1965-03-19

Mr, Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the presence in the gallery of 36 students of the Canadian studies division of the University of Vermont, an institution of which the Prime Minister is soon to become an alumnus. It is often said that while Canadians are malevolently well informed about the United States, Americans are benevolently ill informed about Canada. Whether this is so or not, I am sure we all appreciate the presence of these young people and congratulate the University of Vermont on establishing a comprehensive program of studies of Canada and its political and social institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I want to deal very briefly with a statement made last night by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) When speaking about subjects discussed in [DOT]committees the hon. member said this:
Well, there was an inquiry into the tobacco industry. What was its purpose? Purely to Bet two or three Liberal members who represent tobacco Browing areas off the hook-to do a little propaganda work on behalf of the government-


Mr. Slarr:: Isn't that right?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Wally Nesbitt will say it is right or not. This was a very unjust statement, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to point out that it was only possible to deal with the motion on tobacco in committee by it not being talked out in the debate during private members' hour. So if the hon. member for Acadia had felt so keenly about not having us talk about tobacco, a multimillion dollar business, and having this subject brought before the committee, he and his associates could have talked out the motion in the private members' hour.


Michael Starr: What is your question of
privilege?



MR. NIELSEN-REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE DORION COMMISSION

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting, I believe, the institution of parliament and certainly all hon. members of this house. I rise to bring this matter to the attention of Your Honour, and to the attention of the government and the Prime Minister as the guardian of the rights of parliament itself and of the individual members thereof.
I want to say immediately in connection with the proceedings of the Dorion inquiry established by parliament that I am still of the same view that I expressed on November 25 and which appears in Hansard for that date, namely that I would be willing to assist the inquiry in any way I could. However, I believe that proprieties must be observed and that the rights of parliament and the members thereof must be preserved.
As far as I am aware from my research, no Canadian precedent can be found relating to the matter that I now raise. I have received by way of my solicitor, Mr. R. A. Bell, Q.C. of this city, a letter which I will read to the house. The letter is signed by Andre Desjardins, commission counsel of the special public inquiry, 1964. It is dated March 17, 1965 and is as follows:
Dear Sir:
As mentioned in our phone conversation of the 17 of March, I would like Mr. Erik Nielsen to appear before the commission next Tuesday, March the 23rd. It appears in the reports of the House of Commons Debates that Mr. Nielsen has stated that he has further information about the things that we are dealing with at the inquiry and that he would be willing to appear before the commission.
I take it, Mr. Speaker, that reference is to the debates of November 23.
I would like to question him on this subject, and I also understand that other counsels may wish to question him on an interview with Mr. Pierre Lamontagne a few days before November 23.
I remain,
Yours truly,
Andr6 Desjardins
Commission counsel
12S56

Question of Privilege
This, Mr. Speaker, is the first official intimation I have had that it is the intention of counsel to request that I appear before the commission. I do not wait for the issuance of an official subpoena because I do not wish to appear in the least reluctant to assist the commission in any way I can. But I do believe that the receipt of this letter, coming as it does from the official commission counsel, is sufficient upon which to base the privilege which I place now before the house.
I draw to Your Honour's attention a rule which I do not intend to more than refer to in passing, namely standing order 5. Further, in Beauchesne is found reference to the law of parliament which, as I see it, stipulates that no member is at liberty to give evidence elsewhere in relation to any debates or proceedings in parliament except by leave of the house of which he is a member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I have no doubt, sir, that all members would willingly grant that consent. That will be developed, but I think the matter goes deeper than that. I believe the government must consider the introduction of a formal motion in order to give me that authorization to appear and discuss matters which have been raised in this house.
In respect of that statement of my understanding of the law of parliament, sir, I should like Your Honour to refer to the report of the United Kingdom select committee quoted in Beauchesne's fourth edition at pages 417 and 423. I should also like to refer Your Honour to May's fifteenth edition at page 121 and the case therein cited. I believe this ruling also applies to officers of the house, and in that connection it is my understanding that one of the officers of the house, the present Clerk, has had an experience in that regard.
May's fifteenth edition at page 121 sets out the following:
Members of both houses are, by the law and custom of parliament, exempted from attendance as witnesses during the session of parliament, and from service as jurors at all times by the Juries Act. 1870 (see p. 77).
But, according to present usage, the service of a subpoena on a member during the session of parliament, unless effected within the precincts of the house, sedente domo (see p. 77) would not, as a general rule, be regarded as a breach of privilege.
The reference in Beauchesne to which I referred Your Honour includes the following statement at page 423, in paragraph 11:
By the law of parliament "no member is at liberty to give evidence elsewhere in relation to any

