of the past few days on the Government's insistence on bringing about closure by indirection.
The whole idea of the reform of Parliament is not a new one. We have been gradually moving forward over the years that I have been in the House in the direction of amending our rules and changing our procedures, thereby gradually adapting to the changes made necessary by our changing economic and social circumstances as well as by the actual situation that exists in this House. When I first came to Parliament in 1951 there was absolutely no allocation of time. I think we have come a long way because now we do accept allocation of time on the important, major debates such as the Throne Speech and the budget debate as well as specified time limits with regard to certain formal speeches. In 1951, which was the first session I attended, there was no allocation of time on the Throne Speech debate. I can recall being rather shocked-yes, I think I could use that term- when the debate dragged on for almost a month. We now wind up that debate in the comparatively short time of one week.
The reforms to which many speakers have rcferrsd have come about as a natural adjustment to the changing circumstances of the country and the changing circumstances which exist in this House. I do not need to go further because they have been well covered. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I want to give reasons for my support of the amendment brought forward by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert this afternoon. These reforms have been necessitated by the
June 4, 1965

presence of multiple parties in the house. This has led to successive minority Governments. These reforms have been necessitated also by the fact that we are faced with problems of increased complexity in the nation. I should like to reinforce the fundamental point that has been raised by many speakers during this debate, that the solution to the increasing complexity of problems with which this Parliament has to deal is not necessarily turning Parliament into a time machine or automaton.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have been rather shocked by the misconceptions certain Government spokesmen seem to have with reference to the functions of Parliament. They talk about streamlining, getting on with the business of the Plouse, and making Parliament effective. Again I stress that shortcuts rather than having increased the efficiency of the House in the past usually became shortcuts to tyranny and authoritarianism.
It has been the history of all experiments in democracy that complexity in Government invariably leads to the abuse of power. I recall debates in this House on the difficulty that has arisen because of the fact that as a result of the growing complexity the executive arm of the Government, which after all is responsible for carrying on the business of the nation, has become so badly bogged down that even its power has been transferred from the floor of the House of Commons to the offices of the bureaucrats. More and more we have seen this unhappy situation develop.
The real reason for my supporting this amendment, which says that an allocation of time must have the approval of 60 per cent of the Members of the House, is that the Government is a bureaucraticminded one, something which inevitably results from the presence of numerous bureaucrats within its ranks.
In this connection I quote the remarks made by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) as recorded at page 1,942 of yesterday's Hansard:
We believe that the worst restriction on the freedom of speech is the use of debating techniques which oblige the House to continue debating a measure long after every possible opinion or shade of opinion has been expressed-
That is the sentiment of the bureaucrat who arbitrarily takes it upon himself to decide when the last word has been said on any subject.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He has been a Member of this House for 20 years.
House of Commons Procedures


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That may be so, but I still suggest he was reflecting the bureaucraticmindedness that predominates in this Liberal Government.


Mr. MacNaught:: It was my own viewpoint.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He has likely picked up that viewpoint by coming under the strong influence of the minds of the bureaucrats who surround him.
A moment ago I referred to the fact that because of complexity in Government power is being removed from the House to the offices of the bureaucrats. What the Minister said yesterday is evidence in support of the statement I have made in this respect. Another example which I give in passing is the suggestion that came from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), the political head of the Department of Justice, responsible for preserving the rights, freedoms and liberties of the people of this nation, who suggested that the freedom of the press should be restricted. That sort of thinking is the type that is causing the Government to be so rigidly insistent upon proceeding with closure by indirection, which is what we are opposing in this important discussion.
I support the amendment and I oppose the Government's desire to proceed toward rigid allocation of time in debate because I am suspicious of the motivation of the Government. It is a Government which has been stereotyped by a spirit of arrogance for a long time in this nation. I cite the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this connection who attributed the downfall of the former Liberal administration to the fact that the brass had gotten out of touch with the grass. That was a true statement then and I feel it is a true statement today.
I am suspicious of the Government's motives because of the close inter-relationship between it and the bureaucrats of this nation. Indeed, there is ample evidence to support the fact that these positions have been interchangeable in far too many cases for the safety of freedom in Canada.
The Liberal party has been responsible for what has been called Parliament's decade of destruction, and I do not need to spell out the evidence of that. Over the past ten years there was its attitude toward the Emergency Powers Act, there was the pipe line debate and then, when in Opposition for a period of six years, the Liberal party was dedicated to the principle that the only way to defeat the Conservative Government was by totally destroying it.
2008	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
That causes me to have serious suspicion and concern over the motives of the Government in regard to the extreme measures proposed in this resolution. The Liberal party proceeded to destroy the former administration by propaganda, by gimmicks such as truth squads which in the long run turned out to be self-destroying, and even by calling on the aid of a foreign government. When the present Government came into office seemingly it had suicidal tendencies of its own and attempted to indulge in self-destruction, something which has been referred to by other hon. Members, including the one who preceded me. Above all, there has been lack of leadership. There has been government by blackmail. There has been evidence of incompetence on all sides which the apologists of the Government have kindly referred to as accident proneness. Many other words could be used to describe this lack of leadership and this tendency toward self-destruction. In short, Mr. Speaker, I am suspicious of the administration because there is every evidence to prove it regards Parliament as a nuisance rather than as the highest court of public opinion in the nation.
I do not think I need to prolong unduly my contribution to this discussion. It is obvious that up to the present we have failed to reach the consensus that has been hoped for. We were moving forward positively and constructively on both sides in an effort to bring about necessary reform.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There has been discussion of these issues in the press of the nation. I agree with other Members who have said this matter has been handled in a constructive way by the news media of Canada. As I read the comments of responsible observers it becomes clear to me that responsible members of the Press Gallery are as concerned as the Official Opposition about the motives of the Government in bringing in this extreme method of closure.
Canada is a federal state. We are a heterogeneous rather than a homogenous nation. The Government has tried to govern in haste and it has had to repent at leisure. It has tried to conceal controversial matters by secret negotiation instead of by exposing its point of view and its policy before the scrutiny of Members of this House. For this reason I think we should give careful consideration to the amendment now before us. Parliament is an instrument of education primarily. It is an instrument which makes it possible for elected representatives to exchange view-

