1965-03-18

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received, as follows:
18 March 1965
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 18th March at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General PRIVILEGE



MR. PERRON-SYSTEM OF CALLING LIBERAL MEMBERS FOR VOTES IN COMMITTEE-STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Last Wednesday, March 10, the hon. member for Beauce rose on a question of privilege which I considered to be more in the nature of a complaint. It concerned his assertion that a buzzer system had been installed in the offices of Liberal members only for the purpose of notifying them of votes when the house is sitting in committee of the whole. I promised to check the facts and to consider the matter.
I have been informed that there is such a buzzer system hooked into the whips' offices but that it serves both Liberal and Conservative members. However, it is limited to members whose offices are located in the west block. There is no such system in the centre block.
I have been advised that, in 1961, when renovations were being planned for the west block the government of the day decided to provide these buzzers in all members' offices in the west block.
The reason for the installation was the distance from the chamber and the consequent
difficulty of reaching members by messenger. Members of all parties whose offices are in the centre block continue to be contacted by their whips, by messenger or by telephone.
I believe that all members of the hon. member for Beauce's group are located in the centre block and that there are only a handful of New Democratic members and Social Credit members in the west block. I assume that their whips experience no difficulty in reaching them by telephone or messenger.



MR. DIEFENBAKER-RESOLUTION OF ONTARIO LEGISLATURE RESPECTING REPATRIATION OF CONSTITUTION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise on a question of privilege that affects this house. I cannot make it applicable, of course, to the other place. It has to do with a resolution which came before the legislature of Ontario one week ago in connection with the repatriation proceedings and the confirmation by the provinces of certain arrangements entered into or agreed to by the attorneys general of the several provinces.
Our order paper shows nothing thereon in relation to an address in this connection. However, a week ago the legislature of Ontario dealt with the following resolution, and I read from the words of the attorney general for Ontario:
The resolution which I have the honour to move appears on the votes and procedures of this legislature as follows:
"That this house approves and supports the addresses of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada to Her Majesty the Queen, praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom in the following terms:
Then follows a draft of the proposed act. In other words, what has taken place is indeed something that affects the rights and privileges of this House of Commons in particular. A resolution approving and supporting the addresses of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada is one which no one would criticize the right of the legislature of Ontario to pass. But this resolution does not represent the facts nor the state of

Question of Privilege
affairs. There has been no address. We have been asking what would be the nature of the government's plans in this connection, whether we would have the opportunity to examine, line by line and paragraph by paragraph, the draft of the proposed act. We have not been given that assurance. We do know, though, that no address which could be confirmed or approved has been passed either by this house or by the other place.
How this came about it is not for me to surmise, but I would ask whether the Prime Minister of Canada or anybody in any position in the government of Canada had informed the government of the province of Ontario that the address had in fact been passed by the two houses. Did the government give it to be understood by the legislature of Ontario that this address was going to be passed by the House of Commons and the Senate? Did it have that pre-vision as to the support that would be received by any such address? Whatever the reason, sir, and whatever the cause, we now find ourselves in a position in the parliament of Canada where one of the legislatures has passed a resolution approving that which has not been put before parliament in an address.
My hon. friend the Minister of Transport, who is an expert on casuistry and administrative enactment, laughs, but I doubt whether he has ever known of a similar case, although the hon. gentleman does have those means of extraterrestrial communication which I do not possess.
I simply say this, that what has taken place has to be explained by the Prime Minister as it constitutes an affront to the parliament of Canada. It places parliament in a position secondary to that of any of the legislative assemblies which may approve of a similar form. In other words, there has been in this case a serious dereliction in the rights and prerogatives of parliament, their interpretation and, as well, the implementation of that which has never previously taken place.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question of privilege, if it is that-that is a matter you will decide, and if you decide it is a question of privilege you will no doubt take appropriate action-which has been raised by the right hon. gentleman invites me to make inquiries of his friend the premier of Ontario about the propriety or otherwise of action taken by the premier and the government of Ontario. I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker, and I will make the

necessary inquiries in a friendly way. Of course I am not in as close and constant contact with the premier of Ontario as is my right hon. friend.


Mr. Graffiey:: How about with the premier of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to make inquiries into this matter to see if I can remove from the hon. gentleman's mind the question that there has been some secret and improper collaboration going on between the government of Ontario and the federal government in respect of this very important matter.
So far as I can understand that which the right hon. gentleman is getting at, it is criticism of a procedure adopted by a legislature of a province. If that is the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and it affects the rights of members of the parliament of Canada-that is, the fact that the government and the legislature of Ontario took certain action-no doubt you will be in a position to make a decision.


John George Diefenbaker: It will have been noticed by you, Mr. Speaker, that the question I asked the Prime Minister remains unanswered. In so far as secret arrangements are concerned, there was no suggestion in my question that such had been the case between the Prime Minister and the premier of Ontario. Those are reserved, according to what we know about the pension legislation, to arrangements with the premier of the province of Quebec.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should answer that question at once. There is no secret arrangement of any kind between the premier of Ontario and myself in regard to this matter. Correspondence has been exchanged between the two levels of government in respect of this matter, but it is quite unworthy of my right hon. friend to suggest that I would enter into any secret arrangements with his friend, the premier of Ontario, which would affect the rights and privileges of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no suggestion made about secret deals except that made by the right hon. gentleman. I asked him whether he gave certain information to the government of Ontario, and he has refused to answer that question.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege, but I am not sure that

all hon. members have completed their discussion of the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition did not follow through on his question of privilege with a motion. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing now before the house. We have had a little discussion about a matter of great interest, but there is not now a motion before the house. As a result I call upon the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to pose his question of privilege.



MR. DOUGLAS-NEWS BROADCAST RESPECTING VOTERS' LIST IN BURNABY-COQUITLAM CONSTITUENCY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a document tabled in this house which was publicly misquoted on the television news at eleven o'clock last evening. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stated that the names of 40 per cent of the voters in the constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam appeared on voters' lists in other constituencies of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This statement was supposedly based on a letter written 11 months ago to the special committee on privileges and elections by one Mr. Moreland T. Brown of Coquitlam. This statement made on the C.B.C. news is a complete distortion of what Mr. Brown wrote in his letter, which was tabled in this house and a photostatic copy of which I have in my hand. On page 2 of his letter Mr. Brown said:
Poll one, Burnaby-Coquitlam was duplicated elsewhere in B.C. to the extent of 40 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the statement made by Mr. Brown was in relation to poll 1 and not in relation to the entire voters' list in the constituency of Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Furthermore, neither Mr. Brown nor the C.B.C. made any attempt to outline the nature of poll 1. It is a logging camp poll situated in the extreme northeast corner of the constituency. The list contained 68 names, all of whom are connected with logging operations. As anyone familiar with logging camps will know, such workers are 20220-7924
Question of Privilege
extremely transitory, moving from one logging operation to another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Nowlan:: On election day?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These workers, anxious as they are to exercise their democratic right to vote-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -will, as a result, find their names entered on more than one list. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that poll 1, which is located at a place called Alvin at the north end of Pitt lake, is almost 100 miles from most of these men's homes, and therefore the fact that they appeared on their home polls and at Alvin is certainly not surprising.
In fairness to the Burnaby-Coquitlam returning officer and the enumerators I trust that steps will be taken by the C.B.C. to rectify the false impression created by their presentation of this matter as a factual news story. I am glad to be able to say that the Canadian Press, which carried the original story, has already issued a correction.



MR. HALES-METHOD OF DEALING WITH CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS, GUELPH, ONT.

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, and at the outset I must say that I am sorry to take the time of the house as I realize that this matter affects a local area. However, there is a principle involved which does affect every hon. member of the house.
On February 15 a small advertisement appeared in the Guelph Mercury stating that on and after March 1, 1965, all those applying for Canadian citizenship must apply in the city of Kitchener. The counties of Perth, Waterloo and Wellington were all involved in this centralization change. The advertisement was published without the signature of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The day following the appearance of the advertisement I contacted the deputy minister and registrar of citizenship who informed me of the department's desire to make this change without having consulted with the elected members of any of these areas.
On February 17 my hon. friend the hon member for Brantford asked the Minister ol Citizenship and Immigration if a study would be made of the whole question, and the minister advised it was under review. At that

Question of Privilege
time I asked a supplementary question recommending to the minister that the local immigration offices be used as centres for receiving applications for citizenship.
On March 4 I asked a further question of the minister with regard to whether the review had been completed, and I was advised that the matter was still under review. On March 9, having had an inquiry from one of my constituents with regard to where she should apply for citizenship, I consulted the registrar of citizenship and was advised that the order still stood and that citizens must go to Kitchener, but that in a week or ten days a change would likely be made.
On March 12, just three days later, the Ontario provincial Liberal member of parliament announced as follows through the Guelph Mercury:
It is now confirmed that applicants for Canadian citizenship in the Guelph area will be accommodated in much the same way as before. Harry Worton, M.P.P. Wellington South, has been officially advised by K. C. Foster, registrar, citizenship registration branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, of this arrangement. Arrangements have now been completed so that applicants for Canadian citizenship in Guelph may now file papers at our immigration office in the federal building in Guelph. Hearings and presentations will also take place as formerly in the city of Guelph. Advertisements will be released to newspapers shortly advising the public of these new arrangements.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is-and I would like to say first of all that the provincial member of parliament is a most highly respected member and he and I have always maintained the best of relationships- first, since immigration is a federal matter, as the elected representative of the people of Wellington South I feel I should have been consulted with regard to any proposed changes and advised of any new arrangements. Second, the registrar of citizenship should at least have had the courtesy to send me, as the federal elected representative, a copy of the letter he sent to the Liberal provincial member.
Third, the facts have been misrepresented to my constituents. They have been misinformed, because as late as 10.30 this morning new Canadians, who very often have language problems and feelings of insecurity, when applying for applications at the county court office or at the immigration office in Guelph were being told that they must still apply to Kitchener, in spite of the newspaper article and letter sent to the provincial member advising to the contrary.
[Mr. Hales. 1
I conclude by saying that my constituents have been misled and misinformed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and I trust immediate steps will be taken to have this whole matter clarified.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member who has just spoken for his courtesy in giving me notice that he was going to raise this question of privilege. At the outset I want to say that the letter which was written by an official of the department was in reply to a letter he received from a provincial member of parliament. There was a misunderstanding on his part of the situation, at least a misunderstanding of an earlier letter written before I took over responsibility for the department.
I want to assure the hon. member that for this part of Ontario no decision has actually been reached on this matter, and I have asked my parliamentary secretary to arrange a meeting in my office, or another convenient meeting place, a week from tomorrow, Friday morning, which the hon. member and all other members of parliament regardless of party will be invited to attend, and I hope we can settle and put an end to the situation that has existed for many months. I am hopeful we will be able to agree on a realistic program that can be put into effect before the end of the month.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table in English and in French a report, "Private and Public Investment in Canada- Outlook 1965."


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the report indicates that total capital expenditures in Canada are expected to reach $12.3 billion this year. Such a program, if realized, would be 14 per cent above actual outlays in 1964 and 31 per cent higher than the level of capital spending in 1963. This means that the new surge in capital expansion which began a year or so ago is still going on.
On the basis of reported intentions, capital spending in the business community will be up by 12 per cent this year compared with

last. For manufacturing alone an increase of 23 per cent is indicated. Substantially higher outlays are expected in both the financial and commercial sectors.
It is estimated that housing starts will approximate last year's record level, and with the large carryover of unfinished houses total expenditure on housing should be about 11 per cent higher. Capital programs in the public sector are up quite sharply. An increase of 64 per cent in outlays for new university facilities and much larger highway programs in the provinces are important factors contributing to the expected 20 per cent increase in capital spending by institutions and governments.
The total program involves a 15 per cent increase in outlays for new construction of all types and an 11 per cent increase in expenditure for new machinery and equipment. The continuing emphasis being placed upon modernization and expansion of production facilities throughout the economy is significant, not only as a stimulus to demand but as an expression of the expectation of the business community of larger markets in the future.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 18, 1964, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson:
That the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on December 14, 1964, be now concurred in.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not at the outset of my remarks in respect to this motion pay my respects to the hon. member in whose name the motion stands, and to the members of the subcommittee who with him laboured very hard and diligently to bring this report before the house. I think it is no secret, particularly to Your Honour, the extent to which the production of the report required a great deal of hard work and concentration.
There was consideration of the committee structure in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in other commonwealth countries and in some of the continental democracies of Europe. There were study papers prepared which included a questionnaire passed around to hon. members of this house. All this material had to be received, assessed and evaluated, and here lies the unanimous result
Procedure Committee Report on the part of the subcommittee of their consideration of this particular problem.
I should also say that for this party the hon. member for Edmonton West, a former speaker of the house, made a very valuable contribution to the work of the subcommittee. Unfortunately he has commitments which prevent him from being here today, but he has asked me to say on his behalf that this particular report is one that was unanimously agreed to, that it bears his endorsation, and that as a member of the committee he would have been delighted to be here this afternoon to participate in this debate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as anybody on the special committee on procedure that we considered a great number of matters, and I for one am disappointed that as a result of these deliberations what we have been able to persuade the house to accept has been very minimal. It seems to me, having in mind that 14 members of the house sat under the distinguished chairmanship of Your Honour to consider these questions and to try to persuade members of the house that we need certain improvements with regard to the rules which now prevail, that if a report of this nature is not accepted, if we can produce nothing other than the small though not unimportant changes which have already been accepted by the house, we may as well toss the problem over our shoulders and decide the house does not want to change in a substantial way the rules which we now have.
This is the issue we must face. Each session we hear pious protestations of the need for reform. We hear speeches made designating a particular chapter and verse where these reforms can take place, yet when we come to the end of the session and assess what we have achieved we find a dismal record. If I read the temper of the people of this country correctly they are demanding that substantial changes be made in the manner in which we continue to operate the business which we as their agents are charged with the responsibility of operating, not as a private debating club but as members of parliament acting on behalf of the people of Canada, and I feel we must comply with what they desire or perhaps they will send others here who will make the changes which we do not make.
I pause here, before I go on to deal with some of the specific steps I wish to mention, to say that what has been produced in the fifteenth report is not something which will automatically result in changes in the stand-

Procedure Committee Report ing orders. I mention this because there is no doubt that contained within the four corners of the fifteenth report are various suggestions which do not commend themselves in all respects to all members of the house.
I refer, for example, to paragraph 17 which excepts from the operation of this order certain specified members such as Your Honour, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker, the deputy chairman of committees, ministers of the cabinet, the chief government whip and so on.
There are other parts of the recommendations which deal with the personnel of committees, with the question of the quorum, with certain innovations which represent a real departure from our practice in the past, such as the suggestion that we should sit three weeks in the house, then adjourn for two weeks, during which half the committees would sit for one week and members would be free to return to their homes for constituency business during the other week.
No doubt all these points do not commend themselves with equal favour to the house, and it is not to be expected there will not be exception taken to some of them or suggestions that there should be amendments. But I would appeal to the house to bear in mind that what we are now dealing with are recommendations. Should this report be adopted in due course, it would then be necessary for the next committee on procedure to introduce from time to time next session, probably in a package arrangement, specifically worded changes in the standing orders. At this stage it would be possible for members who take exception to any specific part of this entire program to speak, vote and act in accordance with their views.
I suggest this because there has been concern on the part of members of the committee and, I know, of the house leaders, as to the machinery by which this particular report might be adopted without being referred back to the committee for further consideration. I would suggest to hon. members that they might regard this in the same fashion as the second reading of a bill; there could be approval in principle either on division or on a vote, and then the matter would be left in the hands of the committee to introduce specific amendments from time to time next session.
The question is, do we need changes in our procedure and, if so, what changes? In so far as basic principles are concerned, the rules we now have in my humble opinion bear a

marked resemblance to those prevailing just after this country became a nation almost 100 years ago. There has been little alteration since. But what a change has taken place in the country itself. In 1867 there was a population of three million. Today it is 20 million. The first budget introduced involved $20 million. Today the figure is well over $7 billion, more than 350 times as much as the first budget.
Consider the subject matters dealt with in 1867 and today. In 1965 a pervasive, widespread program of social justice is in effect including hospitalization, family allowances, unemployment insurance and assistance, old age pensions and so on, as against a rudimentary, hit or miss occasional handout, mostly in the form of charity, in 1867. But the true inner core, our parliamentary institution, the mainspring of our democracy is by comparison with these other great improvements still a rude, creaking, ill-fitting mechanism which struggles in vain to perform the function which it should perform if we are to achieve the proper objectives of this house.
What should be this function, this principal role? In my opinion there are four points. I intend to relate them to the proposals which emanate from this fifteenth report. In the first instance there must be a careful examination of government spending. Second, there is need to examine the accounts of government after the spending has been completed in order to see that the money has been spent for the purposes and in the manner in which it was intended. Third, there is the need, as a legislative body, to exercise control over the executive. This session has certainly indicated the desirability of retaining this important feature. Fourth, the function of parliament is to enact legislation. In this respect, to what extent has our horizon not been expanded to limits never imagined a hundred years ago? The state has assumed responsibilities for social measures for the entire community and undertakings involving vast economic works. If our duties lie in this direction, and I suggest they do, may we not use them as a yardstick to measure the adequacy of our procedures? If so, it is my strong submission that what we are presenting here is essential in order that we may fulfil this role.
Take, for example, the question of the examination of government estimates. Today we find the government armed with extraordinarily extensive powers or authority little known or used in 1867. Interim supply, supplementary estimates, governor general's war-

rants are methods which can be and often have been used so as to avoid that complete and detailed study which this house should give to financial estimates and spending. The establishment of great crown corporations which in effect and for all practical purposes operate outside the area of influence of parliament further complicates the examination of government spending. The method of providing loans to these government creations is another weapon which frequently removes the expenditure of millions of dollars far beyond the practical authority of parliament. Finally, the fact that we are continuing to use the committee of supply as virtually the only way by which we examine the estimates means it is almost impossible for the legislative branch to fulfil its real duty in this important area.
The way in which the committee of supply operates is common knowledge. The minister has his officials in front of him at a time when it is essential that members of this house honestly concerned with the critical examination and analysis of these expenditures should be able to direct questions not through the minister in accordance with the clumsy practice followed at this time, but by direct confrontation between them and the officials of the department. There is no way by which this can be secured other than by the proposals contained in this report for the establishment of standing committees on estimates.
We had some experience in this field in 1958 and 1959, when under the government of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition we established a standing committee on estimates under the chairmanship of a talented and able member of parliament, the former member for Calgary South. Under his chairmanship this committee operated well and effectively for several years. Here we had this direct confrontation which I submit is a condition precedent to our being able to do the job which is entrusted to us. This committee examined the estimates of several departments. Its members were able to put piercing and direct questions to the officials concerned, as a result of which they made recommendations to the departments which were implemented by changes in policy. All in all, I suggest this is an excellent example of the kind of thing which I think will emerge if these recommendations are accepted.
I admit that as far as the airing of grievances is concerned and the discussion of the shortcomings of the government, the commit-
Procedure Committee Report tee of supply as it now functions is capable of doing the job. But to the extent to which we have this other responsibility-and it is becoming an increasingly great responsibility -I submit that the committee of supply is altogether obsolete in permitting us to fulfil our duty.
I suggest, sir, there is not any doubt that this parliament in this country is undertaking and will undertake in the future very great social programs involving the transfer of funds and leading to significant changes in our society. In other words the government is going to take money from some people and, directly or indirectly, pay it to others. In my belief the people involved in these programs, the people we represent, are entitled to the most scrupulous and careful examination by their elected representatives to see that the programs are working as they are intended to work, to see that they are conducted in a proper, expeditious and economic way. I feel this cannot be done by the committee of supply, and that only through the intervention of standing committees on estimates as proposed in this fifteenth report can we achieve this objective.
Now then, we have the question of the actual legislating itself. We will always have in the house, I hope, the great debates on principle on second reading. However, I am convinced that we can have a far more careful and useful study of the actual, detailed proposals in the standing committees. As a matter of fact I should like to see us go a step further and make it mandatory for certain types of legislation to be referred to the standing committees. Perhaps we could even go a step further than that, Mr. Speaker, and in many cases have measures referred to standing committees before second reading.
We have had some experience with this procedure. Last session a bill was introduced dealing with the division of the Northwest Territories. Hon. members on this side took exception to it. As the result of a fairly stiff and protracted fight we were able to persuade the government that the subject matter of the bill should be referred to a standing committee. As a result of the careful study the bill then received it was decided not to proceed with the bill.
I attempted the same thing this year in connection with legislation introduced by the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the farm syndicate measure. This was refused by Your Honour and your ruling was upheld by the house. I have noticed since then that a