debates or proceedings in parliament, except by the leave of the house of which he is a member": and no clerk or officer of the house or shorthand writer employed to take minutes of evidence before the house or any committee thereof may give evidence elsewhere in respect of any proceedings or examination had at the bar or before any committee of the house without the special leave of the house.
It is to that reference that I draw Your Honour's attention.
The Dorion commission, or one of its officers by the authority of the commission, sir, has already directed members of the house to appear and testify before it. Two members of the house have in fact appeared before the commission and have testified. I may be incorrect in stating this, sir, but I believe that neither the permission of Your Honour nor any special leave of the house in accordance with the rules was granted to either of those members who did in fact appear before the commission. One of them is a minister of the crown. The directions or requests to the members of the house to appear before the commission were not and have not been communicated, to my knowledge, to Your Honour. While the rules may have been overlooked in that regard, I believe that is still a breach of what I believe to be parliamentary law. The members who appeared and testified did so without first having obtained the consent of the house so to do, which is also contrary to parliamentary law.
I understand also, sir, that the list of witnesses which has been published in the press is an indication of an intention to again call one minister of the crown and the Minister of Justice before the inquiry. I believe in reply to a question put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister indicated that he too would be willing to appear before the inquiry if a subpoena were issued to him.
I believe, sir, that the question I raised is one which should be given serious consideration by the house. It is my understanding after reading the precedents that a substantive motion should be introduced granting special leave to any member of the house to attend this or any other judicial proceeding while parliament is in session.
I raise the matter now, at the first indication I have had from the commission that it is intended to request that I testify before it. The week end is coming up. The Prime Minister and his government will have an opportunity to consider the question of privilege involved, and it would be my suggestion to

him that a substantive motion be introduced by the government authorizing me to attend before the commission.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Members opposite view this matter lightly but I submit to you, sir, that it is serious. I want to do things in a proper manner and in accordance with the rules, and I am sure that members will appreciate the proprieties involved here. It will not take much effort to prepare a motion to which I am sure all hon. members would agree, authorizing me to appear and giving me that special leave referred to in the rules to discuss matters which have been raised in the house.
I put this question before you, sir. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to introduce such a motion. It may well be that other procedures are available, but my own research of the rules does not indicate this to be so.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, of course, that the hon. member is free to attend and give evidence if he wishes, and that he requires no authority from the house to do so. The liberty of a member referred to here has to do with his liberty to give evidence in relation to the debates and proceedings of parliament. Since this citation was developed, a system has been instituted, of course, of recording the debates of parliament and taking judicial notice of Votes and Proceedings and the actions of parliament. From the letter that was read, I am quite sure the hon. member is not being called to testify about proceedings in parliament. I think the reading of the letter made that quite clear.


Michael Starr: Let us have a better reason than that.


George James McIlraith: There is nothing put forward in the hon. member's statement that would indicate that he is being called as a member of parliament to give evidence as to proceedings that have taken place in the house. I just want to draw that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, before you deal with this matter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the President of the Privy Council has overlooked the middle paragraph of the letter I read to the house, which states as follows:
It appears in the reports of the House of Commons debates that Mr. Nielsen has stated that he has further information about the things that we are dealing with at the inquiry and that he would be willing to appear before the commission.
I raise this question seriously, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated that I am quite wil-
Question of Privilege
ling and not at all reluctant-I said so in the house and I say so again-to appear before the commission; but from my research of the rules I think the privileges of the house and the institution of parliament require a certain procedure to be taken. If my understanding of the rules is correct, and if I am asked questions at the inquiry relating to the debates in the house, which is indicated quite clearly in the letter to be the intention of commission counsel, I would feel constrained to say "I am sorry, I have not got the specia) leave which is required by our rules to discuss these matters with you".
I am willing to appear. I am not reluctant in any way. All I ask is that the appropriate motion be introduced to give me the special leave that the rules require me to obtain before I do appear.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understood the letter the first time exactly as it was requoted the second time, and I point out that it is made clear by counsel that what he is concerned about is further information the hon. member may have beyond that which he gave in the house.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think all the hon. gentleman has to do is to get up now and ask for leave to appear before the commission.