DEBATES	June 4, 1965
points and gradually come to a reasonable consensus. If we limit debate beyond the extent to which concessions have already been made by compromise, I feel that Parliament as we know it will be in great jeopardy. If we take this further step, private Members of the House will certainly need greater assistance than they have had up to the present time. They will need expanded research facilities. We must bear in mind the attitude which the Government has taken toward the discussion of public affairs freely and openly in this House. Even during the question period when we seek information on public policy the attitude of the Treasury Bench is one which favours obscuring these issues rather than throwing light on the questions involved.
I make this final plea which has been made by many hon. Members during this discussion: Let us continue in the spirit of compromise which has marked this debate until the last few days. We have agreed on major concessions. Members of the Official Opposition have agreed to make major concessions. My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has even proposed that we should pass the non-controversial proposals, set up the committees and enable them to start work on the business to be referred to them. We heartily agree that the committee system should be used so as to avoid unnecessary and repetitious discussion in this House. But let us not, by attempting to resolve our difficulties by shortcuts, take the road to tyranny in this country.
What the Government now proposes should not be done unless the suggestion put forward in good faith by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) with reference to a continuing or permanent Speaker is accepted. Members on the other side of the House have referred to the British system and the way in which time is allocated in the British Parliament. But they have failed to note that it is the Speaker, an independent Speaker, a permanent Speaker, who has the final say in deciding whether a motion for allocation of time is to be presented to the House. If we are to be railroaded in this fashion the minimum requirement will have to be the provision of a permanent Speaker in this House.
Again, those who have referred to the British practice have failed to mention that there is always uneasiness in the British Parliament on the rare occasions when the
June 4, 1965

limitation of time provision is resorted to. As I read the discussions there, there is a feeling that because it violates the fundamental rights of Members of the House it is necessary to bring about some modification of the right application of that system.
The most striking example of rigid allocation of time for the consideration of public issues comes from the Soviet Union. There they are able to handle parliamentary discussion of business in a matter of weeks. The time limit is so absolute that the assembly has become a body that exists virtually to give formal approval to the executive arm which, of course, has authoritarian power. Let us not, even with the best of intentions, follow that example. Many have said that the intentions of the Government in this regard are of the purest, that they want to get on with the business of the nation. If that is so, let the Cabinet, the executive arm of Parliament, prepare its legislation more carefully so that its bills need not be put forward and then withdrawn three or four times. Let it allow the ordinary Members of this House freedom of expression and freedom to express the point of view of the people they represent when public issues are raised in this chamber.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to support the amendment. I will point out the value of the amendment in a few minutes.
I would open my remarks, however, by expressing my regret once again that the Government has now reached a position where it is being adamant and is refusing to budge. I feared this would happen when I first saw the resolution on the order paper. Bearing in mind the conciliatory tone of the Prime Minister's speech I thought that perhaps some modification would result and that we would not reach a deadlock on an item which was known at the time to be extremely controversial. Today I again asked the Prime Minister if he would set aside the controversial item now before the House in the hope that we might proceed to approve of 90 per cent of the various proposals embodied in the two resolutions. I thought the House would speedily do this. Again my request was refused.
I am gradually losing confidence in the answers the Prime Minister gives to many things. When I asked him today whether he would set aside that portion of the resolution
House of Commons Procedures which deals with the new closure rule his reply-and I copied down his words-was as follows: "There is, of course, no new closure rule under discussion. There are rules to allocate times to proposed legislation which comes before the House." I submit, Sir, that this statement of the Prime Minister is misleading. When he says that there is no new closure rule under discussion, I say that the Prime Minister is ignorant of what is being proposed in the resolution which he put before this House because this is a form of closure. Other people who have spoken in the course of the debate have indicated that, even such a close supporter of the Government as the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who, as reported at page 1544 of Hansard, used these words:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The proposed standing order 15A is really another type of guillotine, a more refined type of guillotine.
"Guillotine" and "closure" are the customary words used in connection with the arbitrary and forceful closing off of freedom of speech in the House of Commons. So when the Prime Minister says there is no new closure rule under discussion, I say that statement is misleading. I hope it was not calculated to mislead the public; I hope it was made through ignorance of what is being considered.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us consider exactly what we mean by "closure". We have Standing Order 33, and the marginal note calls it "Closure". I think it would be advantageous to see how that rule compares with the one now being considered by the House. I think if a person looks closely at the two he will see that the new proposal is a form of closure. Standing Order 33 reads as follows:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed: and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment: and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes in any such adjourned debate; or, if in committee, on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title: and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before one o'clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as
2010	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
Consider, Sir, the resemblance between that and the proposed new closure rule. In the present rule notice has to be given by a Minister. When the motion then comes before the House it is decided without debate or amendment and once it has been decided in the affirmative the House enters into a limited period of debate which concludes at one o'clock in the morning with each Member being restricted to 20 minutes. The new, proposed closure rule varies this to a certain extent. If the Business Committee fails to reach agreement, the new closure rule may be in-introduced by a Minister. The new closure rule will permit one day's debate, at which time the vote must be called to decide whether the new closure rule shall be put into effect. If this is resolved in the affirmative, the debate on the legislation then before the House is restricted in time. There are slight modifications; it is not to be under two days for second reading, two days for committee and one day for third reading. But there is a definite closure imposed.
The new rule as amended this morning gives the Government spokesman an opportunity to restrict, in the course of the various divisions of that general debate, the rights of private Members with regard to time. It could be 20 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 minutes or 30 minutes, but there is a restriction of time for speaking involved in the new closure rule. Let me indicate this, Sir. It has been pointed out to us time and time again that the new, proposed closure rule is an adaptation of a rule in force in England which is called allocation of time. We have had presented to us an argument that this is just an orderly arrangement of debate and follows a recognized British practice. I have pointed out that the recognized British practice has almost fallen into abeyance over the years and is rarely used. The authority on the British rules and procedure is Sir Erskine May, and in his sixteenth edition of "Parliamentary Practice" at pages 476 and 477, dealing with this subject, you find these words:
In such circumstances-
This is when the Government has decided that debate must be restricted:
-resort is had sooner or later-
I ask you, Sir, to listen to these words:
-to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of