Procedure Committee Report number of private bills have been sent to the standing committees in this way, that is the subject matter has been referred before second reading. The railway legislation which has been on the order paper for some time is now before a standing committee in exactly that way.
I think we are all political realists here. We realize that many of the measures which appear in the form of bills do not represent examples of the immaculate conception. They are probably the result of the marriage of sinful political expediency to the official establishment of the departments. The measures which are produced are clothed by the draftsmen of the Department of Justice, nourished in departmental committees and finally approved by the cabinet. By the time they emerge to our view they are usually well formed and hearty children. In the result the government, like all parents, is very reluctant-all governments are like this [DOT]-to make any changes.
It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this house act as a pipe line of communication between parliament and the people of this country, and are better qualified than anyone to judge of the impact of proposed legislative measures upon the people of this country, to observe the repercussions, to hear the views expressed by the people of this country and bring those views back to this house before those bills become law. If one reads through the statutes, one finds case after case in which bills have been brought back for amendment simply because they were hastily improvised. Sometimes they were ill conceived in their actual terms because government and civil servants did not look far enough ahead to see what would be the impact of those measures. We have to wait, then, a year, two years or three years to bring the legislation back and have it amended. I suggest that if the type of procedure which I envisage were in fact part of the operating basis of this house there would be fewer bills that needed correcting. The type of legislation, then, which would be provided ultimately would be far better and would be better moulded to the needs of the people of this country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one other aspect which I think justifies us in dealing with and approving this particular motion. I refer to the extent to which the legislative branch should continue to exercise some control over the executive. As we know, from the early, dim, misty beginnings of democratic government there has always been, and there
[Mr. Baldwin.!
probably will continue to be, conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of government. This quite often has nothing to do with party politics, except only that the party in power usually tends to think what the government does is right and those who sit opposite are more inclined to be critical. The two great wars, the reign of one party for such a long period, and the growth of various administrative devices to which I have already referred have worked continuously to enhance the powers and the prestige of the Prime Minister and cabinet. As a consequence this produces, by comparison, a continued deterioration in the legislative branch.
There is another reason, I suggest, and it lies in the fact that we are close to the United States. There has been a greater emphasis on what is popularly known as the leadership cult. The leader of a party, particularly one who becomes prime minister and thus happens to have available to increase his power and prestige the tremendous knowledge and assistance of the permanent branch of the executive, has a measure of strength never contemplated, I imagine, by those in the earlier history of this country. Now, much of this can be attributed to the fact that we have watched, consciously and unconsciously, and emulated the presidential elections in the United States. In any event the fact is that power of this kind, once assumed by the prime minister and cabinet, is never lightly relinquished under any circumstances.
I do not think it should be. After all today, in the vast complex panorama of modern day living, it is essential that the executive should have great powers, powers to act quickly and consistently. However, I suggest this makes it all the more essential to do what we can to repair the imbalance by strengthening the power of the legislative branch of government so it can continue to exercise proper control and scrutiny over the executive branch, rendered even more desirable by the strengthening of the powers of the cabinet which I have mentioned.
To repair this omission, to bring the private member of parliament into a position where he can provide an adequate and intelligent means of controlling the executive, the committee system provides the answer. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the individual member by himself cannot hope to do so. I recognize, of course, that under our system of responsible government the power to initiate legislation always rests with the government. This is proper. However, I suggest that unless we,

the legislative branch, do take steps to strengthen our right and our opportunity to control the executive, then atrophy will set in so far as that particular part of our function is concerned.
As a matter of fact I think we are suffering from a form of parliamentary schizophrenia. At the moment I am not sure what our role is, whether it is merely to come here and say yes or no to government legislation and estimates and to belabour the government when we find them doing things they should not do. If that is the case all we need do is spend two or three months here to accomplish this function. But it is my belief that we have a wider role to play along the lines I have mentioned so far.
I think it is only through this means of a combination of members in committee armed with adequate authority, determined to make use of that authority, that knowledgeable members with the assistance of research and technical staff will equip themselves in the Commons to again find and maintain that proper balance between the two branches which is essential in the preservation and the true work of democracy. For this reason I suggest that the beginning of such a move will be established by the report which we are now considering.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party support this report and are prepared to vote for it, although on some of the points of detail contained in the recommendations there are a few differences of opinion among our members. I think that is quite understandable, particularly in view of the sheer number of detailed points made in the recommendations.
This is the second time during the eight years I have been in parliament there has been a great interest in a re-examination of the committee structure. Some hon. members may have forgotten that in the first year of the Diefenbaker administration, which had the large majority, there was not only considerable discussion of, but a considerable effort put into activating committees, many of which had not met for many years. So we have the experience of that administration in that parliament to draw on in terms of how effectively committees can operate.
The only political scientist who has taken an over-all look at the government of Canada and put his opinions into book form, R. MacGregor Dawson, has pointed out that standing committees of the House of Commons, in his words, are superficially impressive but in fact are not very important parts
Procedure Committee Report of the legislative machinery. Despite the work that was done to increase the powers given to the standing committees during the Conservative administration from 1958 to 1962, it seems to me that Dawson's comments still apply. I say that not in criticism of the previous government; it is merely the way these committees happen to operate.
The difficulty in appraising the committee system of this house seems to me to centre around the fact that we have not worked out anything beyond the most general theorizing as to how active, powerful committees will affect the balance between the cabinet or, if you like the government or administration- here I am thinking in particular of the civil service and the departments of government- and the rest of the House of Commons.
This may not be the point at which to get into political theories, but I suggest that one of the consequences we will need to face if we adopt the majority of the recommendations in this report is that the committees will be so much stronger, or potentially so much stronger, that it will require some adjustments on the part of the house as a whole and on the part of the government.
To me one of the great disappointments in this parliament has been the attitude of the Prime Minister toward parliamentary reform. He came out with the announcement, which I can only look upon now as no more than a publicity gimmick, that he was for a new kind of politics. One phase of this new kind of politics, I gather, was strictly in relation to his own party caucus. We all remember a year ago in October, I think, when there was a special meeting of the Liberal caucus. In order to satisfy the backbenchers there was going to be this creation of committees which would advise on the development of legislation and would work closely with ministers in the development of policy. How parties organize their caucus is, of course, their business; but the stories which came out at that time were to the effect that this purpose in reorganizing the Liberal caucus was an effort to meet the requirements of the Liberal backbenchers and enable them to play a larger part in things, which was an indication of the problem involved.
I gathered from comments made at that time that not all members of the cabinet, I think understandably, were ready to accept or were very excited about the prospect of such a new organization within the government caucus, and wondered how it might affect their prerogatives in introducing and administering legislation. That dilemma of

Procedure Committee Report the governing party and its organization is almost identical with the dilemma we are facing in giving more power to committees of the house. Personally, as someone who sits on the opposition side of the house, I would prefer to think that if we are going to reform and give the ordinary members more power, it is through a house committee rather than through a government caucus committee that this should develop.
However, I will assume that since the Prime Minister came out after this internal Liberal reform to talk about his new politics, and since he emphasized that this new politics would be a kind of politics in which the strongest or most traditional kind of partisanship, or the worst kind of partisanship, if you want, would fall away, giving way to cooperation of younger members in particular in achieving common objectives, party strife and bickering and so on would thus not come into the pattern.
As someone who does believe in this new politics, I think today he has a great opportunity of expanding his view and telling us what he meant by it. However, I think it is fair to say about the performance of this parliament that if there has been anything new in it, it has not been along the lines or toward the objective of any great public parliamentary ideal.
I would have thought we might have moved more quickly on parliamentary reform. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that you and your committee, the personnel and reports of which I admire greatly, might have moved with more alacrity and achieved more than it has. We might have been more experimental, even in this house, than we have been had we had a clearer kind of leadership from the Prime Minister and the government. It does not seem to me good enough for the Prime Minister to talk to Liberal party gatherings across the country about the new politics, and by doing so insinuate that in the House of Commons and in this parliament there are many of us who would not fit into the new politics of parliamentary reform. Instead he should come up with something more concrete and give to the House of Commons, not to Liberal party meetings, the kind of leadership which will bring about the new politics that we are to have. I suggest that if we are going to get new politics these particular recommendations will be vital and essential to them.
You cannot pick up any commentary on this subject without finding some kind of recommendation to the effect that the com-

mittee structure should be stronger. But what are the views of the Prime Minister on this? I have some of his views of a few years ago, because I wrote him a letter in connection with this matter, and I should like to read some of this letter into the record just as a starting point. This letter, which was written on October 9, 1959, was written at a time when he was leader of a fairly small minority group. It was also a minority group which had difficulties in getting its members to take part in committees. Some of them were extremely active, such as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). Other members of his group took a much smaller part; for example, I can remember that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcll-raith) was much less active in committees than was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I mention this because this is one of the problems we will be faced with if we go ahead and create the suggested number of committees with the requirement that so many people be active on them. Our performance in the past because of the various traditions and various attitudes of members will not augur well, unless we really come out in the open with standard performances that we may expect from members of parliament, both on the government and opposition sides.
The Prime Minister commented in his personal letter-and he was referring to the Diefenbaker parliament-
It appeared at the beginning of this parliament that the public accounts committee was to be reshaped to conform to its British counterpart. The reshaping has not occurred except that the official opposition provided a chairman of the committee. The new element.. .will not in itself suffice to build this Canadian committee in the British model. Its procedure will be determined by the majority- that is, the government members and they have shown little desire to make it function as the committee functions in London.
My comment in this regard is that it seems to be fair. He then went on to state:
Changing the committee on estimates to a standing committee and making an opposition member chairman of one committee are not moves of a character to alter, except in a minor way, the traditional role that committees have played in the Canadian House of Commons. Greater committee activity may have some use for the government party in an attempt to employ the time of its 207 members; it places an extra burden on a small opposition which cannot do full justice to committees and the more important business of the house. Increasing the tempo of committee activity may in the early days of a parliament be helpful to new members as a sort of "parliamentary orientation course", but such a purpose is undoubtedly peripheral and temporary.

Then it is stated that:
Mr. Pearson concludes that the changes, including the new practice of sending department estimates to the long existing standing committees in the various subject fields such as railways or fisheries, is a trend that has not altered "to any noticeable extent" the work of the Commons.
I assume there has been a change in the Prime Minister's attitude under the new politics from his attitude when he was leader of the opposition. I hope he feels that these recommendations are good, that he will eventually set up these estimates committees, and that they will have some effect. I assume that he feels the limit of 20 days on the consideration of estimates in the committee of supply will be an effective means of making sure there will be some safeguard regarding our criticism of the Diefenbaker administration, in respect of its attitude toward the estimates committee, to the effect that the time we spend considering esimates in that committee is wasted because we come right back to the house and spend just as much time again.
One thing that puzzles me and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, really centres upon the fact that more people than just ourselves believe that parliament is in difficulty today, and that if the federal government is in trouble 

and I am thinking in the wider sense- this is because the House of Commons has not been able to function in that way which most people demand of it in terms of efficiency. I think much of this criticism is exaggerated, but if this is a dilemma and if we are going to have the governing party going to the people in a few weeks with the cry that it must have a big majority in order to run parliament, because it is inefficient at the present time; or if we are going to have the Prime Minister parading across this country talking about new politics and the kind of reforms that we need in parliament, now is the time for the Prime Minister to place on the record those things he wants.
I can understand a certain shyness on the part of the Prime Minister and that he may not wish to be too pushy because, after all, this parliament is not functioning very well; but he should be the one to spot the difficulties and suggest the changes which are necessary, instead of just giving us these goody-goody words to the effect that we want more for members of parliament to do. What we need is a change suggested by the government which will give committees more power without allowing them to get in the way of the cabinet or the government. I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister,
Procedure Committee Report or some other spokesman for the government, in this regard at this time.
When I spent some time analysing the work of the committees the one overwhelming fact, confirmed time after time by quantitative analysis, which came to my attention was that the individuals who are active in committees are the same individuals who are active in the house. The ideal which has been suggested in the general recommendations is that everybody will be a member of a committee, and that there will be a balance. There are to be small committees which will have different routines of work.
In this regard one of the things we must realize is that a greater demand will be placed on certain members, not only in terms of attendance but in terms of performance and interest. I make this suggestion about the members who are active in the house being the members who are active in the committees not to annoy anyone but just to emphasize realities. I think all hon. members of this house will recognize this fact. There is an identity, if you will call it that, between the interest and background of hon. members and the subjects under discussion in the house or in committees which makes them active. That is my explanation of the situation.
I think one other reason there is perhaps
less activity in committees than there might be is related to the fact that members feel there is little consequence or result in respect of work done by committees. Hon. members realize that estimates are going to be considered again in the house, and that is part of the reason for lack of interest. Perhaps another part of the reason is that little press attention is given to committees, or very little attention is paid to the recommendations in the committee reports.
Mr. Speaker, I think governments are less than honest at times about their attitude toward recommendations contained in reports of committees. This year we had a committee studying the Ottawa terminal railway bill. That bill suddenly disappeared and we heard nothing more of it. I can tell you the reason for that. It is because the committee in its wisdom adopted an amendment to the bill to the effect that two of the directors of this Ottawa terminal railway organization should be French speaking. Apparently the government is not prepared to accept that suggestion and has let the bill die. It is my understanding that we are not likely to have an Ottawa terminal railway organization but will be left with the same kind

Procedure Committee Report of catch as catch can arrangement between the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. I cannot guarantee that, but that is my understanding. The fact is that this committee made a recommendation, but because the recommendation was contrary to government wishes the whole thing was allowed to die.
We need more honesty than that from government if committees are to be taken seriously. I had a bill, as did the hon. member for Red Deer, the subject matter of which was sent to a committee of the house. Reports by the committee which studied these bills have been tabled in the house. The report in respect of the bill of the hon. member for Red Deer, regarding an ombudsman, was only tabled a week or two ago, so I will not needle the government in respect of it. However, the recommendations of the committee which studied my bill regarding alterations to the Railway Act were tabled in this house more than a year ago. There has been a tremendous campaign carried on by railway organizations to have these recommendations accepted, but what have the government done in this regard? They have done absolutely nothing but a bit of face saving. Successive ministers of the Department of Transport have brushed off these recommendations. They have every right as responsible ministers to deny the wisdom of committee recommendations, but why can they not be honest with the committee members who have worked to draft these recommendations?
I suggest this is one of the great problems that parliamentary committees have faced in the past. Government ministers and senior administrators have not played fair in respect of recommendations and reports that have been made by committees. Instead, it is considered politic or good tactics to just let them die, to resort to all kinds of subterfuges and ambiguities in order to let things slide away. That is one of the reasons many members have a difficult time taking committees seriously, and one of the reasons why they have not achieved the stature in this parliament that they have in the British parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And in congress.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My leader says "in congress". The congressional situation is very different. I happen to be one of those who tend to feel that almost by circumstances we will be forced to move toward giving members of parliament more power through committees of the house, and so subtly but unalterably

we are going to move toward the United States congressional committee system and away from the traditional British system. That happens to be my own personal view. I know it is just a trend I see and not something I share with my colleagues.


Mr. Churchill:: Do you think it is better?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asks "Do you think it is better?" It is better in this sense, that United States congressional committees are, I think, a real breeding ground for talent. I think the United States congressman and the United States senator really do learn a great deal about government, the factors that are at play and the pursuit of power. Through his participation in committees he is in touch with the people and with lobby organizations. I think there is a realism to it that our committees cannot have. Look at the situation the other day when we had the board of maritime trustees before the industrial relations committee. We have two parliamentary secretaries there, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, trying to run interference in order to see that the trustees were protected.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite clear that one of the rules of the house is that a member cannot reflect on or discuss the proceedings of any committee until the report of the committee has been laid before the house.


Mr. Byrne:: He was there as a reporter.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister would be quite right if I were speaking about what was before the committee in terms of subject matter, but I am talking about the behaviour of the people on the committee. Apparently we have a situation on the government side where the parliamentary secretaries do not have enough to do or else many of the other government members are not capable enough, so a great deal of the work in many of the committees has been carried out under the aegis of the parliamentary secretaries. I am not saying whether this is particularly good or bad, but they have been there in a sense as a protective device, which indicates the kind of attitude that the government in power has toward committees. When we see such a practice it surely is not the kind of thing to make us feel enthusiastic about the likelihood or possibility of reform. I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre

Procedure Committee Report that when United States committees want in- I want to refer to one of them relating to corn-formation they get information.	mittees. This was the recommendation:


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question there? When a United States committee wants to postpone any action whatsoever on legislation can it not delay it for months and even years because of the authority vested in the chairman of the particular committee?


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is no question about that. I was only suggesting that there was a trend-and a reasonable trend, I think-in that direction. I believe we can work out an alternative. The hon. member for Kootenay West, who I hope is going to speak later in the debate, is always eager, like many other people, to extoll the British tradition.