Erik Nielsen: If that is the interpretation of the rules, that this house can give me unanimous consent, I do so immediately-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: -but I suggest to you, sir, and I suggest to the Prime Minister, that there is something deeper involved here with respect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: -with respect to the rules of the house. As I read the rules a substantive motion must be introduced and, in this way, leave of the house given-


Some hon. Members:: You have got it.


Erik Nielsen: -in that motion. It is no good for members to say "You have got it". I suggest, sir, that is the proper course for the government to follow. If the government does not take its responsibilities in this regard, and if no member is going to contradict my understanding of the rules in a substantive way, then it would be my intention next Monday to move such a motion, because I think it is necessary.

Question of Privilege


Mr. Reid Scroll (Danforlh):: I wonder if I could ask Your Honour whether it would be in order for a member at this time to move a motion granting permission to the hon. member for Yukon, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General to appear before the Dorion commission and give such evidence as they think would be useful. The hon. member for Greenwood has drafted such a motion, and I would be prepared to second such a motion if it were moved.


Mr. Speaker:: Anything dealing with the rights and privileges of members is of great importance, certainly in my estimation and I believe in the estimation of all members. It is the duty of the Chair also to make sure that these rights and privileges are fully protected. I do believe, in view of its importance,
I should take the matter into consideration over the week end. It may be that the proper procedure is as indicated, but I think this step should be carefully checked before Monday. Then I can perhaps suggest or communicate with members as to the correct procedure. In principle it seems to me the matter is important.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: In order for Your Honour to be able to consider the matter, I should like to put before the house for your consideration a formal motion that this house give special leave to the hon. member for Yukon, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Postmaster General and any other member who is invited to attend before the Dorion commission to do so, and to refer to any matter that has been in debate in this house.


Mr. Scott:: I should like to second that.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to be the seconder of that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I could have that motion. If there is unanimous consent I do not believe we need to waste much time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by the hon. member for Greenwood and seconded by the hon. member for Yukon-


An hon. Member:: It is in good French.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the house it is not in French but is in hard to read English.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: The motion must be put first.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by the hon. member for Greenwood-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The only basis upon which this motion could be introduced at this point or put to the house would be a decision by Your Honour that this raised an immediate question of privilege. Otherwise there is no basis for putting the motion before the house. I think it is quite improper at this stage to establish on very shaky precedents the necessity of this particular motion.
I suggest the hon. member for Yukon is correct in stating that the authorities say that a member cannot appear before such an inquiry without special leave, provided the hon. member is to be questioned about the proceedings and debates of the house. But I do not think it has been established that he will be questioned about the regularity of our proceedings or the nature of the debate in this house. He will be questioned, no doubt, about matters which have been discussed within this house, but they will be matters within his own knowledge and, I would suggest, matters relating to an interview he had which is not part of our proceedings or debates. So I submit that in the circumstances it is not clear that leave is required.
It is for these reasons that I suggest Your Honour's ruling should be made after some consideration, because an important precedent might be involved. If it is ultimately established by yourself that the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon is valid-and I do not believe it is-then the next step would be to establish how leave is granted, whether a special resolution of the house is required. Ministers of the crown regularly ask for leave to do certain things in this house. For example, there are certain documents which are tabled under the standing orders or by statute. Before any other documents can be tabled the leave of the house is required. How do we seek leave? We do so simply by getting up and saying "May I have leave to table these documents". The house grants leave, and it could do so in precisely the same way to the hon. member for Yukon, I submit, without the necessity of a resolution in a formal way.
My purpose in rising now is to suggest that a ruling on this matter should be held over until Monday so that the important procedural questions involved can be considered on their merits. If, following your studies, it is necessary to have a resolution, then the

Canada Council
house will be ready to deal with the resolu-	PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
tion and possibly, when it comes before us,
we will be able to amend it in appropriate Fourth report of standing committee on ways.	privileges and elections-Mr. Moreau.