DEBATES	June 4, 1965
a bill, and (in the case of the committee and report stages) of limited amounts of time to particular portions of the bill, together with provision for securing the disposal of the stages or portions of the bill at the end of the time allotted for each. This method is not provided for by the standing orders but is applied, when the need arises, by special orders of the House, known officially as "Allocation of Time" orders, and colloquially as "Guillotine" or "Closure by compartment" orders.
In other words, in the British practice this is called "closure by compartment" or "guillotine". I will read on:
The provisions of these orders are described in detail in the third section of this chapter. They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
The proposal now before the Canadian House of Commons is an adaptation of "closure by compartment" as it is called in England, or "guillotine". I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is another form of closure and that the Prime Minister is quite incorrect in saying that closure is not the subject before the House of Commons. He said that no new closure rule was under discussion. I say the Prime Minister is wrong and that he is misleading the House and the public when he uses those words, because the closure rule is under discussion and it is an adaptation of closure in England which is called "closure by compartment", "guillotine" or sometimes "allocation of time". The three terms are used and it is closure, closure of debate. It is a limitation on debate and it is similar to our Standing Order 33 which is a limitation on debate because under Standing Order 33 we have one day in which to conclude the debate and each Member is restricted to 20 minutes.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I suggest that not only was the Prime Minister incorrect in that statement, but he said in the course of his remarks on May 19, as reported at page 1477 of Hansard:
The major objectives of the procedural proposals are to arrange time for debate on specific proposals so as to increase, not decrease, the role of the private Member-
Not content with that statement, as reported at page 1483 he said:
-I believe that these proposals will have a number of very important effects if they are adopted by the House. They will increase the opportunities for participation by private Members of Parliament in legislative and other business;-
June 4, 1965
It may be that in other business-he is referring to estimates there-there may be greater opportunities for private Members in Committee. When it comes to legislative matters, however, these new rules and certainly this suggested 15A will not increase private Members' opportunities but will decrease them. I say that once again the Prime Minister gives a misleading statement to the House and to the country when he says that these proposals are such as to increase and not decrease the role of the private Member. Once a time limit is set on debate in this House the role of the private Member is decreased; many private Members have seen that during the course of this debate and have expressed that opinion in the House. I think it is wrong for the Prime Minister to make statements such as that which do not accord with the facts.
In view of the situation whereby the Government seems to be intent on forcing its will upon this House we have moved a subamendment. It is rather strange that we should have to do this in view of the statement of the Prime Minister. When he was talking earlier about the necessity, as he saw it, for making alterations in the rules he spoke, and quite eloquently, about the functions of the Government and of the Opposition. Speaking of Parliament, as reported at page 1475 he said:
It functions, in other words, in defence of and criticism of the Government and the Executive. The essence of democracy is that the defence and the criticism are equally important. They are together the process by which guidance and warning is given to the direction of our national affairs. The House of Commons is where the primary defence of Government policy must be made, and where the primary attack on Government policy should be made.
Just a little further on, when speaking about the possible decline in the value of Parliament, he says:
The first decline becomes apparent, and dangerous, when a majority rides rough-shod over the strong views, sincerely held, of a minority-
I represent a minority. I hold strong views, which are sincerely held, with regard to this further unnecessary closure rule that the Government is trying to introduce. That is why I am speaking again today. I think it is wrong. I think it will contribute to a decline in the parliamentary system and it runs counter to those noble words:
The essence of democracy is that the defence and the criticism are equally important.
To avoid criticism the Government puts on the closure rule. What about the essence of
2011
House of Commons Procedures democracy at that stage? Criticism of Government policy is the essential factor. If it is good policy it can sustain that criticism. If it is bad policy the policy has to be modified or withdrawn.
My attitude in regard to this is that the proposal of the Government with regard to this second closure rule is wrong. It is bad. It should be criticized. We are criticizing it. It should be modified. It would be better if it were withdrawn.
I regret again that it is not possible for the Prime Minister and the Government to set aside this particular section and proceed with the other sections for which there will be virtually unanimous support. We have made it possible, by repeated suggestions, for the Government to do this but they have refused. This debate could have been completed as to 90 per cent of the proposals in front of us two or three days ago had the Government been co-operative. But they have taken this adamant stand and are now attempting to ride roughshod over the rights of a minority in this House. This is our objection.
We have proposed a subamendment asking for a 60 per cent support of the House for the application of the new closure rule when and if it is proposed in this House by a Minister of the Crown. This is going part way with the Government. In effect we are saying that if they insist on having a new closure rule- for the life of me why the Liberal Party of Canada ever wants to hear the word "closure" again I just cannot understand after their experience in 1956 and 1957-the House should determine by a 60 per cent majority vote that that restriction of time shall be imposed.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Assuming that the amendment which has been put forward is accepted, would the hon. gentleman tell me what in his opinion its effect would be on section 49 of the British North America Act?