Mr. Herridge:: Hear, hear. I am not ashamed of it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is no reason why the hon. member should be, but the British parliamentary tradition with regard to the way it operates its committees is quite different from that of this house, and I cannot see that these recommendations are very much in line with what the British do in their house. As hon. members probably know, they believe in much smaller committees, and their estimates committees do not have open meetings. They move around and in a sense are almost committees of investigation. They visit government departments, plants and operations and one of their practices, which I do not think would be acceptable here, is that there is a suppression, if you want, of publicity. The whole idea is to have a small group of people who are experts or developing experts in various fields, and opposition members particularly accept appointment to their committees as appointments to important posts in order that their party and their organization can be up to date on the administration and what is going on.
I have not seen any tendency amongst Canadian parliamentarians to indicate that they would be willing to take part in a committee that would largely meet in camera. As a matter of fact it seems to me that every time a committee of this house meets in camera, which does not happen very often, it causes some kind of hubbub. In this sense I think the recommendations put forward here with regard to particular committees are realistic in view of our own habits and attitudes.
A few months ago our party put forward some proposals for parliamentary reform, and
That the role of the committees be strengthened, by giving them time to meet... by appointing small, effective committees-
We are going to get smaller committees out of this recommendation.
-related to the present day business of parliament, by giving them important work to do, and by providing them with the means to do their work, and by providing for their reports to be considered by parliament. Final decisions would have to remain with the house, but committees should be enabled to do their work and to make their reports in such a way that the ground covered in committee would not have to be covered again. This proposal does not preclude committees from sitting while the house is in session, but it would increase their importance in our parliamentary system.
I should like to refer to a couple of the points mentioned in this recommendation, providing committees with the means to do their work and providing for their reports to be considered by parliament. We have a committees branch in the House of Commons and, Mr. Speaker, I think you are as aware as the rest of us are that the committee clerks are not particularly expert in any field. In a sense their advice comes to us in terms of procedure and in just looking after the routine of the committee. If we go into this kind of committee structure it seems to me it is time to move toward some form of specialization with regard to committee clerks, toward some kind of secretariat so that committees can be more effective.
One of the things that has always bothered me about our house committees is the tendency they have to be cheap. Many times we would like to bring a witness before a committee from somewhere, but you have to go through all the rigmarole of getting signatures and bringing the matter before the committee only to find often that you have to face the embarrassment, which I at least have experienced on several occasions, of being turned down by the committee or of having the whole background of the witness looked into. It seems to me that if members of parliament, as members of the government are always charging, are ready to bring some matter forward, a member of a committee should have the right to bring forward a witness at any time and have the expenses of that witness, particularly if he comes from a distance, met by the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You could bring all your constituents down here.

Procedure Committee Report


Douglas Mason Fisher: The ex-minister says I could bring all my constituents down here. I think he is aware that if members of parliament abuse such a privilege they are soon going to be exposed. The member of parliament who pushes this kind of thing too far is just asking for trouble with his own voters.
Another point I want to make relates to the whole matter of the treatment that is going to be given to reports of committees. In these recommendations there is really no indication of how committee reports will be treated. It would be a rather foolish parliamentarian who would say that everything a committee of the house recommended should be accepted by the government, but I want to get back to the point I made earlier. These reports should at least be accorded the respect of an appraisal by the government, or even a rejection. It seems to me that one of the best things that has taken place with regard to committees is the fact that the Auditor General now reports back to the public accounts committee on the progress made with regard to their recommendations over a year. This is one of the things that have made that committee much more effective, that have given it a continuity and have made its members feel it is worth while to belong to that committee.
I have only been a member of that committee at random times, but I know if hon. members who have not been on that committee could see how it operated they would realize that the committee has developed an esprit de corps, a morale, a confidence if you want, in its work that I think could apply to many other committees; and one of the reasons is the leverage, if you like, that it obtains through having the Auditor General working with it as an expert guide in a sense and also giving an annual resume of what has happened to their recommendations. It seems to me that in our appraisal of committees we can learn a great deal from that particular committee. I might mention, of course, that is the committee which has an opposition member heading it, and that may be one of the reasons for its effectiveness.
One of the other points we need to get straightened out before we get into the question of more committees is that we should not have them until we have facilities here for translation, for a complete handling of the bilingual situation. I am sick and tired, as we were the other day, of having a committee hamstrung for five or ten minutes debating whether or not we should switch to another place because translation facilities were not
[Mr. Churchill.l
available. One of the prerequisites before we get this new committee structure going is to have all kinds of facilities to handle the bilingual nature of the house, and at this particular time the government should be especially sensitive to that point.
I mentioned earlier that there is a tendency for members who are active in the house to be active in committees. Another noticeable tendency is for members from distant places to be more active in committees than members who are close to the scene, in terms of the location of their constituencies. This is my own observation. I cannot prove it, but in the past it seems that quite often our committees have depended in the main for their attendance upon members who live at a distance and do not make the same number of trips home as others who live close to Ottawa. This is a point that could be considered in terms of the dividing up of our parliamentary schedule, so that we are in committees at a certain time and the house is not sitting.
I understand some of the cabinet ministers and some of the other more senior members of the house do not like the idea of dividing up our schedule in that way. I would remind them that kind of division would be fair to all members across the country, in terms of freeing them so that no one would have any reason or excuse for not taking part in committee activities. I would also like to suggest that the time schedule recommended by the committee, that is, the ratio, has nothing sacred in it and it would be worth an experiment for a session.
When I was looking at committees a couple of years ago one of the things I found is that the senior civil servants, I think with some justice, have a sensitivity about the operation of committees that are examining departmental estimates. I wonder if hon. members remember a few years ago when the committee chaired by Art Smith was looking at the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. A number of the committee members had their pet projects, which had nothing to do with scrutinizing expenditures, and what they were doing was lobbying in the committee for more spending in order to achieve their particular objectives. That may have been a worth-while procedure, but in their lobbying they were in effect presenting some biting criticisms of the officials concerned. One of the things we would have to be careful about when developing a set of rules for procedures for these estimates committees is how far we may go in our criticisms of the administration.

I mention this because, after all, estimates are the expression of the policy of the government for the year ahead, and it has always been my feeling that the concentration in these particularly committees should be upon the respective minister or his parliamentary secretary. But what happened in the years when we did have the estimates before committees in a continuous way was that quite often the ministers would not be there, and so deputy ministers or branch heads would be left to face the responsibility of explaining and defending the policy of expenditures.
I can give an example. If we could get the estimates of the Department of Labour before the committee on industrial relations a lot of us would like to know what the minister's policy is with respect to the manpower consultative service after the criticism made of it by the economic council and the Canadian Labour Congress. But if the minister were not there I think it would be quite unfair, much as I might like it, to probe deputy minister Haythorne and assistant deputy minister Dymond about the whole matter. I just give that as an example for the need of some rather thorough rules of the game when we get these committees going, so that we can move along fairly.
One of the other points I want to touch on deals with the most controversial of all the committees we have had, and this has tended to concentrate on and around crown corporations, the C.N.R. and C.B.C. in particular. But there have been other crown corporations that also caused a great deal of trouble. I did not expect from this subcommittee any more detail than it has given in its report, but it seems to me one of the wisest things we could do, if we adopt this report and its recommendations, is have a more thorough discussion and elaboration on the part of the government on how it sees these particular corporations would be handled by the committees.
Your Honour and all other hon. members know that the C.B.C. in particular tends to have a pretty rough time with Canadian parliamentary committees, mainly because most of us are inclined to feel we are experts on programming. Here again I revert to the point I made earlier. The Prime Minister talks about the new politics. Well, there are questions of very important detail, such as how crown corporations should be handled, giving us the advice and experience of the government and the officials themselves, things which would be most valuable as a back-
Procedure Committee Report ground or, if you want, as an interpretation of this particular report.
There is a recommendation that the size of standing committees should not be less than 15 or more than 30 members. This is an excellent recommendation in realistic terms, provided we have the committees meeting mainly when the house is not in session, because then there would be no excuse for a quorum not being present. Sixty members is never the practising number of members on a committee, and the only advantage in having 60 is that it gives a reservoir to draw upon in order to scratch up a quorum. As I say, the new recommendation is realistic but only if there is a definite time for the committees to meet when the house is not meeting.
One of the recommendations that interests me most is the suggestion that there should be an advisory chairmen's panel with relation to committees. This is such a good idea in concept that I would like to see our present chairmen, Mr. Speaker, and the other people who are set out in recommendation No. 20, meet during the period of this parliament to talk about some of their common experiences and the routine difficulties they have encountered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are all from one party, all but one.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One of the ministers says they are all from one party.


An hon. Member:: An ex-minister.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am getting as bad as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and his difficulties with the phrase "prime minister."


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few comments to make respecting the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization now before us.
I do not doubt, as all other members, that there are grounds for improvements and that the select and standing committees should be granted more authority than they have had up to now.
As was pointed out by the former speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), it is all very well to create committees and more and more committees to examine bills, procedure or, as in the present case, the

Procedure Committee Report organization of the business of the House of Commons. However, the house, and the government, should take into consideration the reports which are presented by those committees.
In fact, several times committee reports were presented to the house and were simply placed in government organizations' pigeonholes, and then we never heard any more about them.
It seems to me that the suggestions which are made by the committees should be considered more attentively and received more seriously by the government than they have been in the past.
When members of various parties in the house sit during weeks and even months to study bills and present reports after a thorough study, I believe that the government, whichever it may be, should at least consider the recommendations made.
If that was done, as pointed out a while ago by the hon. member for Port Arthur, it would prevent a political party from parading across this country talking about the need for a stable government, a government with a strong majority, a strong government, so that legislation can be passed.
In my opinion, if the recommendations of parliamentary committees were taken more into account political issues would no longer have to be raised during election campaigns, and people would have more consideration for parliament, or at least more respect than they have at present in certain parts of the country.
We have had strong governments; as a matter of fact, from 1958 to 1962, the Conservative party had 207 members sitting to the right of the Speaker. Yet, at that time, it was not the majority, after all, which prevented the passage of measures or the concurrence in reports submitted by various parliamentary committees. It was at that time that Canada experienced the most deplorable economic situation since the number of unemployed reached over a million, in spite of an overwhelming majority.
Since 1963, we have been told time and again that we have a minority government. That may be true but what is to stop a minority government from introducing legislation and considering committee reports tabled in the house?
I think the majority of us are ready to
examine such reports seriously, not in the interest of political parties but in the interest of the Canadian people.

Consequently, the government should stop hurling its election platform at us since it does not even take into account the committee reports submitted to the house.
Mr. Speaker, certain ideas were submitted to the house and accepted. The committee on procedure and organization has also made some suggestions.
For instance, it made certain recommendations to parliament concerning the payment of telecommunications between a member's riding and his office in the parliament buildings, regardless of party considerations. But that report was disregarded. It was studied and the legislation was passed.
But here again, why tell us that the committee is considering the question, when quite recently, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) accused us of not having paid our telephone bills?
Mr. Speaker, I should say that I have now paid mine, but the fact remains that the act exists and that it is not observed at this time, even in the House of Commons, even though most of the members voted for concurrence in that report.
As for the report we are now considering, that is, the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, I wish, at this time, to deal with paragraphs 23 and 24. First of all, paragraph 23 reads as follows:
Your committee is of the opinion that the effectiveness of parliament would be improved if the house were to adjourn for certain periods during which committees would be able to meet for a week at a time. Not only would the work of the house and its committees be thus expedited, but it is probable that greater public attention would be directed toward committee activities.
I have serious doubts about that, Mr. Speaker. I go on:
Your committee is also of the opinion that members of parliament should be enabled to attend to constituency business in the ridings for a week at a time during the same specified periods.
That means that while committees are sitting members would go to their constituencies, while other hon. members are sitting on committees for a week now and then. I continue:
Your committee therefore recommends that the house should adjourn at regular intervals for two weeks at a time in order to accomplish these two purposes. It should be a duty of the proposed chairmen's panel to organize the business of committees in such a way as to ensure that approximately half of all the committees currently functioning should meet during each of the two weeks.

Some hon. members would attend to the business of those committees while other hon. members would be in their constituencies.
And the paragraph goes on:
It is not proposed that the sittings of committee be confined only to those periods when the house stands adjourned.
Mr. Speaker, this means that committees will sit while the house is sitting. I do not think it is the lack of business, the limited number of committees or even the absence of hon. members that keep committees from sitting as soon as possible after the opening of the session. I do not think there would be any advantage, or that the business of the house would be expedited, if hon. members at regular intervals were to take a week or two, not as holidays, but to go in their constituencies and meet their electors.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph 24 reads as follows:
Your committee recommends that the first suspension of sittings to take place during a session should occur within three weeks of the tabling of the main estimates, and that subsequent adjournments of two weeks duration should follow at regular intervals after each three weeks of sittings of the house.
Immediately after the three weeks following the discussion on the budget the members would have two weeks holidays.
I wonder if it would be likely to accelerate the business of the house. There are several countries in the world where sessions take place during specific periods. Instead of making such a suggestion, why not suggest that each session, for instance, should start in the middle of September, with a month adjournment during the Christmas season, instead of two months, and then be resumed until the end of June, when we would take two months off. That would enable the members to meet their electors in the summer season. In my opinion, that would be much more logical than taking two weeks off, after three weeks of session to go and see our voters.
I think that this procedure would help to expedite the business of the house.
Furthermore, most members are heads of families. It is during the months of July and August that the head of a family can be with his children who go to school, to college or to the university.
Therefore, from the human standpoint, besides the practical standpoint, as far as the business of the house is concerned I believe that less time would be wasted and that a session starting in mid-September and closing at the end of June or at the beginning of July
Procedure Committee Report would be beneficial. The country would have everything to gain, members of parliament would cease to be robots as they have been in the past and as they are still today to some extent, and it would be a blessing for the country as a whole.
Those are the few remarks I wished to make, Mr. Speaker, concerning the fifteenth report of the committee on procedure and organization. I hope this matter will be considered seriously, not lightly, and that suggestions for improving working conditions in the House of Commons will be accepted in good faith, that they will not be considered as a political move but rather as being inspired by a sincere desire to improve the way in which parliamentary business is carried on.
As I said, such improvement will benefit the Canadian people and greatly help the people's representatives to look after their constituents, while having some social life of their own.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: As
a member of the committee on procedure and organization, I should be grateful to have a few moments of the time of the house to say a few words about this fifteenth report. I do not intend to indulge in the kind of political haranguing that we have heard, particularly from the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), because I do not really feel this will help us very much to change our ways either in this house or in the committees of the house. I felt that the hon. member for Port Arthur has really not addressed himself to this particular report. I was very pleased, however, when he said that he understood most of the members of his party were in favour of it.
The most important and significant part of the report relates to the proposed committee structure, what functions those committees will perform, the times when they will meet, their size and related matters. To some extent the hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), has referred to this particular aspect of the report. If I understood him correctly, it was the only aspect of the report to which he referred, although he made a lot of other general remarks.
I think it is important for us all to realize, Mr. Speaker, that this report presents certain particular guide lines for the reform of the committees system of this house, but that by passing or approving this report today we will not be implementing any of its

Procedure Committee Report recommendations. This can only be done when the standing orders themselves are revised and the revisions presented to the house. It is at that time, it seems to me, that we will have to decide whether or not the particular changes should be made. If I make one plea, in a sense on behalf of all the members of the committee on procedure and organization, it is that if we do not give approval in principle to this report today, in effect we will be no farther ahead at all. But if we do give approval in principle we will at least be giving the green light to the committee to go ahead and make concrete recommendations concerning the standing orders which will implement the proposals here outlined. If the house decides it does not want to accept these recommendations concerning the standing orders, then it will be free not only to debate them but to reject them at the time they are brought before the house.
One matter has been referred to by both the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Villeneuve, namely the fact that the government of the day, whatever government it happens to be, does not do anything about the reports of parliamentary committees. They ask now, therefore, can we expect it to do anything in the future with these reports? I can only say that in my short experience, over the last two years, I have found that my work on committees has been extremely worth while and many of the recommendations brought forth by committees were taken extremely seriously by the government. I assume that this has been the case in the past as well. I was not on the pension committee but I think it is quite clear the government was influenced by the discussions and recommendations of that committee. I think it is equally likely that the government will be influenced by the discussions and recommendations of the committee on consumer credit, of which I am a member. Perhaps there are some committees where, for a variety of reasons, the government cannot yet say yes or no and it has taken no action. It seems to me, however, from my observations that the government is generally influenced by the actions and recommendations of the committees of this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the committee on defence?


Pauline Jewett: I am not a member of that committee, but I understand from some of the members that much of the time that committee has sat, it has been extremely influ-

ential upon the government. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to argue that committees simply will never have any role in the parliamentary system, we might as well throw in the sponge right now. The important question, surely, is whether or not it is desirable that the committees should be allowed to meet at times when the house is not in session. If we do revise our committees structure along the lines proposed here or similar lines, if we reduce the number of members on each committee-if we do all the other things that are recommended, should we also go along with the idea that the committees meet, whenever possible, when the house is not sitting?
The hon. member for Villeneuve suggested that this was not either particularly necessary or desirable. However, would we not all agree that the pension committee did an extremely good job and had very regular attendance from its members, sitting as it did during much of January when the house was not sitting? The only difficulty was that most of the members had to give up their short recess in order to attend the meetings. The members with whom I have talked have agreed it was extremely worth while having the committee meet when the house was not in session, but they were slightly unhappy about having to give up their recess.
My understanding of the proposal is that the committee on procedure is not suggesting that we give up the regular recesses. It is still the hope that there would be a Christmas recess, Easter recess and summer recess. What the committee is proposing is that in addition to what we hope are ordinary recesses when the members get home and have time, particularly in the summer, with their families, there will be other periods of adjournment during the session when committees will meet and when members will have an opportunity to attend to constituency affairs. If it should be discovered that the work of parliament cannot be done under these circumstances, if it should be discovered that this provides, in effect, too many recesses, I would agree with many hon. members that it would be unwise to give up the Christmas, Easter and summer recesses.
However, do we have to conclude that the work of parliament cannot be done unless we have parliament sitting at all times other than at just the regular recess periods? If we implement the proposal concerning estimates -that they should be referred to the various standing committees some time in the future- and if we implement, when the appropriate standing order comes forward, the proposal

that a maximum of 20 days will be spent in committee of supply in this chamber, surely we are right there tightening up the time that parliament needs to spend on supply. Similarly, is there any reason in relation to other matters-not supply but regular government bills-that we cannot, once we get this system going, develop over a period of time certain time limits on debate on matters which have been thoroughly discussed in committee? That surely will be one of the next important steps we will take, whereby if we really make the most effective use of our committee we will perhaps be able, as we are with supply, to have generous limitations on debate when government bills come back to the house.