Mr. Speaker:: I am much impressed by the remarks of the Minister of Labour, and due also in part to the difficulty of translation, about which hon. members may have heard, I do propose to take this matter into consideration over the week end so that we may establish, I hope once for all, the proper procedure.


Mr. Byrne:: In the course of your proposed consideration of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would include members of the New Democratic party who may be asked to appear before the Nemetz commission now sitting in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: May I
make a brief intervention on the point of order raised by the Minister of Labour. It is this, and I ask Your Honour to take it into consideration when you are reviewing this question. While it may be that some of the matters with respect to which the hon. member for Yukon will be questioned may be matters dealing with subjects outside this house, nevertheless the letter which my hon. friend read into the record is a plain indication that it will be the intention of the commission counsel to examine him as to what he said when he was in this house, and to that extent the Hansard record with respect to the statements he made will, I am sure, be the subject of considerable discussion and questioning when the commission resumes its proceedings. The hon. member for Yukon is called to be a witness before the commission and may well be subjected to questioning as to what he said in the house. I suggest this is an important factor for Your Honour to take into consideration.


Mr. Greene:: On the same point of order I would bring to the attention of the Chair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair is sufficiently advised to reach a logical and, I hope, correct decision on Monday, and in view of the lateness of the hour I think we should proceed with the business before the house.


John James Greene: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the remarks of the Chair. Surely he can cooperate to that extent.



CANADA COUNCIL


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement on the financing of the Canada Council which was set up in 1957 to foster and promote in Canada the arts, humanities and the social sciences.
The council is financed by an endowment fund of $50 million. Its relationship to parliament is through the public accounts committee, which each year examines its annual report. Since 1957 there has been no significant change in the council's sources of income other than a gratifying appreciation in the value of its investments. Meanwhile, however, the needs it was established to meet have grown rapidly. The prestige and value of the council have also grown in the steps it has taken to meet these needs.
With its present income the council is restricted to affording only minimal assistance in the creation and development of new artistic resources to meet the needs of the future. In the humanities and social sciences the council has had to adopt restrictive measures, particularly in the award of scholarships and fellowships. There is clear requirement for an enlarged-not a reduced -program of assistance in this field.
For these reasons the government has decided that the council's income should be increased. We believe that the best long term method of achieving this result would be to increase the endowment fund, because it fully protects the independence of the council. We feel however, that it would be unwise to take this course under present circumstances. For one thing, the Canadian universities foundation is now making a study of the needs of universities, including their requirements in the fields of the humanities and the social sciences. This report will not be available before the end of 1965. Also there have been suggestions that the Canada Council might be divided and a new special agency created for the humanities and social sciences. This is a matter which requires the most careful consideration. A hasty decision would clearly be unwise, and even if a change were to be made it would