John George Diefenbaker: Now that is just nonsense.


George James McIlraith: It is not nonsense at all.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may rise on a question of privilege, it is just nonsense on the part of the Minister in producing that pretence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is just the constitution of Canada.



June 4, 1965
Private Bills


John George Diefenbaker: You are the last people who should talk about the constitution in view of the way you are trampling on it, and you are trampling on it today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Trampling on the minority is what the Government is engaged in and in order to protect the minority, Sir, I now move the adjournment of the debate.


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



CANADA DAY


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, respecting Canada Day.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill I am introducing today, seconded by my good friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), is to amend an old statute under which the first day of July was designated as our national holiday under the name of "Dominion Day", so as to give it a name more in keeping with the present status of our country by calling it "Canada Day".
The first of July should be considered by all Canadians as the ideal day on which to take stock of our achievements during the year gone by. So, everyone must be made to understand that this day is that of our national holiday and it must have a truly Canadian character. It is a day on which our citizenship must be emphasized, as well as our pride in being able to live in so beautiful a country.
Every year since I have been sitting in this house, I noticed with regret that the first of July was not designated the same way throughout the country, and when some members asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) what was the official designation of our national holiday, I became somewhat irritated, like most of you. Some refer to it as "Dominion Day" or "jour du Dominion"; others, as "Canada Day" or "jour du Canada"; others, as "Confederation Day" or "jour de la Confederation"; others, as merely the first of July.
Since the Statute of Westminster, it is obvious that the word "dominion" does not apply as much because, in fact, we are no longer a

dominion. May I quote two experts in that field.
First, Mr. Maurice Ollivier, that distinguished jurist well known to hon. members, in his book "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", said this:
The statute of Westminster was, therefore, the confirmation of Balfour's statement at the 1926 Imperial Conference to the effect that the dominions had become autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
May I also mention a remark made by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King on the word "dominion":
The least one can say about such a usage is that it leads to confusion, when it is not to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the facts. South Africa is South Africa; New Zealand is New Zealand; Australia is Australia and Canada is Canada.
Therefore, I think it is very desirable to give a more uniform and more acceptable character to that national holiday. That is why I propose in this bill to call our national holiday, that of all Canadians regardless of their ethnic origin, Canada Day.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that a similar bill was passed on April 4, 1946, and that at that time, many members who still are here, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, (Mr. Knowles) voted in favour of that bill. It was then sent to the Senate which adopted it with a slight amendment.
I would also point out that the provision concerning the Canada Day was exactly the same as that I am suggesting today. Unfortunately, the session having ended too soon, the house could not examine that amendment, and the bill was automatically removed from the order paper.
Therefore, due to the confusion which exists throughout the country, and considering that it is necessary to create an essentially Canadian day and ensure the uniformity of such a symbol, I believe that the day of every Canadian should be called immediately Canada Day.
I hope that the house will pass this piece of legislation. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House approve of it, and I hope that those who wish to speak about it do so as concisely as possible, so that the matter may be put to a vote.
June 4. 1965


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member on the manner of his presentation, but let me say at the outset that I disagree completely, thoroughly, wholeheartedly, emotionally and intellectually with its content. I cannot see how we make our Canadianism more meaningful, how we become more truly Canadian, and I am paraphrasing some of his remarks, by dropping from our vocabulary, and from the designation of our national day one of the unique contributions which our country has made to the whole of political terminology, namely, the word "Dominion".
Because a thing is old does not make it useless. On the other hand, I think because a thing is old does not mean that there should not and could not be proper and valuable reasons for change. The word "Dominion" is something of which I am very proud. I think its origin might, instead of being glossed over, be looked into a little more carefully.
I have before me a copy of a letter from the son of one of the great Fathers of Confederation, Sir Leonard Tilley. He writes:
You state that you have heard and read that my father, the late Sir S. L. Tilley, was the one who suggested this name. You are correct in this statement as far as my knowledge goes. I have heard my father state how he came to suggest it at the B.N.A. Conference. When the Fathers of Confederation were assembled discussing the terms and conditions of Confederation and the drafting of the British North America Act there had been considerable discussion the day before and many suggestions as to what the new United Canada should be called, and no conclusion had been reached.
Apparently there were delays at that time too. They were politicians, after all.
The discussion on the name stood over until the next day. The next morning, as was Sir Leonard's custom-
He was a good Maritimer.
-he read a chapter from the Bible, and that that particular morning he read Psalm 72, Verse 8, "He shall have Dominion also from sea to sea." When reading verse 8 of the said Psalm, the thought occurred to him, what a splendid name to give Canada, the word "Dominion" of Canada. When he went back to the sitting of the convention that morning he suggested the word "Dominion", which was agreed to, and Canada was called the "Dominion of Canada".
Thus we have great meaning attached to our Latin motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare- from the sea all the way to the sea. The name has more than a religious significance, it has historical significance in that it represents the political thinking that was taking place at the time. The Fathers of Confederation wanted, and they said this, to build
22620-129J
Private Bills
a bigger and better entity and a greater political community, and they wanted a new name. They decided to call it the "Dominion of Canada".
There are many people who have written, without much thought before they wrote, that this was a British imposition. As the Colonial Secretary wrote to the Queen at the time, it was the desire of the British North Americans that the word "Dominion" be used. We all know the story of how Sir John A. wanted to use the word "kingdom", and at one stage of the draft both words were used. The fourth draft in part read: "-one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada-". Lord Carnarvon wrote the Queen and said:	"The North
American delegates are anxious that the United provinces should be designated as the Dominion of Canada".
The word "Dominion" is a great word and if I was not limited to 20 minutes and liked to read statutes and statistics, I could point out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times where the word "Dominion" appears in the statutes of this Parliament. That is legal usage and it is proper and by chance, indeed, it happens also to be a French word, although archaic French as the dictionary points out.
The hon. Member referred to the Statute of Westminster. That Statute in my opinion does not constitute an argument for discarding this historic word but merely updates it. It indicates that at that stage of our political development, a political development which this country pioneered, the Dominion was defined, as the hon. gentleman quoted so well, as an autonomous community in a free political society.
The Statute of Westminster itself refers to the word "Dominion" many, many times. The second line of it, I may say, refers to "Dominion of Canada", and the Statute refers to it 30 times thereafter. The Statute of Westminster cannot be brought in support of this retrograde and unhistoric step.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I suppose it is easy to say that this is just a word that is not important. But it has been said that words are the things which distinguish men from beasts. It can, however, be said that a nation that callously disregards its past is not preparing itself too well or too wisely for the future or equipping itself too well for the present in which it lives. Our forefathers chose the title "Dominion". Through the wisdom of these