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


Pauline Jewett: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the hon. member speaks about matters being thoroughly discussed in committees, what proof will the house have that they have been thoroughly discussed in committees?


Pauline Jewett: I think this is something that we will have to determine as we go along. I assume that one reason we have not yet, as a committee of procedure, given final consideration to the whole idea of limiting our debates in this house is that we will have to see to what extent the committees do an effective job of discussing bills while they are before the committees. We have no proof ahead of time that this will work. All I am suggesting is that we move toward trying to see whether we cannot make it work; and if we do reorganize our committees and refer not only estimates but government bills to those committees, and if we do find that these bills are getting effective discussion and airing in committee sessions, then we can come to the point of saying that perhaps it is time we created some time limits on debates in the chamber itself. It is all part of a development which could take place. There is no guarantee of course that it will; but that is no reason why we should not at least give it a try. Therefore the proposal, to my mind at any rate, that eventually we may very well be able to have these adjournments of the house as well as our regular recesses, because we will have made more efficient not only the operation of our committees but the operation of the house itself, is a valid one.
The fear has been expressed that it would be impossible, if we adjourned the house periodically, ever to get government business through the house; that there simply would
Procedure Committee Report not be enough time. This may be a very legitimate argument. However, I was looking through the amount of time spent on various aspects of government business and I noted that about the same amount of time over the years is spent on main estimates as is spent on government bills. In the first session of the 24th parliament in 1958, 28 per cent of the government's time was spent on main estimates while 34 per cent was spent on government bills. In the second session in 1959, 30 per cent was spent on main estimates and 26 per cent on government bills. So even more time was spent on main estimates in that session than on government bills. In the third session, 1960, 30 per cent of government time was spent on main estimates as compared with 25 per cent on government bills. So, more often than not, more time has been spent in the house on main estimates than has been spent on government bills. Without going into any further statistics, it seems likely that if we reduce the amount of time to 20 days on main estimates, even with the adjournment concept we will have abundant time to deal with necessary government legislation.
However, may I say that the committee is not wedded to these specific periodic adjournments recommended in the report. I think that most of us on the committee are hopeful only that the house would give its approval in principle to the concept presented here, as well as to the proposed committee structure. Then we would go ahead in the committee with specific proposals which would come up later, to be discussed and debated and accepted or rejected by this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member object to another question? I do not like interrupting her, but if she does not mind: When she was giving a comparison of the time spent on main estimates and the time spent on government bills, was she intending to suggest that the estimates were not of the same importance as legislation?


Pauline Jewett: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. It was just my way of showing that roughly the same amount of time had been spent on each. When we use our committees more effectively for main estimates we will, by reducing the time to 20 days in the house, leave more time for government bills. So I am sure there will be more than 20 days-that is, more than the same amount of time-spent on government bills. It will leave more time for government bills if the proposal on estimates is accepted; that is all I intended by that

Procedure Committee Report remark. As I say, the backbone of the committee report, it seems to me, relates to the type of committee structure which we are going to have, the functions the committees will have, and the times at and the ways in which they will meet.
When the hon. member for Port Arthur was addressing himself to the substance of the report he said that he felt the same thing would happen in the future as happened in the past, namely that the most active members of the house would also be the most active members on the committees. I think that is inevitable. However, it is worth while pointing out that the hope of the committee on procedure would be that each member of the house would sit as only one of the standing committees on legislation and estimates, and would have as a secondary function membership in one of the remaining six standing committees. But his main task would relate primarily to one committee. Therefore unlike the situation today, he would be able to devote a great deal of his time and energy to a particular area of consideration, and become more knowledgeable in his work on that committee.
I am not going to take up any further time because other members who wish to discuss aspects of this report will no doubt want to speak. I know the committee welcomes ideas and criticisms of the proposal. We are as conscious as anybody else of the fact that strengthening the committees structure in a parliamentary system is difficult. I think we on the committee are aware of the problems concerning the whole concept of cabinet responsibility. We must work within that framework. We cannot therefore give the committees the kind of wide ranging powers of intiative and inquiry which the committees have in the United States. Personally, I think that in many instances we could send bills after first reading to committees. That is not in the committee report, however; it is the kind of much more radical proposal that we will probably discuss at some later time. As legislation becomes increasingly complex, as it does in modern society, there is perhaps a great deal to be said for letting a committee of this house thrash out in committee in the first instance, the detailed aspects of that legislation. Then when it is brought to the house, a whole area of controversy and difficulty will have been covered by the committee. At this time we are not going that far. Rather, we are suggesting that we make an attempt to have members' time spent in a more valuable way in committee, and members' time spent in a more valuable way in 

the house. That is the desired and anticipated result of this reorganization proposal.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the discussion regarding the rules of this house I should like to commend the members who worked so hard and diligently under your guidance to prepare this report. It indicates that they did do a great deal of work and concerned themselves greatly with the rules of the house, and how they could be changed to speed up the process of legislation.
This report recommends substantial changes to the house rules. I think each member must ask himself whether these substantial changes, which will cause a great upheaval so far as the rules of this house are concerned, will accomplish the purposes for which they have been designed. Will these changes make it possible for me as a member of this house to represent my constituents more efficiently?
I listened with care to the speeches made by hon. members this afternoon, because many of them were members of the committee which has proposed these recommendations. I believe they have attempted to project their feelings regarding the rules of the house into this report.
We heard a great deal about the length of this session and the amount of work accomplished. I look at these things perhaps in a slightly different way. I want to know how the rule changes suggested by this report will help me represent my constituents. I am here as a member of parliament, as other hon. members, to examine government spending and attempt to redirect the government's thinking in regard to future expenditures in a way that will be favourable and acceptable not only to my constituents but to all people of Canada. How will these changes in the rules help me represent my constituents? I think all hon. members must find the answer to that question before they readily adopt any sweeping or substantial changes such as are outlined in this report. Will these changes create a wider area in which I can examine government spending? Will they give me a better opportunity to direct or redirect government thinking? Will these changes allow me more room for inquiry? I do not think they will accomplish these purposes. Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to previous speakers in an attempt to find answers to these questions, but I am still unconvinced that the changes will create these improvements.

How does the present system work, what is wrong with it and how should it be changed? I think the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) put his finger on the basic difficulty regarding the work of committees. The government does not have to accept the final report of a committee, and in fact very rarely does the government accept a committee's final report and act upon it. I do not blame the government for this attitude because it must accept responsibility for every action it takes. For that reason it cannot be bound by recommendations of a committee.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Would the hon. member permit a question for the purpose of clarification? Is he suggesting that the government rarely accepts the reports of committees? Is the hon. member attempting to indicate that governments do not accept committee reports by moving concurrence in them? It is my observation that almost invariably committee reports are acted upon, although rarely accepted by a formal motion for concurrence. Perhaps the hon. member would clarify his statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did clarify my suggestion. We all realize that governments move concurrence in committee reports, but very rarely does a government act upon a committee's report. Under the rules as they now stand a government is not required to act upon the recommendations of a committee. This situation will not be changed by the proposals contained in the report of the committee now being considered. Therefore the committees of the house will have no more power than they now have. I may be wrong in that suggestion, but that is my understanding after reading this report. The committees will have no more power.
The previous speaker suggested that members of parliament would be members of one committee only, and alternative members of other committees. I suggest that this will limit hon. members' active participation in the business of government. Hon. members will be confined in their activities to one committee. I find that I am somewhat limited at the present time, perhaps, because I do not have a sufficiently broad outlook in respect of various subjects, but these proposed changes will not help me in that regard. I suggest the changes will limit the participation of hon. members in committee work, and will have a limiting effect on the activities of those members who are now spreading their knowledge and abilities over a rather wide area. I cannot see how these
Procedure Committee Report proposed changes will help in this regard. Mr. Speaker, any limiting effect that these changes will have will tend to make hon. members less efficient servants of the people they represent.
The hon. member for Port Arthur dealt at some length with the suggestion that the government is not proposing useful changes. He also discussed the fact that a government will not be required to accept a committee recommendation. I do not think any government in the future will necessarily be required to accept a committee's report. Governments must be responsible for their actions, and for that reason should not be required to carry out recommendations made by committees with which they are not in agreement.
This afternoon we heard a great deal of discussion as to how the rules could be changed to facilitate the passage of estimates in the house. It is perhaps of interest to note that during at least a part of the discussion regarding these changes not one member of the cabinet was in the chamber, nor was one member of the privy council in his seat. I can only gather from that situation that they are happy with the way things are now. As the hon. member for Port Arthur has suggested, the government must feel that it can now go to the country and inform people that they have been obstructed during this parliamentary session, and for that reason more has not been accomplished. I suggest that the difficulty we have experienced during this session is directly related to poor management on the part of the government.
Today is the 237th day of this session. It is true we have accomplished quite a bit, but we could have accomplished a great deal more if the business of this house had been proceeded with in a more orderly manner. This could have been done if legislation had been thoroughly thought out and prepared before it was presented to this house.
Time and time again the government has proposed certain things, then withdrawn those proposals and scrapped them. Often the same proposals have been presented again to the house, and again withdrawn. I suggest this has not created any confidence on the part of members in this government. Surely in light of that record hon. members cannot be expected to accept everything proposed by this government. How could we accept anything proposed by this government without very carefully examining it, in view of this government's reputation for quick withdrawal
12526	HOUSE OF
Procedure Committee Report and retreat? Many pieces of legislation have been placed on the order paper, presented to this house, withdrawn and then sent to a committee. We now have a bill concerning the Railway Act and we are told that a committee is examining it. But we are also told it is going to be changed completely at the next session of parliament. How does this help to speed up the work of parliament? When the next session comes along that particular piece of legislation will still have to go to a committee to be examined, because it will be an entirely new bill.
I think the biggest trouble parliament has encountered this session has resulted from poor administration, poor presentation of the work which we as members of the house are asked to examine and scrutinize. It is all well and good to say that out of the 237 days this session has lasted some 30 days were spent on the flag debate. That still leaves well over 200 days in which we could have proceeded with legislation, but the trouble was that legislation was before us, then was not before us, and then came before us again in another week or two.
We all know that the people will be governed whether or not this house sits. We are all well aware of the fact that the country is run by the cabinet and the civil service. In this democratic country parliament is the place to debate and examine proposed legislation. We must also examine the spending estimates of the government. A great deal of time has been taken by previous speakers in commenting on the estimates committee of 1959 and 1960. Certainly that committee did a good job. The members did a lot of work. I think the committee was well worth while and that it could be set up again without bringing in these substantial changes that are being suggested.
While there was a considerable amount of work done in those days in the estimates committee, it was my experience that the estimates were also discussed again when they were brought back to the house. Under these proposed changes the very same thing could and more than likely would happen. We are told that under the proposed plan the house would then be limited to 20 days on estimates. What would happen if toward the end of the session further supplementary estimates were brought forward? Sometimes two or three sets of further supplementary estimates are introduced. What would happen if we had already used up the 20 days? Would we then have another 20 days for further supplementary estimates? These are some of


the problems I wonder about, and certainly the argument that these substantial changes should be made in order to facilitate the passage of estimates just does not hold water if you examine the record of the former estimates committee.
What is the meaning of the new rules that have been suggested? What do they say? Basically the whole committee structure will be changed. We will have an inner sanctum of committee chairmen. As a member representing a particular area of Canada I see this inner sanctum as another stumbling block, another door to open, another body upon which pressure must be brought to get something done along the lines or in the manner that I want to see it done. That is how I see this new system. I may be wrong but I understand that this group of people will decide what is to be sent to committees.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All from one party, except one.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says, all from one party except one. As a result who will control what the committees do? The government. Maybe this is the way it should be. I am not saying it is not, but what change is there from what is done now? None. Nothing is referred to a committee unless the government wants it referred, so there is no real change there. As I said, it means just another door to open, another body or group of people on which I, representing the people of my constituency and the people of Canada, must exert pressure in order to have it proceed along the line of reasoning or thoughts I may have.
What is the committee's structure going to be? First of all, the size of committee is to be limited. Am I in favour of this? Certainly not. The special committee to examine the C.N.R. report has been limited to 35 members. This is a committee to which it has been very difficult to be appointed. I do not know why you would want to limit the size of that committee. As I see it, the members of the house represent various parts of Canada and we must know a lot about many things. How can we do this without taking an active interest and being able to participate in the work of committees? The railways, for example, run all across Canada. At one time or another nearly every member of the house will have a problem with regard to railways and will desire to serve on the railways committee. I know this has been so in the past.

Let us take a look at some of the other committees, for example the agriculture committee. Under the proposed plan it will be limited to 30 members. How will this benefit rural members from across Canada? Not at all. As I said in my opening remarks, it will once again limit the effective participation of members of the house. That is what it will do. Therefore I cannot support the recommendations with regard to the size and structure of committees.
It might well be said: What is the matter with the committees today? You might well say that if we limit the size of committees more members will attend and those who are members of the committees will feel duty bound to attend. As I see it, this is the case now. If I am a member of a committee I feel duty bound to make every effort to attend. But is that the situation today? The agriculture committee has been sitting for the last six months and on nearly every occasion it could not begin its work on time because of the absence of the government members. They were never present on time. They used to show up half an hour or an hour after the time the committee was called to meet. Does this show an active interest on the part of the government in the subject the committee is examining? I do not think so.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -the hon. member has said that government members do not attend committees. I was present at a meeting of the railways committee when the question of freight rates was being discussed and there was not a Conservative member there. We were not able to get a quorum because there was not one Conservative member available. The hon. member is not being fair.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is not the point at all. At that particular time the Conservative party might have been having a caucus, and I think it was.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is that more important than freight rates?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could pose a suggestion and ask unanimous consent of the house to do something other than that which the standing order sets out. I have spoken with all of the members who have either notices of motions for the production of papers standing in their names or who are the sponsors of private bills, except the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) whom I could not locate, and the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) also whom I could not locate, and there appears to be agreement that for today we reverse the normal precedence as between notices of motions (papers) and private bills, and take as the first item for consideration the general subject private bills, and that within that general classification we give precedence and first consideration to the item listed as No. 5 under private bills, namely, house again in committee of the whole on Bill S-36, "an act to incorporate Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada."
Then if we can complete it we would follow the normal precedence of bills as set out under private bills, if time permits us to get through them. There also appears to be agreement that next Thursday we reverse the normal precedence as between notice of motions (papers) and private bills, so that on Thursday next, when we get to the hour between five and six o'clock, notices of motions (papers) would have precedence. I would ask unanimous consent for this change.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: May I ask for clarification of two points. I understood the hon. member to ask that permission be given that one particular private bill be taken first-only one. Is that correct?


Frank Howard: I asked that we give first consideration to Bill No. S-36 respecting the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, on a sort of ladies first basis, and then if time permits and it is passed that we then follow the order set out under private bills and take them in the sequence in which they are set out.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: So that the whole of this hour would be used for private bills?


Frank Howard: That is correct.

Motions jor Papers


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the first suggestion is certainly acceptable to me, namely that we proceed to private bills; but can we bind the house by agreement now as to what is to happen next Thursday? I would want to see how we proceed today before I would consent to a change in the order of business for next Thursday, because I have the next two bills on the list after the one relating to the universities association, which one I agree should be taken first. This is the only suggestion I thought was being put forward by the hon. member for Skeena.


George James McIlraith: I want to clarify another point with respect to that part of the suggestion which related to next Thursday. I heard nothing about it until just after we had moved into the private members' hour when the hon. member raised it. I would certainly feel it would not be proper for us here, without notice, to attempt to bind the house with respect to its proceedings next Thursday, especially without an opportunity of mentioning it to the other house leaders and the other members directly involved. Subject to that reservation I have no objection to any adjustment hon. members want to make with regard to today's private members' hour.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is not possible to proceed except by taking the normal course of business as set out for today.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frank Howard: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs by each provincial government or any person representing a provincial government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know federal-provincial conferences in the past have invariably been held in camera. Primarily the reason was that such conferences related to the division of spoils, as it might be termed, taxation and fiscal matters and tax rental agreements. In considering such matters I expect it was felt conferences like that should be held in private, just the same as discussions relating to the preparation of a budget are held in private and in secret, except when the Minister of Finance wants to hire ghost writers to give him a hand.