June 4, 1965
Private Bills
men and those who have followed the word "Dominion" has become meangingful. We stand today in the western hemisphere constantly worrying about our identity. We want to be different from this; we want to be different from that. Yet the one thing which marks us uniquely, the word "Dominion", would be discarded by certain people.
Would we be any more free if we dropped the word "Dominion" completely? It is almost gone as it is. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), speaking in the House last July 3, said "the efforts made by the Government to which I belonged before 1957 to replace the word "Dominion" by a more modern and realistic term were resisted strongly by the Tory party at that time." He said also that since the Tories came into office they dropped the term "Federal" and began to use the word "Dominion". I say, bully for them that they chose not to adorn any more than necessary our documents with the well known American expression "Federal" but clung somewhat to our own word "Dominion". I do not know if this is documented and perhaps it would be difficult to document, but someone who was observing the attempts of the Mackenzie King-St. Laurent Government to adopt and extend the word "Federal" said the one thing that stopped them dead in their tracks was the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The dropping of the first "D" would leave a very undesirable implication.
More important, I am concerned with the fact that today we live not in the day of the nationalists but the denationalists. The concept of the Dominion, the entity, is not of a whole of which others are a part but more and more one of 11 Governments that sit down to negotiate and discuss, invariably to the advantage of the ten and not the senior Government. In this day of the denationalists, I think we would be well advised to recall that the whole is greater than the parts and that there are many things which must be done, not only by political institutions but all of the people, to give their allegiance to the whole. When people are afraid of the word "Nation" or "Nations", how sound, how sensible to designate the political entity which was created nearly a hundred years ago by the word "Dominion". Those who were French and those who were not French created one of the great, successful experiments when people of different cultures, different religions, moved together and built something
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
that was good, something that was great, that was lasting.
It is said we must not leave the word "Dominion" because we confuse people. I wonder that the French do not change the name July 14 from Bastille Day to France Day, and why the Irish do not ask for an Ireland Day. How much would we advance anything by the passage of such a measure as this? If there is anyone in Canada who does not know what Dominion means or what Dominion of Canada means, I think it behooves those of us who are interested in our future and in our children to do something about it. One of the great facts of our country is that we are so afraid to enthuse about our history, about our historical figures. As a result of our fear of glamourizing something, we play it down so much that we found when we discussed the flag some time ago we had not really thought very much about these things. The significance of them had not entered into our minds, into our souls. Heaven knows, this country is not over-blessed with interest in its history. We have done our part in ignoring the past, so let us in this instance look upon this word as something which binds us all together, we from the Maritimes and the hon. Member from Quebec. The creation of the Dominion was a great uniting experience in statescraft, no group dominating the other, no groups with special privileges, but all areas contributing and working together.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to use my full quota of time because I look forward to an opportunity to vote on this Bill. I need not say that I plan to vote against it. In doing so I think I am upholding something. Of course, it is only a word but it is a significant word. It was historic nearly 100 years ago and it is meaningful today. I say let the Ministers not do what they did a year ago, show reluctance to call this July 1st Dominion Day. This constituted a most regrettable, almost a reprehensible performance. During the last session Minister after Minister was reluctant to say what this was. Some said it was Confederation Day. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said it was the day of Canada's national celebration. Has the word "Dominion" become so fearsome it must be removed? I say, Mr. Speaker, it is valuable and it must be retained.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) and the fervour
June 4, 1965

and emotion with which he embraced the word "Dominion". I think he wound up his remarks by asking it the word "Dominion" had become so fearsome we were reluctant to use it. It seems, perhaps, that the hon. Member for Queens would have more love and affection for Sir John Macdonald than he does for the Dominion because he has on the order paper a Bill which perhaps it might be appropriate to mention, Bill No. C-14 which seeks to establish a day called Sir John A. Macdonald Day. I only mention this in passing and not as a substantive part of my argument on the Bill before us, so I hope you will not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, when I refer to this Bill on the order paper. But the construction of that bill and its contents are certainly revealing because the hon. Member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) obviously found the word "dominion" so fearsome that he left it out of his own bill.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
He says in clause 2 of his bill with regard to Sir John A. Macdonald day:
Throughout Canada, In each and every year, the first Monday immediately following the eleventh day of January__
And in the explanatory notes, which are ofttimes used to explain something which may not be too clear in a bill, he makes another reference in that delightful construction of words of which he himself is a master:
In 1967 Canadians will be celebrating throughout Canada the birth of their nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was just following the B.N.A. Act.