In recent years there has been an increase in the number of federal-provincial conferences and an alteration in the subject matters with which they have dealt, so that now a dominion-provincial conference is a sort of supragovernmental body comprising representatives of the federal cabinet and the various provincial cabinets, and these conferences now discuss more than budgetary and fiscal matters. But still they are held in camera. Still the proceedings of such conferences are closed. People are unable to find out what is the position of respective governments on any subject matter which comes before these conferences.
The motion before the house deals with certain submissions, documents, speeches and presentations at a particular dominion-provincial conference, namely the one held last fall on Indian affairs. You will notice it states "at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs" and it will be immediately recognized this motion was placed on the order paper last fall just after that federal-provincial conference, so that the word "recent" should not be related to point of time now but rather to a conference held last fall when the motion was originally prepared.
That conference on Indian affairs differed markedly from other conferences in that it was one which dealt with the rights, freedoms and prerogatives of people and did not deal with cold things such as statistics, changes in tax levels, and whether or not a certain amount would accrue to provincial governments out of revenues received by the federal government. Because it was such a vastly different type of conference it is our opinion that the proceedings before it should have been made public.
It was a very bad error, among many other bad errors on the part of this government, to have held that conference behind closed doors in the first place. We think it was insulting to the native Indian people to have excluded them from the conference even as observers and to have denied them the opportunity to hear what the position of the federal and of the provincial governments was with respect to their welfare. It is because the rights and freedoms of our native people are involved that we think we should now try to correct the insulting error made by the federal government in holding this conference behind closed doors, and we think this might best be done by disclosing to the general public of Canada, to this parliament, and particularly to the native Indian people across this nation, documents showing the various positions

adopted by the governments represented at this conference on Indian affairs. This is what the motion before us seeks to acquire-that there may be laid before this house-
-a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents, and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs by each provincial government or any person representing a provincial government.
The motion which follows deals with presentations by the government of Canada but the argument is precisely the same. I do not wish to add more at this stage except to conclude, in summary, by saying: here we have once in the lifetime of Canada as a nation a meeting being held at the top level between representatives of the federal and provincial governments in the course of a full-scale dominion-provincial conference. For once there was a desire on the part of all levels of government to sit down and talk about the fundamental rights and liberties of the senior group of people in this nation, the native Indian people. We believe we should now try to correct what was an error by this government in the first place that is, the decision to hold these meetings in private, by affording to the native people an opportunity of finding out what went on behind those closed doors. We can best do this by having the various documents made public so that the Indian people may know what we are doing with regard to their rights and their welfare.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I fully appreciate the concern felt by the hon. member about government policy affecting the Indian population. I wish to point out, however, that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has no monopoly in concern for the welfare of the Indian people. There is not one member in this house who would not favour the best possible treatment for our Indians, and it was precisely with this in mind that a federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs was called to discuss ways and means by which the interests of the Indian people could best be served.
I cannot accept the suggestion made by the hon. member that this conference between the federal government and the provinces was so different from any other federal-provincial conference. In his opening remarks, the former minister of citizenship and immigration made the following statement from which I should like to quote in part: 20220-793
Motions for Papers
This conference has its origin in a recommendation made by the committee appointed to study the administration of Indian and Eskimo affairs during the 1963 federal-provincial conference. The committee report charted desirable long range objectives and policies applicable to the Indian people, and basic principles that should be adhered to in moving towards such objectives. Much of our discussion during the next two days will take place within the framework of these objectives and principles and it may be helpful if I review them briefly.
The 1963 conference placed stress on the necessity of correlating federal and provincial policies and responsibilities for health, welfare, education, community development and other services if Indians were to be associated more closely with other Canadians. It defined as important long term objectives equality of opportunities for Indians in ail aspects of Canadian life; provision of provincial services and programs on the basis that needs in Indian communities should be met according to standards applicable in other communities.
Increasing participation of Indians in the man-gement of their own affairs: the development of Indian leadership to discharge equitable financial arrangements.
It recognized also that in working toward these objectives Indians should be consulted throughout- existing essential services to Indians must be maintained during the development of new arrangements, and that as the long term objectives are attained special supports and protections historically provided to Indians should be progressively adjusted. Finally, it recognized that the time had come to find the basis on which the widest possible range of federal, provincial and municipal services can be extended to Indians.
This was of course reflected in the agenda of the conference. Perhaps I may quote from the agenda.
Nation-wide agreements as opposed to province-by-province agreements; uniformity of agreements may neither be possible nor practical, but the constructive possibilities should be explored.
The role of co-ordinating committees in each province, comprised of provincial and federal officials, in providing for the extension of provincial and municipal services to Indians and in maintaining liaison.
Financing, including consideration of the scope and extent of provincial responsibilities.
The educational rights and privileges of Indians as residents of provinces.
Federal-provincial agreements in lieu of agreements to existing legislation, federal or provincial; and capital costs.
The integration of federal schools into provincial systems.
Provincial supervision of federal schools.
Special training for teachers.
Discussion on federal welfare and general assistance proposals.
Future of federal-provincial conferences on Indian affairs-need; structure; objectives, etc.
Legislation: need for new legislation or amendments to existing legislation, federal or provincial, the Indian claims commission; the Indian Act; various provincial acts and so on.
All ten provinces were represented and for the record I wish to name the delegates who were present on that occasion. Nova

Motions for Papers
Scotia, Hon. James M. Harding, minister of public welfare, F. R. MacKinnon, deputy minister of public welfare and Dr. Harold Nason, director, department of education; Newfoundland, Hon. Myles P. Murray, minister of public welfare, R. L. Andrews, deputy minister of public welfare and R. S. King, director of northern Labrador affairs; New Brunswick, Hon. William R. Duffle, minister of youth and welfare, J. E. Anderson, deputy minister of youth and welfare, and Mrs. Mary T. Gillis, director of social assistance-


Mr, Howard:: I wonder if I might raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I do not want to interrupt the hon. member unduly, but surely this recitation of those who attended the conference and the subject matters discussed, is something completely outside the ambit of the motion before us. The motion is to table certain documents, namely the presentations of the various provincial governments. The parliamentary secretary is using this, I submit, as a sort of propaganda platform. It is something a speech writer has provided for the department and describes in glowing terms what the government wanted to do. I submit this is completely out of order. We are here simply-and this ruling has been made a number of times-to discuss the merits of disclosing or making public certain documents.


Mr. Gray:: I should like to speak to the point of order. May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is completely out of order, according to my understanding, for the hon. member to impute motives to another hon. member because of the way he refers to a particular aspect of a question in this house. I think that is what the hon. member for Skeena appeared to be doing-at least to me.


Frank Howard: Raise another point of order, then.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Furthermore, I think that a high degree of latitude has been permitted in the last few days in the manner in which an hon. member may approach a particular subject. Certainly the hon. member who was speaking appeared to be referring to something related to the conference, which is the subject matter of the motion. I respectfully submit, therefore, that what he was saying was in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I feel the point of order is very well raised. Certain documents are requested in this motion, not a recitation of those who attended a confer -

ence. Surely some arguments would have to be produced by the parliamentary secretary as to why these documents cannot be produced. We are interested in who attended the conference, but that is not the purpose of the motion now before us. It would be shorter to let us have the documents, with the names attached to them, and we could read them ourselves.


Mr. Brewin:: I should like to support the point of order that has been made, Mr. Speaker, and for this reason: Under the rules there is a very limited time during which these motions for production are allowed to be debated. I think it is two hours and forty minutes, or something like that. If Your Honour should accept the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Essex West, Essex East, or Essex somewhere, then anything related to the papers could be discussed and we may never arrive at any finality on this motion for production until the time has run out. Surely it is not good enough, on a motion for production, to say this relates to a particular conference and therefore anything relating to the conference whatever is in order. Furthermore, the hon. member suggested that the hon. member for Skeena was imputing motives. He imputed no motives but merely described what the hon. member was doing.


Mr. Greene:: On the point of order; first of all, I would concur in what the hon. member for Essex West had to say with regard to the fact that it is highly improper for the hon. member for Skeena to infer that the speech of the parliamentary secretary was written by someone else. We take responsibility for any words we may use in this house. The hon. member for Skeena may feel that these are not original thoughts. It would be a tragic thing indeed if we could only express original thoughts in this house. If such were the case, the hon. member would never have gotten out of Skeena, from anything I have ever heard. I think the parliamentary secretary is taking full responsibility for the words he is using here.
In so far as the reference to the persons who attended the conference is concerned, contrary to what the hon. member for "Dead-wood" had to say, I say that quite clearly this motion-


Francis Andrew Brewin: Did the hon. member refer to my constituency as "Deadwood"? If he did, I assure him he is entirely in error and I resent the imputation on behalf of my constituents.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I should like to speak to this question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood there was a point of order raised originally. The hon. member for Renfrew South, I believe, is still on the same point of order. I do not believe he has completed his argumentation and he should be given an opportunity to do so.


John James Greene: If I misquoted the hon. member's constituency, it is possible I was thinking of the import and weight of his words when I referred to "Deadwood", rather than his constituency.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena that if this motion for papers was put on the order paper in good faith it was surely because there was an inference that, in some way, there was not sufficient information; there was not sufficient participation by the people who should have been represented there and who had a right, on behalf of the Indians, to be heard. I submit that a recital of the persons who attended is quite clearly relevant on the issue of determining that there were no persons who were barred by reason of any bias or prejudice; that there was a full attendance and that these confidential matters were discussed by a wide variety of concerned persons. I think this clearly indicates that the motion for tabling the papers is not in the public interest. Surely, the number of persons and variety of organizations which they represented is highly relevant in determining whether or not the public interest would be well served by the production of these papers at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members are agreed with all the precedents relating to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena. There is a very limited point of debate here, and it is whether or not certain documents should be tabled. I have before me lengthy notes prepared on the subject which would take the next 25 minutes to read. Some of them refer to statements made on similar previous occasions by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and other members with quite a bit of experience in this house. All these comments and precedents show that when the house is considering a motion for the production of papers the debate and the contributions to the debate should be strictly limited to this point as to whether or not the documents should be produced.
20220-793|
Motions for Papers
I assume the parliamentary secretary will want to limit his speech to this particular aspect of the problem.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was no thought on my part of using the list of those who attended at the conference for the purpose of taking up the time of the house. My only thought was that it was an important argument because it showed the number of people who attended this important conference from all the provinces. However, at the end of the two day conference a joint communique was issued. I am going to read a part of it which indicates the purpose of the conference and what was accomplished. I quote:
Ministers of the governments of Canada and of the provinces met in Ottawa, October 29 and 30, 1964, to discuss improved ways of correlating the policies and programs of the federal and provincial governments in Indian affairs and to consider ways and means of providing for the extension of provincial services to the Indians. The commissioners of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories also attended as observers.
This conference was the first of its kind devoted solely to Indian affairs and had its origin in the conclusions reached at a federal-provincial conference held in November, 1963, when Indian administration was discussed. It was noted that the decision to hold the conference reflected the growing interest and desire on the part of both provincial and federal governments to improve the conditions of Indians and to correlate policies and programs for the provision of education, health, welfare, community development, and other services to Indian communities.
The ministers confirmed that consultation with Indians was of fundamental importance for the success of any federal-provincial effort to further extend services to Indian communities. To this end it was agreed that Indians, through their band councils and organizations, should be approached with a view to establishing necessary consultative machinery such as Indian advisory committees in each province or region, which would provide a ready means of consulting with Indians on questions of concern to them. It was recognized that the use of such advisory committees as a consultant body would not replace the need to consult individual bands on matters of direct importance to each band.
There was mutual recognition that conditions and problems differed as between provinces; and, accordingly, it was considered desirable that there be flexibility in the extent and scope of any arrangements that might be made. This could best be done province by province in a manner consistent with conditions and circumstances existing in each province. To this end-


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would be pleased to hear the point of order raised by the hon. member, but I assume that he wants to take up again the point raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I can assure him

Motions for Papers
that for the last minute or so I felt the same way. I feel that the hon. member is transgressing the rules by not coming to the very specific and limited point to be considered.
I will recognize that this is a rule that is not always observed as well as it should be on both sides of the house, either on the part of those objecting to a motion or on the part of those asking for the production of documents. I am afraid we do manage from time to time in the course of discussion on this type of motion to get away from the very limited scope of discussion, which is whether the documents should or should not be produced. But even taking that into account it seems to me that the parliamentary secretary is going quite beyond this limited scope. He did say a moment ago that his remarks were introductory, but if he does not come to the point soon his 20 minutes will be over and he will not have enlightened the house or the Chair on the point whether or not these documents should be produced.


Hubert Badanai: I will accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. May I simply say that this very important meeting followed the pattern of previous federal-provincial meetings. It was held in camera and at the end agreed upon material was released to the public press.
Now, it may be argued that these meetings are irrelevant to this question. But what is important here is that the participants agreed to participate, and they did participate on the understanding that they could have free, frank and private discussions. Had it been otherwise and the meetings been made public, they may have decided not to attend, or their course and the discussion might have been different, we do not know. But what we do know is that the provincial governments participated on the understanding that the full details of the meeting would not be made public.
There is a further matter of general principle involved here. Past practice has ruled that documents prepared for the advice of a minister are privileged. This also applies to documents prepared for internal use within a department. As an example, I wish to cite a motion moved on March 8, 1961, by Mr. Racine for a copy of coverage instructions C-411, C-440 to C-444 inclusive, and of any amendments thereto, with regard to employment in forestry, as contained in the new insurance coverage manual issued in October 1955 by the unemployment insurance commission, together with the corresponding instructions, etc. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who was then minister of labour, [Mr. Deputy Speaker-1
had this to say, as reported at page 2780 of Hansard for March 8, 1961:
This is a request similar to one which appeared on the order paper under notices of motions for production of papers last week, and I can only offer my objection to it based on the decision of the unemployment insurance commission that the instructions which go out to the staff and which, taken together, constitute the manual of instructions, are of a confidential and private nature dealing with matters of internal administration which it would not be in the public interest to produce.
Then Mr. Speaker said:
In view of the explanation given by the minister, does the hon. member in whose name the motion stands wish to proceed?
Then the hon. member said:
I withdraw my motion.
May I point out to you, sir, that to my knowledge no member has ever previously insisted that working papers of a federal-provincial conference be made public. I submit that extensive discussion in the house about the conference itself has taken place, as recorded in Hansard at pages 319-20, 547, 579, 621, 754, 955, 1512, 3683-4, 4156, 4346, 6861, 8586-8, 8921 and 9782. Negotiations between the federal and provincial governments are still continuing in the field of Indian affairs. If confidential papers used in federal-provincial discussions were to be produced, federal and provincial governments would hesitate to engage in free and frank discussion. That is the sum and substance of the matter. Therefore I hope the hon. member for Skeena, who at times is very reasonable-


Frank Howard: Always reasonable-


Hubert Badanai: -will accept this explanation and agree that this motion be accepted for the production of preliminary statements by the minister of documents which are not privileged.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the matter of this particular motion for production of papers, I think I might be permitted to clarify a point which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) raised as a question of privilege whereby, in calling for the proper expression of the name of his riding, he pointed out that it was "Greenwood" rather than "Deadwood". I think in view of the comment which he made during the course of a point of order in which I was participating, I should clarify that the riding I represent is Essex West and not "Essex somewhere".


Frank Howard: Essex nowhere.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the comment just made and the comment made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicated what that party really thinks about the area I represent.


Frank Howard: It is not what we think about the area, but the member who represents the area.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It has been apparent up until now that the people of that area have a lot better judgment than the hon. member has. I am sure the attitudes which have been expressed and, I am sure, held as a matter of deep conviction, will be understood by the people of that area, and if the members of that party across from me continue in this way they will receive the rebuff they deserve by those very sensible people in that area which I have the honour to represent.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We are all honourable men.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It takes one honourable man to know another honourable man.
The motion before us calls for a very interesting type of decision. The question involved is one which is something of a novelty in that it calls not merely for the production of documents tabled by the federal government at a federal-provincial conference but, as I understand it, also the documents produced by provincial governments or individuals representing provincial governments. It is my understanding that this type of a motion has never before in its entire history been passed by this house.
I rise at this time to suggest to the house that it would not be proper to accept this motion because it would have a very harmful effect on the very fruitful pattern that has been evolving, and on the constructive degree of continuing federal-provincial consultation, with a resulting harmful effect on the interests of the people of this country.
In looking at this motion we must realize that we are dealing with documents that were produced by various provincial governments and which still can be considered as the property of the various provincial governments concerned. I submit that without the permission of each and every one of the provincial governments concerned we would have no right to pass a motion of this type. As far as I am aware, and if I am wrong I am sure the hon. member will correct me, the hon. member who presented this motion has not indicated that the provincial governments concerned are willing to have these documents, the production of which he is
Motions for Papers
asking at this time, made public in the manner suggested by this motion. For that reason alone this motion should not be accepted by this house.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.


Frank Howard: Is the hon. member aware that invariably when parliament passes motions involving documents relating to or formerly the property of provincial governments they always contain the proviso that the governments concerned have given consent?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think the hon. member has raised a useful point, but before this point can be given the weight the hon. member would like it to be given, we should have some indication of the attitudes of the provincial governments concerned. Otherwise we could be placing ourselves, this house, this government and the provincial governments concerned into what essentially would be a rather embarrassing position; a position involving actual and potential conflict between the various provinces and the federal government. At this time in our national history, Mr. Speaker, we should have co-operation rather than conflict. Surely we have experienced enough conflict. "


Douglas Mason Fisher: Particularly over this nonsecrecy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: There has been enough unnecessary conflict in the relationships between the various levels of government in this country. I do not think hon. members who are concerned with national interest should present motions of this type which can lead only to the exacerbation of such conflict, or the creation of such conflict where it has not before existed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the announcement made earlier this discussion is not likely to continue for much longer this afternoon, and I should like to know at this time whether the hon. member is suggesting that during the interval between now and the resumption of this discussion he would like the federal government to obtain consent from the provincial governments concerned in connection with the motion now before us?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a concept worthy of looking into. I think it is directly relevant to the point I was attempting to make. However, I do not think that is a

Motions for Papers
decision which I, as a private member, have the right to make. I think it is a useful suggestion, but even if the suggestion implied by the hon. member's question had some degree of merit there would still be an element of danger to the public interest and to the proper method of holding necessary consultations between the various levels of government today.
I am sure the documents in question were produced and prepared for the purpose of enabling frank and free discussions among the officials meeting at that particular conference. I have not seen the documents and do not know what they are, but I suspect many of them were produced merely for the purpose of setting out topics for discussion, possible arguments or particular positions, and if they were produced as suggested by the motion they might give certain people in this country an opportunity to suggest that these were actually policies of the provincial governments concerned, when really they are nothing more than working documents prepared to enable more effective discussions on very important matters which were being considered by this conference.
I think there is a case within public knowledge at this time-I do not know whether I am out of order in referring to it at this time, but if I am perhaps someone will bring it to the attention of the house-regarding a minority report which was made public recently, which a member of a semi-public body referred to as being an alleged matter of policy on the part of a public agency. I do not intend to go further into this particular point but I do think it illustrates the point I am making. What may happen as a result of this motion could be harmful to public interest.
As I said earlier, I have no personal knowledge as to the exact nature of the documents, the quantity or the detail, but I suspect that many of them, if not most, were designed to give an indication of the positions adopted by the provincial governments concerned, and presented as the basis for discussion, outlining the pros and cons. If these are made public they might create what I think would be a completely erroneous impression in relation to the positions taken by provincial governments.
I would suggest that for the reasons I have given it would not be in the public interest to accept this motion. In view of the existing and growing interdependence, whether we like it or not, between different levels of government with regard to many, if not most, of

the various activities in which governments become involved today, I think there has to be a continuation of the type of consultation that has been growing up in recent years, and that the very value of this type of consultation is likely to be almost, if not completely, destroyed if the people holding such consultations are not able to present documents as a basis for discussion and are not able to carry on their discussions by means of this type of document or otherwise for fear that the confidentiality of them is likely to be destroyed by the acceptance of this type of motion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, by way of conclusion I would urge hon. members not to accept this motion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Question.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion partly by reason of the fact that I have the honour to represent a group of Indians at the village of Golden Lake in the great constituency of Renfrew South. This motion is, I think, particularly pertinent in regard to some of the problems that affect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills.
An act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.
An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An act to amend the Privileges and Immunities (United Nations) Act.
An act respecting the Geneva conventions, 1949.
An act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
An act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
An act to incorporate Mountain Pacific Pipeline Ltd.
An act respecting Canadian-Montana Pipeline Company.
An act to incorporate The Royal College of Dentists of Canada.
An act to incorporate Canadian Institute of Actuaries.

An act to incorporate Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation.
An act respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
An act respecting The Economical Mutual Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
An act to amend the Penitentiary Act.
An act to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.
An act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
An act to implement a convention between Canada and Japan for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and to amend the existing agreement and conventions between Canada and Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, with respect to income tax.
An act to amend certain acts administered in the Department of Insurance.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1964 to the 30th day of June, 1965, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson:
That the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on December 14, 1964, be now concurred in.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Just before five o'clock I was speaking about the work done by committees during the present session, and considering how the proposed changes in the rules might affect those committees now sitting. I referred to the poor attendance at many of these meetings on the part of government members.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order; I would point out that I drew the attention of the house at the same time to the poor attendance on the part of the Conservative members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a bogus point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Be that as it may, it is interesting to see the hon. member for Kootenay East stand up to make his interruption. He generally interrupts from his
Procedure Committee Report seat. Even though it is not a good point of order, or even a point of order at all, I am pleased to see him on his feet.
Let us consider the subjects which are referred to committees for study and inquiry. I had in mind particularly the committee on agriculture. What has it done this session? Well, there was an inquiry into the tobacco industry. What was its purpose? Purely to get two or three Liberal members who represent tobacco growing areas off the hook-to do a little propaganda work on behalf of the government and the members representing those areas in this house. I suppose the committee did accomplish what the government intended it to accomplish. We had heard the minister of health and welfare making some statements with regard to tobacco which had a damaging effect on the Liberal image in those areas, so the government initiated the inquiry before the agriculture committee as a piece of missionary work on behalf of the Liberal party. Would the changes now proposed prevent this type of thing happening again? Not in the least. The government would still be able to designate the subjects it wished committees to investigate.
One must always be prepared to adjust the rules in accordance with changing conditions within a parliament or within a country. At the same time, we do not want to place this house in a strait-jacket. It is evident that across the country there is a great deal of unrest and concern today. The people are concerned about democracy, about parliament, about corruption. They are more interested in politics today than they have ever been in Canada's history. I think it is only proper that this concern should be reflected here in the House of Commons. If there is unrest in the country, there should be unrest in the House of Commons. For example, if a piece of proposed legislation had the unanimous support of the people it is logical to assume that it would have the unanimous support of members of the House of Commons and that it would pass rapidly and readily. But let us consider the flag debate. The government's proposal in this respect did not have the unanimous approval of people across the country. Percentages were figured out and I think it is generally conceded that the country was split maybe 40/60, depending on which side you want to project. So it was logical that this house should contain a similar division and that there should be similar differences of opinion here on this subject. I have referred to the flag debate as an example but I could choose many other issues.

Procedure Committee Report
The pension plan is a good one to consider. Here is a plan which has been presented and withdrawn six times, somebody said-it does not matter whether it is four times or seven; it has been changed and modified to a large extent. While people generally are in favour of a portable pension plan they are not in favour of many of the clauses in the bill put forward by the government. Many of them are not impressed by the actuarial soundness of the plan and this was demonstrated not long ago in the public statements of a high ranking civil servant who felt the need to rise and speak from his experience of this particular plan. It is obvious that this same concern would be felt here in the House of Commons. Thus, when we are considering changing the rules we must be careful not to put the house in a strait-jacket so that concern felt across the nation cannot be reflected in this house. If we streamline the rules of parliament to such an extent that measures must pass and business must be proceeded with, making it difficult for pressure in the country to be felt here, we would not be too far from a dictatorship. A great deal of our cherished democracy would be lost if we were to strait-jacket the House of Commons by rules. We must always bear in mind that this is a place for debate, for inquiry and for clarification. Often this process will take a good deal of time, depending on the complications and the divisions within the country.
In concluding my remarks I should like to say one more word about the proposal that committees should sit while the house is not in session. I see no real harm in this if a committee has to travel abroad or outside the city of Ottawa. But as long as the committee is sitting in Ottawa it is my belief that it would be to the detriment of members of parliament to have it sitting while the house is not in session. To allow small isolated groups work on committees while others were not, would lead, in my opinion, to a comparatively small number of members being well informed on a particular subject, while the vast majority who did not serve on that committee would be sadly lacking in knowledge.
I have always believed that as a member of parliament I should at all times keep abreast of the legislation before the house. The difficulties I have just foreseen were borne out to some extent by the experience of the committee which recently sat while the house was adjourned for the Christmas recess. We have already run into a problem which we would not have had if that committee had

been sitting while the house was sitting. We had to postpone consideration of legislation. The reason for this procedure can be found in the fact that this committee sat while the house was not sitting. The fact that the translation was not being made could have been ascertained a month or two ago. It could have been seen that the evidence was printed in both languages. This is a minor matter, but it never would have happened if the committee had not been sitting while the house was adjourned.
I see no harm in a committee that must travel around in order to inquire into its given subject, either in Canada or abroad, doing so while the house is adjourned. I think it is to the benefit of all members if it is at all possible, for committees to sit while the house is sitting. One could say that the proposed rule change under which the house would sit three weeks and the committees one week would give everybody a chance to go home for a week. But what would happen then? We are now nearly four months behind schedule in the light of considering the number of sessions per year. What would happen with this type of procedure? I feel that we would drop farther and farther behind as the years went on. As a matter of fact, I like to go home as well as the next man. However, I cannot readily agree that this substantial change in the time of committee sittings should be made.
In summarizing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I say briefly that I disagree with the structural changes in the committees. I think the size of the committees would mean that I and many members of parliament could not represent their constituents properly. I doubt that the time arrangement under the proposed rule change would be of any real benefit and it may be a detriment. There are some who might like to see our committees have the powers that committees have in the United States. I believe that under our system of responsible government this is nearly an impossibility. Our committees could function very effectively if the government took its work seriously, if the government referred a given subject to a committee and expected a thorough inquiry into that subject, rather than a broadcast of information to the people such as has happened in the defence committee. I do not believe this is the purpose of committees of this house-to spread propaganda and smooth out difficult political situations in this country. I believe committees could be really effective if the

government took this work seriously and gave them something to do in which there was an area for inquiry.
There are some rule changes with which I agree, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there should be a greater opportunity for the study of crown corporations. I agree with some other rule changes that would allow members to make a more widespread inquiry into the operations of government in this country.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise you if I tell you that I do not approve the proposed changes in the rules. I will not follow the line taken by the hon. member who just resumed his seat, but will deal with this issue in an entirely non-partisan spirit. This matter must be studied calmly so we may know the true opinion of the members.
I appreciate that the hon. members who served on that committee deserve our congratulations for the work they did. However, some were inexperienced; they examined this question from an ideological point of view and could not find any means of improving the situation without changing everything. None the less, the work was well done and done conscientiously. However, I do not agree with them.
For instance, it is suggested that the committees should sit while the house is sitting. When we were in the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I was always against committees sitting when the house was in session. I am still against it. I know that it was allowed, but I feel the house was wrong in making this decision. We have a duty to perform in the house and we have a duty to perform in the committees. It is absolutely impossible to carry out both duties properly and to be in both places at the same time. That is why I am against the proposed changes.
Yet this is what is being proposed in paragraph 22. If committees are to sit when the house is in session, some parties, especially the smaller ones, such as the N.D.P. and the Social Credit, will be very reluctant to agree to such a proposal. As a matter of fact, when I attended a committee meeting I noted that those members had to leave constantly to go from one committee to another in order to give their views about the matters under discussion.
-In my opinion, that reason alone is enough for our being against the proposed changes.
Farther on it is said we should take a week off each month. Some members said this
Procedure Committee Report afternoon that they were against that. So am I. Some might say that I am always in my riding, which is just on the other side of the river, and that I see my constituents every day. That is true, I see them every day; but when I was in Quebec city I came back once a week and saw them on Saturday and Sunday. I would attend the whole session and then I could meet my constituents and discuss their problems with them.
It is added that during that time, the committees could sit. A little farther on it is said that members could go and consult their constituents. How can you do both: attend committee meetings and consult your constituents? With one week of holidays per month, you can do only one of two things: consult your constituents without attending committee meetings or sit on committees and refrain from seeing your constituents. I do not think both things can be done at the same time.
The committee did not think about what it was doing when it suggested that. Yet it has seen fit to make that recommendation and I, for one, feel compelled to oppose it.
Somewhere else it is suggested that we spend 20 days on the budget debate. Frankly, I do not understand that proposal. The recommendation about 20 days is neither clear nor precise.
Today we are in power; tomorrow, one never knows, we could be in the opposition. When that day comes we will want enough time for discussion but that will be impossible, since the debate will be limited to 20 days. In my opinion we should give the opposition enough time for an adequate discussion. I know that it is a government's duty to introduce a budget, but it is also the duty of the opposition to criticize it.
I appreciate that we must do our best to avoid filibustering. We will have to do everything possible to prevent people from speaking merely to block the passing of a bill. This is not in the rules, this has been done through the wiliness of men, who found means to get around difficulties. But if we could find means of doing away with filibustering it would be possible to have much shorter sessions.
When I talk about filibustering I am not attacking only the opposition. I know that we were in the opposition, that the hon member from the city of Windsor and myself held the house for 15 days on a bill, which was not normal. However, we did it, but I think we were wrong, and I realize it today.

Procedure Committee Report
When we talk about changes we should think of deeper changes that would go to the root of the matter.
When committees are set up such as the committee on agriculture, the board of grain commissioners, the Farm Credit Corporation, that does not change anything. No matter how many committees are set up or how long they sit, that will change nothing.
We are no longer in 1215 when the king was deposed by the parliament of England. We are in 1965. This is a new era. The vote of non-confidence should first be done away with. It does not exist in the United States and we should have it abolished. We should have elections at set dates, that is every four or five years.
These are changes which are necessary and that we should bring about at this time, in 1965. I do not know whether the government would be prepared to do so, and l have doubts in this respect. In my opinion, the government would rather be in the present situation and exercise some control. But those on the government side would have more freedom because they could vote more readily against a piece of legislation without the government being defeated as a result.
I believe these changes ought to come into force immediately because they are badly needed. The present situation cannot be tolerated any longer. I do not know if we are going to have minority governments for many years-it is quite possible-it is up to the people to decide, but, on the other hand, if we are going to have them in the future it will be the only way to administer this country properly.
We ought to find several ways in order to change this situation, and I tell you that in spite of all the efforts made by the committee and by all those who are in favour of such a change we will not get anywhere because we are now discussing the fifteenth report, we had a fourteenth report and numerous others previous to that and we are sitting all the time, even in the summer, and we have no more holidays. Sessions have definitely not been shortened by those new changes, because we are still sitting and this is the same session which opened on February 18, 1964, and this is March 18, 1965; we are still considering the legislation presented last year.
I think such a situation is abnormal and I ask hon. members to be cautious in considering this measure. I ask members on both sides of the house to take a second look at this measure before giving their approval. I think we should not approve this report tonight, but

we should rather put off the whole matter in order that it may be thoroughly thought out so that it will better suit existing circumstances.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the soaring eloquence of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) I am sure that my remarks will be considered quite stodgy and dull. I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization. After nearly 20 years in this house, and being the member of this party with the longest parliamentary experience to date, I am becoming almost a memory. I have some idea how this house functions and how the committees function, and I rise to give general support to the principles of the report as guidelines for future action on the part of parliament.
First of all, I should like to pay tribute to the members of this committee. I think the committee worked in a completely non-partisan spirit in an effort to present a report to this house which could receive serious consideration on all sides. Before proceeding I must pay a tribute to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who is the chairman of this subcommittee. Not very often does one find a farmer chairman of a committee on procedure. It does my heart good to see this son of the soil who, with all his earthiness, has his eyes on the stars of parliamentary reform.
Let me say that I too have some ideas with respect to some aspects of this report, which I will leave to a later date, although I do agree with the spirit and principle of the report in general. However, I rise at this time to speak particularly on behalf of the veterans and their dependants in this country, owing to the suggested change in the order of standing committees. I do this at the request of veterans organizations and other persons.
I note in the report that in the summary of recommendations, recommendation No. 4 provides for a standing committee on health, welfare and veterans affairs. I rise at this time to take strong exception to the inclusion of the standing committee on veterans affairs in a standing committee on health and welfare. This is not because I do not realize the importance of health and welfare; it is because of the inclusion of the standing committee on veterans affairs with this other committee. I am sure I will receive support from the

other side of the house in connection with this viewpoint.
The committee on veterans affairs was established on October 4, 1945 at the request of veterans organizations across Canada, and at the request of a number of other groups which were very concerned at that time with the return of our veterans to civil life. As a matter of fact, the work of this committee affects the rights of over a million veterans who saw service, and indirectly affects the rights of some four million veterans and their dependants in this country. So it is quite safe to say that the work of this committee since its inception-and I was a member of the original committee-has been followed with great interest by veterans organizations and all persons concerned with their welfare.
This committee has performed a tremendous service to veterans and their dependants throughout the years, and I am sure that members of all parties will agree with that. It has established the legislation which we now call the veterans charter. It has heard representations throughout the years from veterans organizations and widows organizations and other groups. Third, it has made representations to the house as to improvements required in legislation and proposed amendments to legislation. Fourth, I think the experience of the department and of the committee itself has been of great value because the department has pioneered many fields of health services. It has pioneered in research into matters concerned with the health and institutional care of veterans; it has done a lot of work in connection with prosthetic services which are now being recognized by other parts of the profession in Canada, and it has pioneered a great deal in pension administration and the administration of the law. As a matter of fact a good number of workmen's compensation acts passed by provincial-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may not be quite following the hon. member but I understood we were discussing the fifteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization. I fail to see just under what heading this detailed explanation of the committee on veterans affairs falls. I am wondering whether the hon. member will keep his remarks relevant to the report which we are now discussing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, I am strictly in order.
20220-794J
Procedure Committee Report
The summary of the recommendations of this report includes the recommendation that a standing committee on health, welfare and veterans affairs be established. This would mean that the standing committee on veterans affairs would be disbanded. I think I am strictly in order when dealing with the value of the work done by that committee, and in dealing with the suggestion that it be included in a committee which would deal with matters of health and welfare as well as veterans affairs.
The committee on veterans affairs has done a great deal of work in respect of the administration of pension legislation, and just prior to your interruption, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the point that many of the compensation acts passed by provincial legislatures were based on the experience gained by the Canadian pension commission, which has been brought before this committee year after year. The committee has done very valuable work in that respect.
This committee has also dealt with Veterans Land Act administration and it has been realized throughout the years that this administration has done a lot of pioneering and counselling in respect of farm credit. This work led eventually to various farm credit loans legislation. It has pioneered in connection with insurance for individuals who obtained credit under the Veterans Land Act administration.
Veterans organizations across this country have recognized the value of the work done by this committee and have urged that it be maintained. In that connection I should like to read a copy of a letter dated March 1, 1965 addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I am confident that the Prime Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the suggestions set out in this letter, which was written by F. T. O'Brecht. This letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
It is reported in Votes and Proceedings, No. 210, of 14th December, 1964, that the special committee on procedure and organizations recommended that a standing committee on health, welfare and veterans affairs be appointed. Such committee would deal with various aspects of the department of health and welfare and: veterans affairs; Canadian pension commission; war veterans allowance board; pensions in respect of members of the armed forces and their dependants, etc.
The Royal Canadian Legion is opposed to this recommendation. Benefits provided veterans and their dependants through pertinent legislation have always been distinct from general welfare measures in our country. These benefits are related primarily to a veteran's service to his country in time of war and they are in a class by themselves.

Procedure Committee Report
The Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Honourable R. J. Teillet, told the veterans affairs committee last September that his department was preparing legislation for consideration by parliament. "Such legislation", he said, "will cover a large number of items. It may not cover all of the items that we would like to see introduced at this time and, perhaps, certain legislation which others would like to see will not be introduced..." The need to improve the legislation was also acknowledged by Mr. Teillet's predecessors in office.
It is our understanding that there are more than a million veterans of wartime service living in Canada. With their dependants, the total which could be affected by veterans legislation may well exceed four million-approximately 20 per cent of Canada's population.
The Department of National Health and Welfare faces continuously expanding legislation. A combined committee of health, welfare and veterans affairs would, we submit, tend to diminish the attention the committee could give to veterans legislation. This, we suggest, would be a retrograde step in view of the action taken by parliament when veterans affairs were divorced from the then department of pensions and national health.
We hope that very careful consideration will be given by the government to the full implication of this recommendation, and we trust that parliament will continue an independent committee on veterans affairs.
Yours very truly,
F.O. O'Brecht,
Dominion President.
Why has this committee been so successful and why have governments throughout the years accepted recommendations made in reports to this house by this committee? It has been so successful because it is and has been a non-partisan committee, and regardless of the view we have on certain political matters in this house the members of former and the present standing committee on veterans affairs have faced these problems on a non-partisan basis, because they realized they were dealing with problems of veterans and their dependants.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge first that this house has a moral obligation to maintain the standing committee on veterans affairs as part of our procedure. Second, I would urge that this committee is a model of effective and co-operative non-partisan effort made by members of all parties having a common objective. Third, Mr. Speaker, we maintain that the reflection of the work of this committee on veterans affairs has enabled the Department of Veterans Affairs to pioneer in various fields, the results of which have been very useful to other departments of government as well as to the workmen's compensation boards and other like departments of provincial governments.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Having made those few remarks I should like to say in conclusion that I hope this house will give very serious consideration to this recommendation and decide to maintain the standing committee on veterans affairs in fairness to veterans and their dependants, and in view of the requests of veterans organizations in Canada.
I shall listen very attentively later on in this debate to the Prime Minister when he is speaking.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short and to the point, as were the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge).
First of all I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the committee with which you have spent most of your time during this session in an effort to concentrate on what I think is one of the most important problems and responsibilities of this house. I realize that this has taken a great deal of your time, and for this reason you have not spent as much time in this house as did, perhaps, some of your predecessors. I believe that has been sound strategy. I compliment you and this committee for the 17 reports we have before us.
I should also like to commend you and the other members of this subcommittee who have worked so diligently for providing us with this fifteenth report now under consideration. In this regard I note with some satisfaction the good work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). Let me hasten to add that my compliments are directed to all members of the committee.
I think we in this house ought to regard this work as probably the highlight of this session, because it is the particular responsibility of this parliament to bring about those reforms which are so obviously needed. We tend to blame the faults of this parliament on the minority position in which we find ourselves. I am convinced that if we had a majority government with 150 seats we would have done no better at all because the work of this house has been hamstrung by procedures and rules which probably worked very well once but were never designed to work in the situation with which we are faced at the present time.
So I believe that the entire series of reports is vitally important. We have heard a great deal from the government both in recent months and in past years before they had the

responsibility of government to the effect that they were going to bring about the necessary changes to make the house more effective and efficient. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the challenge is now squarely before them because research and study work has been done that was not done before, resulting in a pattern being laid out before them with regard to suggestions how the procedures of the house can be improved. I believe it is their direct responsibility to put some of these recommendations into effect and to do so soon.
I urge the government as strongly as I can that they owe it not only to the house but to themselves to implement as many of these reforms as is feasible and practical. There is no doubt about the obvious need for a general overhaul of the procedures of the house. I think most members of the house will agree with that. Whenever anyone speaks about this subject we find that, regardless of the party to which they belong, they agree that this is one of the most urgent needs. Are we to be paralysed simply because we are willing to talk and not to take action? For this reason I cannot emphasize too strongly on behalf of our party the importance of the recommendations before us. It is not good enough to put this report aside and lay it on the shelf. Earlier today the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) mentioned several recommendations that have already come from committees which have operated effectively under the old system. One of these had to do with Bill No. C-7 concerning the setting up of an ombudsman or parliamentary commissioner and which I personally sponsored. In my opinion the government cannot justify merely letting the results of the valuable work of this committee be put aside and forgotten.
An alert and aggressive government should welcome the assistance of committees and the non-partisan approach that is taken in the work of these committees, an approach which it is almost impossible to bring about in the same manner within the house itself. I think one of the best examples is the defence committee. It is only a couple of years ago that we were floundering without a defence policy. A lot of people were shouting about what should be done and most of them did not know what they were talking about. At least we now have a group of 24 men who have dedicated themselves to studying our over-all defence problem. I think it is particularly interesting to look back and review how that committee operated in the beginning. In the
Procedure Committee Report early stages of its existence there was a tendency among the members to divide according to party lines, but it was only a matter of a few weeks until party lines disappeared and the differences of opinion that were expressed during committee deliberations were true differences of opinion with regard to what members thought would be the best defence policy for the country. I believe the experience of the defence committee points up the fact that if we can give our committees more encouragement and a better opportunity to play an effective role we will certainly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? I suppose we are in no hurry tonight. Can the hon. member give one specific instance of the good work done by the defence committee that has influenced the government in any way whatsoever?