Frank Howard: As the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, he was simply following, first, the B.N.A. Act, and second, undoubtedly what is truly in his heart about this matter of a dominion or about the matter of Canada.
This is a time in our history when there is a searching for symbols to indicate just what is Canada. The symbols include such things as a flag, which we tortuously found last year, such things as an anthem or a song to symbolize what Canada is, such things as names established and applied to a particular day during which we can fleetingly look back, remember and think about our history and the meaning of Canada.
It is a fact that the greatest, most intense, and certainly the most vocal demand for such symbols emanates from the province of Quebec. Others in other parts of the nation
Private Bills
are interested, but the Members from the province of Quebec are perhaps more vocal in expressing their desires to find these particular symbols. In part I think this arises because of a sort of massive, cultural inferiority complex, but regardless of the reasons for propounding or proposing certain symbols we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that these symbols will make us proud of ourselves or that they will make Canadians more proud of being Canadian. In fact just the reverse is true. It is what we think of our nation and ourselves that makes the symbols worth while.
I, for instance, am just as proud and will be just as proud and honoured to be a Canadian privileged to have been born in this nation whether we call the 1st of July Dominion day, Canada day, simply the 1st of July or some other equally appropriate name. What we should be doing is trying to unwind ourselves from our blind dedication to the past and see if we cannot, through the establishment of symbols, grow into adulthood. If in this process of growing up it is necessary to change the name Dominion Day to Canada Day, then I am all for it. I am willing to give it a try.
Since I was born, the 1st of July in my memory and in my family's use of it has always been Dominion Day. Other people think historically and traditionally of it, almost from the time they are in knee pants, as simply being the 1st of July. But surely we should be prepared to forget, not to drive out of our memories entirely but to forget a bit of our own personal upbringing in our desire to find some symbols of which we can truly be proud in the years ahead. For these reasons I generally support the bill before us.
However, I think this should have been a subject matter which the Government itself should have introduced and which it should have been proud to introduce. I ofttimes think that in matters such as this, where there may be some delicacy involved and where feelings may be upset, the Government deliberately takes the course of getting one of its backbenchers to introduce a bill, such as was the case with the changing of the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines, so that the Government can take the credit if the bill passes and can blame somebody else in case there is a great public outcry.


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, first I am pleased to congratulate the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for introducing this bill and, second, I

June 4, 1965
Private Bills
wish to thank him for allowing me to have the pleasure and the honour of seconding it. As the hon. Member has stated, on April 4, 1946 a similar bill was debated and passed by the House. As he also stated, it went to the Senate and because of the end of the session the amendments could not be passed so that the bill died.
I am hoping that this bill today will not die. I am hoping that today this bill will pass. Many of us on this side of the House are in favour of letting it pass and for that reason I am only going to speak briefly in the hope that the bill will not be talked out.
I favour the bill for two main reasons. In the first place, to me the word "dominion" in the present act is outdated. The Statute of Westminster, as the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche indicated, confirmed our position as a free and independent nation. We are equal to all; we are subservient to none. We are loyal to the Crown; we are free and happy partners in the Commonwealth.
We have dominion over no one, and none has dominion over us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David George Hahn: This leads me to my second point. I believe we should be proud of our state as an independent, free nation. I have felt for many, many years that we Canadians have lacked national pride. We have been very diffident about our Canadianism. Comparing our attitudes to our country with those of people in other lands, and I think in particular of the people to the south of us, we have been very hesitant about expressing our views and sentiments about our country.
The hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has a slightly different view from mine about the meaning and importance of symbols. I believe that symbols can be important as a focal point for our feelings of pride in our country and that by reason of the fact that they exist they do help us to express, concentrate and develop this pride in our country. I therefore welcome the idea of calling our national holiday Canada Day.
I think this is going to help us express our pride in our country. I think it will help us express this pride to ourselves and to people outside our country. Let us do as we do now. Let us celebrate our loyalty to the Crown. Let us celebrate our partnership in the Commonwealth on May 24. But let us celebrate our own country; let us celebrate Canada on Canada Day, July the 1st.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this bill. I am

afraid I did not examine the Order Paper closely enough to realize it was going to come up for debate on this occasion. But I do want to express my opinions regarding this bill. I think I would be in default if I did not do so.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I have considerable regard for the hon. Member who introduced this measure and for the speech he made on it but I do not believe that reasoning, however correct the process may be, can be accepted if it is based on false premises. Part of the difficulty arises,
I think, from the fact that the word "dominion" is not properly translated from English into French. I say this although I am not a linguist able to express an authoritative opinion on the matter. I do not believe the word has the same shade of meaning in the English language as it has in the French language. There may even be areas in the world where the interpretation of the English word is not the same as is generally the case. It is common knowledge that many words in the English language have taken on other shades of meaning when used in different areas of the world.
To me the word "dominion" has the meaning given to it in the Oxford dictionary-a territory or domain. In other words, it means an area which is under one Government, that is, a country; in other words, it is an area populated by people who are governed by one Government. There may be shades of meaning or overtones of some sort of subservience in the usage of the word in the French language and presumably in Toronto, if I followed the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) correctly. But to most English speaking people and at least to me it has no connotation of this sort whatsoever. The word "dominion" is one which it would seem to me people should be proud to attach to their country or to their Government or to emanations of that Government.
Having said this, I want to go back almost 100 or even 100 years to the period when the union of the colonies of what was then known as British North America was contemplated. At that time there were in existence Upper and Lower Canada, which had been united under one Government for some time as Canada, and there were the colonies, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which were at various times parties to these discussions. As everyone knows, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the two Canadas were the colonies which formed the dominion in the first instance.
June 4, 1965

When the question of what to call this confederation arose, it was known to be a contentious one. Those responsible wanted to evolve a name which would give a new breath of understanding to anyone who referred to this union. It was no longer to be called Canada only. We recall that in those days Canada was a limited area. In very general terms it comprised the watershed of the St. Lawrence River system. The other colonies were never known as Canada. Indeed, they had no connection with Canada. Canada at that time was just as foreign to them as Bermuda or the West Indies. As a matter of fact the part of the country from which I come was much more intimate socially and economically with the West Indies and with Bermuda than with the Canada of that day. The trade of the Atlantic provinces, as they later became, flowed north and south by water. But having decided to enter this confederation they regarded the question of the name as being an important one.
As I have said, the name "Canada" had no application whatever to the Atlantic colonies at that time. Even I, and I do not consider myself really ancient, can remember old people who regarded anyone leaving for Toronto or Quebec as going away to a foreign country. They were going to Canada. And I suppose in still more recent times it was difficult for people in Newfoundland to realize that it was no longer necessary to leave Newfoundland to be in Canada.
In discussing the name of the new federation one of the names put forward was "Newfoundland". After all, the whole of the region was a new-found land. The term "Newfoundland" was applied in the first instance, in any case, to a great area of North America; it became applicable to one particular island only at a later date.


Mr. Cashin:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Is he suggesting that it might be a good idea to change the name "Canada" to "Newfoundland"?


John Angus MacLean: I think it is a bit
late to do that, but I certainly would not have had much objection to it at the time of which I am speaking. I think it would have been a better choice in the first instance. Probably one of the difficulties was that Newfoundland did not enter confederation at that early period. That probably put the suggestion out of court to begin with.
The Fathers of Confederation were striving to find a name which would not be limited in its application to the area of the St.
Private Bills
Lawrence watershed. It must be remembered that the term "Canada" at that date was applied to only a small part of what are now the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In 1912 vast northern territories were added to each of these two provinces. There was naturally some resentment among the people of the Maritimes provinces to the new country being called simply "Canada". For one thing the term did not attach any significance to the entry into confederation of some of the colonies. There was the danger that the impression would develop among the people of the Canadas-I think that such an impression did, unfortunately, come into being and it still exists-that they were simply acquiring some appendages to widen their borders. If the word "Canada" alone were used it was feared they would not become fully aware of the fact that this was a brand new country of vast extent the meaning of which could not be expressed by the term "Canada" as it was used in those days.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Suggestions such as the country might be called "Assiniboia" were put forward by some. Assiniboia was a vast territory in what is now called Western Canada. There were no doubt many other suggestions. But as a compromise it was decided to call the new country the "Dominion of Canada," from the biblical quotation given by my colleague, to make people realize that it was no longer the small, ingrown, parochial area of the St. Lawrence watershed but a great country stretching from sea to sea. That is what the word "Dominion" attached to "Canada" is supposed to connote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have all followed his discussion of what happened with interest, but would he tell us what name was given to the country as set out in the British North America Act?


John Angus MacLean: It was the "Dominion of Canada".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend should cite a section or two of the British North America Act, because I believe the British North America Act says it was given the name "Canada".


John Angus MacLean: That is right, but the "Dominion of Canada"-

June 4, 1965
Private Bills


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Angus MacLean: It is "a Dominion known as Canada", I believe, in one case. I have not the Act before me, Mr. Speaker. In any case, the compromise was made on that basis. Maybe we Maritimers got taken in completely again to a greater degree than we realized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would my maritime friend agree to my reading to him a phrase contained in section 4 of the British North America Act:
unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.


John Angus MacLean: That is right.


John Watson MacNaught: And section 5.


John Angus MacLean: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I am not questioning it. But it was also decided as a compromise-


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit me to ask him a question?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is it not true that the word "Dominion" was devised to replace the word "Kingdom" in "Kingdom of Canada", which it was thought at the time was not acceptable to the Americans?


John Angus MacLean: I think that was a proposal that was put forward by Sir John A. Macdonald and this was substituted by the word "Dominion".


Jean-Luc Pepin: So that the word "Dominion" has a general meaning, as the hon. Member said at the beginning of his remarks, and could be used anywhere. The word "Dominion" is not peculiar to Canada but the word "Canada" is peculiar to Canada.


John Angus MacLean: That is right; but the word "Dominion" was used to differentiate between Canada as it was known in those days and this new country, this new confederation of a group of colonies coming together. The word "Dominion" is not entirely unique so far as Canada is concerned; you also have the Dominion of New Zealand, for example. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the retention of "Dominion" should still apply, so we can get away from this narrow, parochial view that only the St. Lawrence Valley is Canada. Canada is a far greater concept than it was 100 years ago, so much greater that it bears no resemblance to the Canada of that day.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask the hon. Member if it is not true that in modern usage the parts of British North America which were formerly referred to as Upper and Lower Canada are now referred to as Ontario and Quebec? I should also like to ask the hon. Member whether the term "Dominion" has not in our usage, both popular and constitutional, come to take its meaning from a particular period in our constitutional development, namely, the period of "Dominion status"?