Robert Norman Thompson: I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that this is not the time to enter into a debate on any specific action that has been taken as a result of the work of the defence committee. As evidenced by our present attitude in the house toward problems of defence, it is sufficient to say in answer to his question that a great deal of work has been done by the members of the defence committee and that the government itself has benefited from its work. I think it is sufficient to say that at least we have a group of 24 men who, because of their attention to this problem, are able to talk with some degree of authority and responsibility on the problems of defence. I believe that the recommendations in this fifteenth report basically make the same potential available with regard to every subject on which we deliberate in the house.
We accept the recommendations with regard to dealing with estimates as being good. This is a new idea, but when you consider that during the present session we have spent some 80 days dealing with estimates in the house it would seem that there should be a more effective way of doing this work. I think that the suggestion that once estimates are introduced in the house they should be referred immediately to the various committees would save, in terms of days of work, perhaps half of that time or possibly three quarters as is suggested by the committee report.

Procedure Committee Report
However, ii the various committees are to do the work about which we are talking they must be given the time and opportunity to do it. It has already been brought out in the debate today that it is not sufficient to demand from certain members of the house that they should take the time to carry out this work from the time they would ordinarily devote to constituency work or their work in the house. Therefore I think it is an excellent suggestion that time be set aside for this purpose.
From my own study of the procedures of different parliaments with which I am familiar-i am speaking of the mother of parliaments and of the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand-I know that time is set aside during which members of the house can concentrate on their committee responsibilities. We heard it said this afternoon that committees do not respond to their responsibilities and that it is difficult to get a quorum.
I believe that results from the fact that committee members are not given the opportunity of doing the job they are supposed to be doing, with the result that they are frustrated and feel it is a waste of time. I think that one proof of the success of the defence committee is that this did not happen. Members of the defence committee have demonstrated an interest and a very definite sense of responsibility.
Therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that while these suggestions are new and completely different from anything we have had in the past, they are worthy of a trial. I would hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would realize that here is an opportunity to institute a reform which would reach to the very heart and core of the problems that exist with regard to making parliament a more effective instrument in doing the work which we recognize is the responsibility of parliament. Without going into the details of the report or taking undue time, I say that basically the report provides a way of dealing effectively with the estimates and of permitting us to fulfill our own responsibilities in watching over the expenditure of the taxpayers' dollar more effectively.
We notice that there is a condensation of committees into a smaller number. As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) has already said, perhaps there may be objections to this, but I believe the committee was wise in doing this because it permits a concentration of subject matter that could not otherwise be established. I do

not think there is any legitimate objection which can be raised to this. If there is I think we would find out for sure, once we have operated on this basis for a trial period.
We anticipate the prorogation of this session before too long. It will be but a matter of days until we are into another throne speech debate and, I hope, a budget debate. What a great thing it would be if, when the budget is introduced and the estimates brought down, those estimates could be turned over to the committees that are recommended in the report. We would then find out just how effective are its recommendations.
The report recommends that the size of committees be reduced. Having committees of 60 or 75 members dealing with some of the more important topics assigned to them is not much different from what we do in the house or in committee of the whole. Therefore I believe this recommendation is a worthy one.
If we take an objective attitude to the work done during the last 13 months, and then look objectively at the recommendations in this fifteenth report I believe we will all admit that here is an opportunity to try and improve our work and thus our image before the country.
There may be some who have had longer years of experience in the house than I and who feel these recommendations are too revolutionary. I sense there is a feeling on the part of some cabinet ministers that if these recommendations were put into effect it would usurp the authority of the cabinet. One of the greatest hindrances to the work of government and cabinet members is that they are tied down to the day to day functions in the house and have not enough time to take care of their administrative work. Likewise they do not have sufficient time to plan policy, and if there ever was a time in our country when we needed consultative government, to approach our problems from as many angles as possible, that time is now.
Therefore the government ought to welcome recommendations like these which will not restrict or take away from the cabinet the responsibilities its ministers have. These recommendations will give the legislative arm of the house more freedom to deal effectively with administration and to consider policy.
One of the things that impressed me most during the period I spent in Australia was that the Australian parliament takes time off from its normal work within the legislative assembly in order to undertake committee work. Its parliament normally sits only four days a week, and the fifth day is occupied

with committee work. Likewise, it sits only three weeks out of four, again to provide several days for committee work and to provide an opportunity for members to return to their constituencies. I was told by a number of the members of the Australian house and senate that the effect of this policy has not been to take away from the efficiency of parliament but to add to it, because they find they are now able to accomplish more than they used to when the house sat five days a week, four weeks a month.
I do not intend to speak much longer but again, Mr. Speaker, I affirm to you that you have our support for the recommendations of this committee and also for the recommendations contained in the 16 other reports that have been submitted to us. On the basis of the recommendations we have already adopted on a trial basis it is clear the experience has been good. I urge the government to take a bold step forward and accept the recommendations on a trial basis, in an effort to achieve the needed reforms and give us an opportunity to see in a practical way just how much more effective and efficient the work of the House of Commons could be by adopting some basic parliamentary procedural reforms.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity of participating in the discussion on the report of the committee which deals with one of the most important subjects that I think we can deal with in this parliament, namely a reform of our rules and our procedures to make parliament operate more effectively in facing the problems that come before it for solution.
I think that the importance of this particular subject, the reform of parliamentary procedure, increases week by week, month by month and year by year as the problems we face in parliament become more numerous and more complex, and as there is a certain scepticism in public opinion in all countries where there are parliamentary institutions, as to the ability of those institutions to deal with the new problems of a new age, and as there is a growing attraction in certain quarters for short cut, totalitarian solutions to public problems. So, I think the committee in dealing with these problems has not only been facing up to important questions but has faced up to them in a non-partisan and very efficient way, and I would like to congratulate the chairman, particularly the chairman of the subcommittee, the hon. member who moved the adoption of this report, and
Procedure Committee Report all the other members of the committee on what they have accomplished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am quite aware, as of course are all hon. members, that a change of the rules, even if it is a change that makes our institutions more adept to face the problems that come to them, a change of the rules and the regulations and procedures alone will not make parliament and parliamentary discussion more effective, any more than a change of the rules in hockey would prevent rough hockey, or killing time, or icing the puck.


An hon. Member:: Nor in baseball.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not play any games these days. But, Mr. Speaker, effective rules brought up to date and effectively administered do make institutions work better, and that is what we are all trying to do in this house, and that is what we are particularly concerned with tonight when we look into the recommendations that are before us.
The committee and its subcommittees have discharged their responsibilities. They have not completed them but they have discharged them, and of course the government has its own responsibility in these matters. Our responsibility as a government is to put into operation, or ask the house to accept as changes in our orders and rules those recommendations which it is felt would improve our procedures.
The committee begins its report by stating its opinion that the potential value of the committees system in the House of Commons is not being exploited to the full particularly in relation to standing committees. I think we could all agree with that. My experience in parliamentary operations goes back now over a few years both as a participant on the floor and as a spectator in the official gallery, and I can recall that every government which came to office always began by making declarations that it intended to make parliament more effective and, in particular, that it intended to make the committees system work more effectively. Each government has attempted in its own way to do something about this but most of them have found it difficult. Some very useful changes have been made over the years, especially in the last five or six years, but they have not been fundamental in character and perhaps we are approaching the time when there should be some more fundamental attack on the weaknesses of the operation of our parliamentary institutions.

Procedure Committee Report This cannot be done all at once. It is a gradual process. I believe it could be done, in the words of the committee report, in a way which will not conflict with the principles of parliamentary control and cabinet responsibility. I am sure it could be done that way and I am sure all the committees which have been considering this problem have had this in mind.
As far as committees are concerned, and the work of committees-and this is the main subject of this report-there is no doubt that we do not use the committees system to its best advantage. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in a helpful and thoughtful contribution to this debate this afternoon mentioned the growing weakness of the legislative element in our parliamentary institution as against the executive. This is a situation which has occupied the attention of all students of democratic parliamentary institutions in recent years, because with the executive you have not only the cabinet but you have behind the cabinet, a growing body of expert officialdom which is inevitably becoming more and more important as government becomes increasingly complex.
I remember some years ago attending a luncheon in London, England, of some senior officials of the British government, departmental heads and some cabinet ministers. One of the ministers said to me as we sat down: "Here is the government of the United Kingdom, with two or three ministers." There is this problem-the growth of the executive, the new despotism, as Lord Hewart called it, and how to prevent it destroying the efficiency of the legislature. Could we strengthen the legislature by deepening and broadening the committees structure? There are some recommendations in this report which, I believe, when implemented may well have this effect. I hope so.
But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that we can build up under the parliamentary system a sort of congressional committee structure. This was mentioned this afternoon. I do not think this kind of comparison has much validity because the committees system in a parliamentary institution as I understand it is bound, by the nature of things, to be weaker than a committees system in a congressional structure. One reason is that party lines are very obscure, at times, in congressional committees in Washington-they are even non-existent on occasions. This in itself makes the system function differently; because in the House of Commons we have a discipline imposed


by the threat of dissolution, and this extends also to committee work, even though party divisions there may not be nearly as apparent at they would be in the house itself. I hope they are not. Nevertheless there is always the prospect in a parliamentary committee of party divisions in the house reflecting themselves to a greater degree than they would under a congressional system.
Other members of the house have probably had a good deal more experience of committee work than I have. But it seems to me there is a feeling of frustration arising from a belief that whatever is done in committee will be repeated all over again in the House of Commons. This is particularly true in the consideration of estimates. This is why I believe the proposal to deal with the estimates and examine them in committee is the most important part of this report.
I think the committee work could be made more effective and I congratulate the special committee on the recommendations it has made to that end. I am proud to belong to a government which set up a committee on procedure under Your Honour's chairmanship in October of 1963. We were criticized this afternoon for not having taken more steps as a government to ensure that more was done in the past two years. But after the committee had been set up it was surely not only the responsibility but the obligation of government to leave it to do its work. It should be the responsibility and the privilege of the committee to make the recommendations. And it has made recommendations. But if the committee, because of the necessity of getting a unanimous report or for some other reason is unable to make the progress which should be made in the reform of parliament, then I believe it is the responsibility of government to move in and put its own proposals to the House of Commons. I hope these things can be done in the committee and its subcommittees and I hope the various reports from that committee will discharge its responsibility. But if this is not possible, then the government will have to move in and make proposals of its own.
As far back as 1962 when we on this side were in opposition we made certain proposals, and other parties made proposals in this regard. These have not yet appeared from the committee on procedure, but it seems to me they go farther than anything we have received and I hope that if and when the committee gets back to work in the new session it will be able to come up with recommenda-

tions which go beyond the recommendations in this report with regard to committee structure. I am thinking of what I still consider to be one of the most important changes which we could make-one which would have, I believe, a far reaching effect on the effectiveness of this body, namely the proposal for the allocation, by agreement, of time to every stage of every proposal and every piece of legislation which is brought in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have been advocating this in opposition and in government, now, for some years. That is the first additional proposal which we can be considering, I hope, in this house before long.
I believe also-and I put this to the house in February of last year when we were discussing procedure-that we should do something more than we have done already about the question period; that we should have a time limit on questions each day as we now have on Wednesdays. I recall that the Leader of the Opposition once made a strong plea for a 30 minute limit on question time because he thought it was enough each day to deal with questions, and if one adds to that the procedure which has now been initiated of taking up questions at ten o'clock it seems to me the proposal offers a reasonable way of saving some time. Then, too, there is the useful proposal that I put forward last year that there may be agreement of the house to sit beyond the normal time for adjournment, if that should be necessary in order to complete business currently under consideration by the house or by committee of the whole.
Another way in which I think we could improve our procedures and the effectiveness of our discussions would be to ensure that when questions of privilege are raised, unless they are questions of privilege which arise out of debate-because if that happens any member must have the right at any time to get up-they should be shown to the Speaker in advance and discussed with him. We might then save time by avoiding the introduction of questions of privilege which are later ruled by you not to be questions of privilege at all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the report itself. Paragraph 6 of the report reads:
At the same time, your committee recognizes that the implementation of the recommendations-
I hope a good many of these recommendations will be implemented.
-would involve important changes in existing procedures-
Procedure Committee Report
The committee asks us not to be afraid of these recommendations because they may seem to be radical. I do not consider them to be radical at all, Mr. Speaker. There are some of them which I do not believe it would be wise to adopt because they might not accomplish the purposes which the committee had in mind. I certainly do not consider any of them to be radical.
-your committee recognizes that the implementation of the recommendations would involve important changes in existing procedures, and an extensive reorganization of the work and the establishment of the committees and private legislation branch which would need to be dealt with separately.
In dealing with this matter when he spoke last December, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) had this to say as reported at page 11303 of Hansard:
-we recognize that the committee's branch of the House of Commons must become the subject matter of a thorough investigation to make sure first of all that they are able to cope with the provision of rooms, staff, and all the other facilities these committees will need.
Then, he went on to say this:
There is the matter of reporters in both English and French, the question of simultaneous translation and all the other facilities these committees will require.
Finally, he said this, and this was very much in our minds after the discussion of recent days:
There is also the problem of having the committee proceedings printed and available to members. Therefore it seems to me we have to recognize that there are physical limitations.
There is the problem, Mr. Speaker, of having the proceedings available to members now simultaneously or as close to simultaneously as possible in both languages. If we are going to deepen and broaden the committees structure, therefore, we are going to have to make some changes which will ensure that this deepened and broadened structure operates effectively, so that it can deal with some of the problems of reporting in both languages which we have been discussing in recent days.
I feel that the section of the report on the structure of the committees system is an impressive one and the government agrees with the division of committees as outlined in this section as one which might well be implemented. However, in saying that I should like to agree with what the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said a few moments ago. Paragraph 11(f) of the report proposes a standing committee on health and welfare and veterans affairs. I think it would

Procedure Committee Report be a mistake to put veterans affairs into another committee. This has been done in the past and it has been separated from the joint committee in the past. I think there should be a separate committee for veterans affairs. I would agree with him on that proposal.
Then, paragraph 12(e) of the report proposes a standing committee on delegated legislation. I am doubtful, myself, about the wisdom of setting up at this time a standing committee on delegated legislation, which is referred to as a watchdog committee. It may be that this eventually will be required. However, I point out that there is an inquiry going on now, a government inquiry, into federal administrative tribunals, and the powers given those tribunals by statute. There is an inquiry going on now into the desirability of setting up what is called an ombudsman. I hope that before any action is taken on a standing committee on delegated legislation there would be an opportunity to report on these inquiries. It is for this reason I feel perhaps this particular recommendation is a little premature.
There is a section in the report on the size of committees. I think these recommendations are good and I hope they will be adopted, except perhaps for the standing committee on agriculture. I doubt whether that committee should be restricted to 30 members, in view of the nature of the problems before it. I think perhaps that should be looked at again.
There is also the question of membership of committees. All I have to say about that is to express some mild reservations about the desirability of the recommendation in paragraph 17 which excludes the leader of the opposition, the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip from serving on committees. I wonder if that exclusion, if it is to be made at all, should be restricted to the leader and whip of one opposition party and not to all opposition parties, or if there should be any such exclusion of that kind.
So far as the section dealing with the chairmen of committees is concerned, I have some hesitation about the appointment and formation of a chairman's panel which is referred to in paragraph 20. I do not feel very strongly about it, but I am just wondering whether this might not be the introduction of a piece of machinery which would not accomplish the purposes the committee have in mind. I think I should like to have another look at it.


Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also a section dealing with the appointment of committees. I note in that section that committees should have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to report from time to time, to adjourn from place to place within Canada, to appoint subcommittees, etc. and to sit during the adjournment of the house or sit while the house is sitting. I can see some possible difficulties if committees are given these powers automatically to move around Canada at will. I would think perhaps that section should be looked at again.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to the very important section dealing with the meetings of committees which makes the imaginative, and at first sight to me, attractive proposal that we should sit for three weeks and have two weeks off. Perhaps that is not the right way to put it. Perhaps a better way of expression it would be to say that we should sit for three weeks and have committees in the intervening period for one week which would give members their chance to be in their constituencies one week out of four.


Mr. Knowles:: One week out of five.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, one week out of five. I have a feeling that this proposal is a little too rigid, too inflexible for the proper discharge of parliamentary business. I believe, perhaps more than I did two years ago, in the desirability of getting out of this place occasionally. I would hope we would be able to build up a convention or parliamentary constitution by which we must have our Easter recess and we must have our summer recess. To lay it down as a rule that we should go on for three weeks in the house and then adjourn, so far as the house is concerned, for two weeks, may very well prove to have results which those who made the recommendation may not have contemplated. You may be within one day of the end of your three week period and you may come to the last section, the title, of the Canada pension bill. You may have only one day. You might spend all one day discussing whether the evidence had been printed in both languages in the right way. Then at the end of that day you go away for two weeks and come back again to the bill. When you did come back, with the second wind you get when you go back to your constituencies, you might start all over again debating the definition clause for another three weeks, and then off you go again for two more weeks.


Gerald William Baldwin: You might find a new bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, you might find another bill. So I hope that this idea of periodic breaks, which I think is a good one, would not be in a form which would be quite as rigid and inflexible as it is in this recommendation.
I have the feeling, although perhaps I am a little too pessimistic about this, that it might be somewhat difficult to get members of committees to work in Ottawa when the other members were not here.
We now come to the section dealing with procedure on estimates. In my view I think this is the most important and valuable part of the report. I hope it will commend itself to the house and that it will be put into effect quickly. If, however, the standing committees dealing with estimates, which I understand would be chosen by the opposition members of the house, are to feel they are doing a meaningful job-and this must apply to all committees-then surely there must be the feeling that the discussion they have in committee will not be repeated in the committee of the whole in the house. I can think of nothing more frustrating or discouraging to committee members than to have their work repeated in the house, in some cases almost word for word, in the discussion. That is why I think paragraph 29 is a very important part indeed of the report. It says:
Your committee recommends that not more than 20 days be set aside for debating the main estimates in committee of supply. On such days it should be the right of the opposition to select the departments for discussion.
These are the main recommendations of the report, Mr. Speaker, and the ones which I consider to be the most important in my judgment are the ones which I feel should be adopted as quickly as possible.
In paragraph 30 the committee recognizes that the procedural changes suggested would require further study by the committee in order to be transformed into standing orders. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, in the hope that it will commend itself to the house, that the committee might meet again and consider concentrating on the preparation of draft standing orders on those points on which there seems to be general agreement. I believe it would be particularly helpful to the work of this house to have the new structure of committees which is suggested in the report implemented, with one or two slight amendments which I have ventured to suggest; and that a definite provision be made in the standing orders for the reference of estimates to appropriate committees. The government, I might say, would certainly welcome such a
Procedure Committee Report standing order, particularly if it was combined with the suggestion in paragraph 29 that no more than 20 days be set aside for debating the main estimates in committee of supply, with the right of the opposition to select the departments for discussion.
It seems to me that these two changes combine to represent a very important improvement in our procedures, and a substantial saving of the time of the house. If such a standing order could be drafted before the end of this session the house might be prepared to accept it on an experimental basis for the next session of parliament. Then in the light of the experience of the next session we could see what further changes, if any, were required to it. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of procedure will commend itself to the house.
Perhaps I may conclude my remarks by once again thanking the members of the subcommittee, the members of the committee and yourself and especially the chairman of the subcommittee for the very important, valuable work which they have done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should just like to ask the Prime Minister a question, if I may. Is it fair to assume that, though he did not like the rigidity of the terms which were set out regarding the house adjourning for certain periods of time for committees to meet, he would not be opposed to the principle of there being times when committees might sit when the house itself was not sitting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I am not opposed to that in principle, Mr. Speaker. I have the worry I have already expressed, that in the implementation of this principle it might introduce an element of rigidity into our common business. If you had a cut-off date laid down by rule you would have to suspend whatever work you were doing when you reached that date, and I do not think that would be wise. I am also worried about the committees being compulsorily put to work when the House of Commons is not working. There will be times when that must be done, I think, but I wonder whether it would be wise to write that kind of thing into the rules, rules which are not easy to change.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it not correct that the committee's report recommended that this procedure take place only while the estimates are being considered; that it is not a procedure which would be in effect through the entire sitting year of the session?

Procedure Committee Report


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not draw that interpretation from the recommendations. Perhaps the chairman would be able to explain that point.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a question. Has the Prime Minister any ideas about the disposal of committee reports, and what would be the attitude of the government to make sure that reports of all committees were at least handled by the house at some time, either dismissing them or recommending action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly give the assurance-and I do not think the hon. member could either, if he were over here-that all committee reports, all reports on private bills and all kinds of committee reports could appear before the house. I cannot give that assurance, but that would invariably be the case.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My next question is: Has the Prime Minister any ideas on ways in which the government or the house could suggest a formula to the house on how committee reports could be dealt with so that we are not left with the sort of vagueness, and many times the death, of committee reports if the government or the house leader does not choose to act upon them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What do you do with a vague committee report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I have enough specific knowledge to make any useful contribution to that particular question. Is that not something which could be discussed by the committee on procedure? I know what my hon. friend is worried about. He thinks reports can be locked up, and locked up indefinitely, and he wants to avoid that. Perhaps that is something which the committee itself should consider.


Mr. Olson:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he implied or intended to suggest that there should be an amendment to the motion to send the report back to the committee with instructions. By the way, I welcome that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think any such motion is required. This report is before us. It is on the order paper. As I understand it, though I am subject to correction, the committee can meet again and produce another report. That report can be called and the next report can be based on the discussion which we have had of this report, without amending or disposing of this report at the present time in any way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Except that it would require the unanimous consent of the house to suspend it from day to day till the end of the session.


George James McIlraith: No, it would not.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure that most, if not all, members of this house not only welcome the report which we are discussing but will also endorse the interest expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the task of implementing the recommendations in the report. I do not believe there are any members of this house who do not feel that parliament is the central pivot of a democracy, whatever may be its deficiency. I assume there are no members of this house who are not anxious to see implemented changes in our rules and procedures, in order that parliament may be more effective in its service to the public and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona wishes to speak on a point of order.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that it is your custom to recognize one member from each party, and then repeat the process. However, I noticed that Your Honour went down the list and recognized two Liberal members in succession, but the second was the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and I did not object. The floor was then yielded to hon. members who wished to ask questions and I thought Your Honour was about to recognize me in the regular order. However Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), but I thought you did so in order to allow him to ask a question. Would Your Honour be good enough to straighten us out in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that I took the precaution of making a survey of hon. members who wished to speak, as well as one can under the circumstances. I asked two hon. members on my list, who are Conservative members, whether they wished to speak. One of those members is not here tonight and he was the next on my list. The other, who is a senior member, did not decide to take the opportunity of speaking. The hon. member for Greenwood sent his name in to me some time ago. It is a little difficult to be exact in this type of debate, but I try to be as fair as possible. I am counting on the

hon. member lor Greenwood to be reasonably brief, if I can follow past experience, and I have every hope in the world that following that hon. member an opportunity to speak will be afforded the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I think I am the senior member of this party to whom you referred. I decided not to speak at this time, but had 1 known the Prime Minister was going to speak, and had I been aware of some of the things he was going to say, I certainly would have taken the opportunity of participating. I will have to reserve my right to do so later.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member please go ahead because we have exactly 25 minutes left for this debate and it is an important debate?


Donald MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the snake pit is acting up again. On the point of order, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to another occasion when I raised a similar point of order at which time you, sir, informed me that there was no such thing as a list. Tonight you have referred to such a list, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression, which 1 think is correct, that there is no official list. Being just an ordinary human being it is of assistance to me to have a sheet of paper before me on which to place the names of members in sequence who wish to speak. This information is for my own benefit in order that I may give some direction to this house.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, exactly on that point, when I referred to that piece of paper on another occasion I was told by the Chair that it did not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Greenwood continue?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to follow your suggestion that I speak briefly, so the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona will have an opportunity to speak this evening. I was suggesting that I did not believe there are any members of this house who are not concerned with making this house more effective in its service to the public.
Procedure Committee Report This committee report and its implementation at an early date will make a very great contribution to the effective functioning of the house.
I am a relatively new member here and, though I cannot claim to be one of the younger members, I have been filled from time to time with a feeling of impatience and frustration at what seemed to me to be the slow pace of reform in debate. I believe there is a tremendous reservoir of talent and ability in this house that is not adequately employed in the whole process of parliament. The effective functioning of a committee system such as is envisaged in this report will add tremendously to the contribution which all members of this house, and certainly private members, can in effect make to the functioning of parliament.
I should like to call attention to some of the recommendations in this report which I think will be of assistance in this field. There is for example a recommendation that there be established a standing committee on the subject of citizenship, immigration and legal affairs. For a long time we have heard promises by various ministers in respect of changes in the law regarding immigration. We have heard many criticisms about the administration of that particular department, and no doubt this is difficult; but I believe that the development through a committees system, of a group of experts made up of members of all parties would assist the attainment of effective, efficient legislation, and in a quicker manner. A committees system in that field could review the regulations which are passed, and which are even more important than the law itself. I believe this could assist the government in carrying on in that particular field.
There is also reference in this recommendation to the fact that this committee would consider legal affairs. We have a situation in this house in which private members often present good ideas in the form of private members bills. My colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) has put forward a proposal to amend the criminal law in regard to birth control. I have put forward a proposal in regard to a change in the ancient laws regarding criminal insanity. If we had a committee which could review those proposals, sifting out the bad ones, I believe we could receive excellent recommendations for reform in various fields which would, in turn, make parliament infinitely more effective.

Procedure Committee Report
There is another recommendation in this report that we amalgamate the committees on external affairs and defence. I suggest this is long overdue because these are two phases of a similar problem. I believe that the effective functioning of a committee on external affairs and defence could aid in the dissemination of expertise amongst the members of this house in these important fields, enabling us to have effective discussions and criticisms.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) was one of those who suggested that the government did not adopt any of these recommendations of the committee on defence. I do not know that we could accept reports immediately and adopt them, but I am convinced that if we had a group in this house made up of members of all parties, attached to committees where they could make the greatest contribution, this group would become expert in this field and would be able to transfer their expertise into higher level discussions in this house in respect of practical legislation. One could go on with the whole series of suggestions in this report.
I was very pleased when I first became a member of the House of Commons to be informed that I was a member of the committee on external affairs, because I was very interested in this subject. However, that committee did not meet during my first session of parliament. It did not meet during my second session here, until after the house had been sitting for six months. This is a matter of vital importance to which we should apply all expertise available. The committees system suggested by this report would make it unnecessary for us to have so many royal commissions and inquiries before which outside experts are called. Under this suggested committees system we could call all these experts and receive their opinions and advice.
One committee is not mentioned in this report-perhaps it could be a special committee-which I think is of the utmost importance, and that is a committee which would review the whole subject of constitutional change. This is a difficult and technical subject, but one in respect of which there are experts, and one about which the members of this house should not be asked to accept proposals which have not been subjected to thorough scrutiny by representatives of all parties in the house. They should not be asked to deal with these subjects until

we have had the advantage of having parliament as a focus for intelligent discussion of these problems that are facing the people of Canada.
I said I would try to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to be brief merely by saying that I earnestly hope that the words we have uttered today in commendation of this report will result in effective action to implement the report. We will not be deterred by-I was about to use the word "conservatism" but that would be a bad word to use-undue traditionalism that is unwilling to accept something new and different. The report has been described by somebody as a radical report. It is not radical in the least. It is a report that suggests practical and worthwhile changes to make our work more effective. I most earnestly express the hope that not only will we adopt this report in the house, but that through the committee or through the leadership of the government-
I was very happy to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) express his interest in this matter-we will move to carry out the report and move on from there at an accelerated pace with regard to the whole subject of the reform of our procedures.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because time will not wait. We live in an age when we have to move fast. Every member of the house believes in parliament, but we will not find other people believing in parliament unless we are prepared to adopt new approaches, to move quickly, vigorously and purposefully toward more effective operation. This committee has made certain practical suggestions in that regard. We may not approve of every detail, but let us not only say to the committee that we accept their report but also say to them: Let us get on in the quickest possible way to implement what is in the report.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was as brief as he said he would be, because I want to make a few remarks tonight, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) took part in the debate. In considering the report of the committee in a general way I think it is most important that we keep a sense of perspective. As someone said, these individual reforms can be brought in one at a time and may be debated at that time, but what I should like to do is to discuss the general need for such recommendations, what the committee was asked to do and what effect

these recommendations would have on parliament in the light of today's situation and parliament's difficulties, and so on.
The first thing that I think should be noticed is that throughout the country generally people are saying: What is wrong with parliament? Parliament's reputation has gone down. I think most of us are very concerned that people generally feel that something is very amiss with parliament. On the basis of the few years of experience I have had in the house I want to make the statement that I do not think there is anything very fundamentally wrong with parliament and its rules. I believe there is nothing substantially wrong with parliament that cannot be corrected by a change of government. That is the first and principal trouble with parliament today.
Certainly the way the government conducts its business and acts toward parliament has a great influence on the efficiency with which parliament can discharge its duties. I say now that the rules of parliament and our procedures are not too bad at all. What is wrong is the failure to use those procedures properly. It is the abuse of the rules and the abuse of the responsibility and power enjoyed by the government that have brought parliament into disrepute.
I do not think anybody will argue seriously that the leadership given by the government in the house does not have a substantial effect on how much work parliament can do. Anybody who looks at the record of leadership of the present government and says that we have been wasting time will find his answer just by looking at the Liberal record. It does not do us any good to start talking about committees and how much work they can do, if we do not keep in mind just what the faults are, how serious they are and how much of the difficulty has been caused by the failure of the rules to make adequate provision. No matter how well those rules permit the house to be governed, I say that when a government brings in a piece of legislation which has not been properly planned, does not present it properly, brings it in in the wrong way, and then has to withdraw it after a few days debate and reintroduce it in a different form, it is no wonder that parliament cannot get things done.
I suggest that members opposite, and the government, take a look at just how many times that sort of thing was done last year. How much of our time was spent in trying to get the government to do things properly? I remember what happened a year ago in connection with the moving of five branches
Procedure Committee Report from agriculture to forestry by order in council. A few weeks later the order in council was cancelled. We could not even get information about what was going on and these branches did not know where they were at. The house wasted, if you want to call it that, weeks and weeks trying to get information out of the government, trying to find out from the government where the matter stood, trying to get the government to tell us what they were doing. I suggest it is this sort of thing that is wrong with parliament today. I suggest that if the government would stop doing what it did with the pension plan, bringing it in, withdrawing it and changing it every time we found something wrong with it, parliament would stop wasting time.
I do not think anybody is very happy that we are setting a world's record for the length of a parliamentary session, but I do resent the implication in the committee report that there is something fundamentally wrong with parliament. I say that parliament and its rules are a pretty good vehicle, but like any other vehicle it only operates properly if you have a driver behind the wheel. This government is supposed to be the operator of the vehicle of parliament. I think that nothing is more harmful to the house and does more harm to the Canadian people generally than the Liberal habit of making parliament the whipping boy for every mistake and blunder that the government makes. I would go a little further than simply saying that the problem is just lack of planning and leadership. There is also the question of the attitude that the government shows toward the house which is going to be reflected in the members to a certain extent and thus throughout the country. I suggest it is much more important that the people have confidence in our democratic institutions than in one particular party or one particular government. I suggest that this government is doing its best to make sure that our institutions are ruined, not that their reputation should be redeemed.
The contempt shown by the Prime Minister and ministers generally toward the house is responsible for the feeling of the people today that something is wrong with parliament. The refusal of cabinet ministers to give information to the house is what makes the house operate in a rather awkward and unwieldy fashion. I admit there is a further complication in the working of parliament these days. I do not think anyone imagined that we would have to put up with five parties instead of just two. I am sure we are all very much

Procedure Committee Report aware that parliament would work better if we had only two parties. However, in view of the presence of the smaller parties I suggest that there could be some streamlining of the procedures of the house, particularly from the point of view of bringing about a change whereby all parties would not have to make statements on motions every day. This might save a little time.
The multiplicity of parties makes the question period last longer because each party has a particular line to pursue. I suggest that all of these factors must be taken into consideration before we start making fundamental changes in the rules.
This committee suggests that some of its recommendations might seem radical, and I agree with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) who said that radical changes in the house are not to be rushed into and undertaken lightly. When I spoke of perspective, this is exactly what I was referring to because I think everybody has rushed to welcome the recommendations as though they were the best thing possible.
During his remarks the Prime Minister said there is a tendency today toward seeking short cut, totalitarian solutions to problems. I suggest he was guilty of doing exactly that, which of course fits in with the entire course of conduct and policy of his government. It fits the Liberal pattern of blaming everything on parliament rather than on government.
I suggest that we all take a good close look at these recommended changes. I am not being facetious when I suggest that it is not in the stiffness in the rules that the problem lies but in the way the rules are applied. The difficulties which we experience in committees now could be overcome without any substantial change in the rules.
One of the recommendations is that a panel of committee chairmen be established, but we do not need to have a change in the rules to get that done. It would seem to me to be a matter of common sense, but I have never seen any indication that committee chairmen co-operate with one another in any respect.
I can remember one morning when I was supposed to be attending three committees, all of which were sitting at the same time. That is just ridiculous. I have known the banking and commerce and the foreign affairs committees to meet simultaneously for three straight months. I was supposed to be a member of both and interested in both, but it was impossible to attend both on that basis. Is a change in rules required to set up such a panel of chairmen? Is there

anything to stop the Prime Minister from establishing it?
If the government, which really has the responsibility to make the house work properly, wanted to do it, all that is required is to call the chairmen of committees together either through the house leaders or party whips.
The Prime Minister made a special comment on one part of the committee's report dealing with limitation of time on estimates, and said he thought it would be very nice to have such an arrangement. Then he went further and suggested time should be allocated to each item as it arose. Experience with this government has led me to the conclusion that any time we make an agreement with it for a time limit on anything, we make a dreadful blunder. From that moment on any chance of getting information or co-operation vanishes. This happens when you are dealing with a government that makes it a practice to show its contempt for parliament, which does everything it can to ruin this institution. When we have a government like that then the only weapon we have is in debate, to keep on talking, if necessary to hold up supply, and we have a duty to the house and the country not to give up that weapon.
I for one would like to see a lot less time taken on estimates, but you have only to take a look at last year's debates to see why it took so long to pass some of them. Some of the ministers just would not give us any information. I refer again to that agricultural matter. I know I was up on my feet for weeks every time I got a chance, and when you have to hound and hound for weeks and weeks to get a little bit of information then passage of estimates is going to take a long time.
The Prime Minister suggests that we should limit the time spent on estimates, but I suggest a responsible prime minister should say, "We will co-operate with parliament, for a change." I am not in favour of limiting the time for estimates, and with this government in office I am not in favour of allocating set times for certain procedures. With a responsible government in power, if one could rely on the word of the prime minister, and on the word of the house leader to do exactly what they said, if one could rely on the various cabinet ministers to show some cooperation, then there is no reason why allocation of time could not be worked out; but I do not want to see that put in the rules. It might be possible with a responsible and

reasonable government, but if we change the rules now in that respect we would not have any hold on that bunch over there.
These are some of the points which cause me to approach this suggestion of rule changes very slowly and carefully. After watching this house for seven years I am convinced, as I said at the outset, that there is nothing substantially wrong with our
Procedure Committee Report rules, but just in the way we use them. There is nothing much wrong with our procedures, it is just the abuse of them; and there is nothing much wrong with parliament today that cannot be cured, and cured fast, by getting rid of this government.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 19, 1965