John Angus MacLean: I do not think this is entirely valid, Mr. Speaker. As I said at the beginning, there are more meanings than one or more shades of meaning to the word "Dominion". One of them is a country that is governed by one government, over which a government has control. As far as the status of the country is concerned, maybe the term "Dominion status" was very unfortunate. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the usage of the word "Dominion" to indicate that we are subservient to anybody else. Nothing in the word "Dominion" is contrary to our having complete and utter self-determination as a country. I believe the same is true of New Zealand.
In the documents printed in the British North America Act and Selected Statutes, 1867-1948, issued by the King's Printer, 1948, the term "Dominion of Canada" occurs 153 times, "Union or Dominion of Canada" 18 times, "Union of the Dominion of Canada" twice, "the said Dominion" or "our said Dominion" 46 times, and so on. "Dominion of Canada" alone or in combination occurs 173 times. In 103 of the cases it was used, not by the British Government or Parliament or officials, who might perhaps be supposed not to know what was what, but by our own Parliament which certainly ought to have known and which started doing it in 1869 and kept it up till 1948. "Dominion" in some other form occurs 319 times, and again in 220 cases, ranging from 1869 to 1945, our own Parliament was the culprit. Whatever the notion may be in some areas, Mr. Speaker, at the present time it is perfectly obvious that when the colonies of British North America agreed to confederate the name "Dominion of Canada" was a compromise as far as the colonies other than the Canada of the day were concerned. It was
June 4, 1965

to indicate that this was not just a grandi-osement of the Canada of the day but was a new concept for a new country, a new confederation stretching from sea to sea.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that I am certainly not in favour of switching our "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day". I am convinced that Canada as a virile nation, a nation that is going places in the world, does not need to work into every phase of its life the word "Canada." I believe that when in the past Canadians have gone abroad they have given a picture of Canada that is second to none in the world. To me this business of changing the name from "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day" is going to weaken this particular day, because we already have Canada, everybody knows we have Canada, and we have Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Bert Raymond Leboe: "Dominion Day" to my mind speaks of something much richer than just "Canada Day". "Canada Day" is a cold expression. It expresses the name of our country, but Dominion Day to me is a more neighbourly expression used in connection with a celebration which embraces all those united peoples having dominion over the whole area in which they live as a community and as a family.
Someone said that the word "Dominion" was not peculiar to the United States. The United States celebrates its Independence Day, as do several nations in the world. I say we should not weaken our position and take away from any people in the country the deeper meaning of our celebration day by changing Dominion Day to Canada Day.
I am reminded of the preacher who had as a side note to his sermon the words "Holler loud because your argument is weak", and I think this applies here. We are putting "Air Canada" on our aircraft because air travel is international and our aircraft fly routes which take them far from the borders of our country. I do not say this is wrong, but an erosion is going on here of some of the traditions which make Canada what it is.
We have been here for 100 years. In those 100 years we have developed traditions and history. One of these days there will be an attempt to do away with the words "Royal Mail" and to change them to "Canada Mail". Everybody knows it is Canada mail.


An hon. Member:: And why not?
Private Bills


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There go the Republicans.


Bert Raymond Leboe: This sort of erosion will go on and on if we let it. I believe in calling a spade a spade and that is just what is going on here, so let us face it.


Mr. Rheaume:: If you do not know where you are you will find out soon enough.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We will find out in time, Mr. Speaker. I will leave a few moments for the hon. Member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) but I do want to say this. The time is coming when, if we carry on the way we are, we will be as disorganized and confused as anybody could be. We must have something to rest our case on, some tradition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have Canada.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We have Canada and Canadians, as I said before, but something more than that is involved. We do not have to yell on July 1st that this is Canada Day because everybody knows we are in Canada. But Dominion Day means more than just Canada as far as I am concerned. It represents more of a community together. I am not in favour of the bill before us.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I too am opposed to the bill now before the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are not surprised.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am glad I do not surprise my republican friends across the way, and let me say I listened quietly and intently to what they said. But if in the wrath of a spoiled child who looks like he is not going to get a second helping of dessert the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) cannot contain himself I would ask him to leave the chamber, as I would be polite enough to do if the situation were reversed.
My objections to this legislation are these. First of all, a case for a change of name has not been made out. I for one, like most of my constituents in the north, am not prepared to pursue novelty for its own sake. We know that the unintelligent overthrowing of tradition and the pursuit of novelty for its own sake can lead only to anarchy.
Another reason I am opposed to this bill is that in my opinion it is another example of the spirit of tokenism that pervades the Government benches across the way. I see evidences of this all around me. No greater example of the spirit of tokenism has ever been given the country than the flag issue when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country, facing grave constitutional issues and

June 4, 1965
Private Bills
tremendous problems of unemployment and urban redevelopment, said to the people of Canada in effect; "Clothe your nakedness in a single maple leaf; if we give you this, all will be well".
Tokenism is something which I am prepared to fight everywhere I meet it, and I am prepared to fight it not only as a Canadian but more particularly as a northern Canadian. When I see what is occurring in this country and see a group of southern Canadians, not exclusively limited to the Government benches but pretty much grouped together over there, dedicated to tokens rather than real development, then I become frightened for those parts of the country which need real, serious and intelligent measures to improve the lot of the people.
I can guarantee one thing, that the token change envisaged in this legislation to change "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day" is the sort of thing I am not prepared to accept until a case has been made out. So far no one in speaking to this bill, including the mover and the seconder, have given me any reason why this change should be made at this time other than the fact that some Members, who as I have said are nicely grouped, feel that they could go back to their constituents and breathe more easily if they were able to bring about this change.
My third objection I can state in a sentence. If this is a good move, then the responsibility rests with the Government and a Minister of the Crown to introduce it, in which case it can be debated by the full House and exposed to the full glare of press and publicity. If the Prime Minister and the Members of his Cabinet choose to excite the daring and give new promise to the timid by changing the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day, then let them have the guts to bring in this change. But they are not going to sneak it in through the back door. May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Acting House Leader if Monday is a holiday or is no Government business prepared?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall continue the debate on the resolutions relating to the improvements of the procedures of this House. If that debate is concluded we will continue with item No. 3 on today's order paper, which is the continuation of the debate on the second reading of a bill relating to banks and banking.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 7, 1965