Canada Council
take some considerable time for it to be implemented.
These and other factors contribute to make the future needs of the council difficult to estimate. This is why the government has decided to propose a temporary measure of assistance. According to section 20 of the act the council is entitled to receive donations to be used for the general purposes set out in section 8. Accordingly we intend to include in the final supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year an unconditional grant of $10 million which will enable the Canada Council to meet its minimum foreseeable requirements during the next few years. We know this money will be well spent and will serve to promote the arts, the humanities and the social sciences at a time when it has become imperative to foster Canada's development in these fields and thus strengthen the identity and the unity of our country as we approach our centennial.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: While no notice was given in advance that this matter would be raised, this is one occasion when I think there will be general agreement with the course of action suggested.
I realize the difficulties under which the Canada Council operates. With the money it has had available it has done a great deal to advance the arts, the social sciences and the humanities. Just how serious is the question of higher education is shown by a telegram which I received shortly before I came into the house. It sets out the attitude of mind on the part of the student bodies of the universities in the maritime provinces, which is a matter of great concern in other parts of Canada. I will read only the portions of the telegram that set out the material matters I have in mind:
Concerning the unnecessary increase in university fees, announced Tuesday, March 16, 1965, by the association of Atlantic universities, the student union of Mount Allison University deplores this untimely action, especially when the report of the Bladen commission on higher education and the results of the Canadian student means survey have not yet been released...
The students of this university are prepared to exact every pressure possible. Presently Mount Allison has the highest undergraduate tuition fees in the maritime area, a situation which we feel is completely unjustified in light of the economic difficulties of the region. The student union of Mount Allison is taking the immediate action of calling a maritime regional conference of the Canadian union of students at this university in order that a detailed brief may be forwarded to the provincial and federal governments. Furthermore, the directors of the association of maritime students are meeting Saturday, March 20, 1965. at the University of Moncton in order that immediate action be taken.

We strongly suggest that the federal government place this grave matter on the order paper in the House of Commons for immediate consideration, as this is an urgent matter of regional and national interest. Students do not feel that they can bear the result which will definitely prove disastrous to the principles of higher education-
That is signed by William Allison Pinkney. The Prime Minister mentioned the question of the expansion of scholarships and fellowships by the Canada Council. I think that is a worthy objective. The Canada Council must have the necessary funds in order to permit the widest possible extension of the opportunities of university education. That brings me, in the most kindly way also, to ask where are the 10,000 scholarships that we heard so much about two or three years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly $10 million will not make provision for that expansive policy as promised. I think, in general, that when the supplementary estimates come up this matter can then be discussed in detail. In the meantime I have brought to the attention of the Prime Minister this telegram, which I believe represents a serious situation. After all, if our Canadian university students have to pay these increased fees, ultimately it will be this nation that will suffer if the numbers of prospective students are reduced because of inability to attend university though possessing the intellectual qualifications that would assure a greater contribution by them in the years ahead.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: We think this is a very good step, Mr. Speaker, and that the government will receive a very favourable response across the country with regard to it. I suggest to the Prime Minister that some of us may be somewhat surprised at the idea of splitting the humanities and social sciences from the Canada Council. Certainly one of the saddest things about the Canada Council and the concept that really Mr. Brooke Clax-ton had of it is that the endowment part has not really been supported in a wide way. We had the rather ironical situation with the first really substantial grant that came from private funds to the Canada Council, in that it was for certain fields of endeavour for which the Canada Council really had not considered it was responsible. That particular endowment, devoted to medicine, science and engineering in the main, in a sense expanded the scope of the Canada Council's activities beyond what had been contemplated.

I myself and some other colleagues felt that this may have been wrong; that maybe the idea should have been to establish another aspect of the Canada Council to deal with these fields and to leave the Canada Council for humanities and social sciences and support in what you might call the general arts subjects. The idea of a grant to the endowment fund would have interested us largely because of the success of the Canada Council in keeping this endowment fund in good shape and earning a rate of interest from it that would compare quite favourably with what private organizations are doing. This is one of the reasons we think further consideration of the endowment idea would be worth while.
I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance in connection with this program, because I imagine that an unconditional grant of this size coming at the end of the session is an indication that either he has relented or he has approved the project; and I would like to take it as an indicator that there is at least one member of the cabinet who is favourable to further support for universities.
With regard to the matter referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, it fits rather awkwardly into this announcement at this particular time, but I certainly feel that the point raised by the telegram from the students of Mount Allison is one that the government now has a responsibility for, in view of the fact that the government has the student loans fund in existence on such a large scale. If that student loans fund is to become in a sense the forerunner or the opening of the door for universities to run up their fees in any uncontrolled way, it really means that the students and the federal government in a sense are becoming one more and rather odd way in which universities finance themselves.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I think that few people will object to increasing the funds at the disposal of the Canada Council, even if the increase only amounts to $10 million. We know that such grants are necessary especially in the field of arts. Even with those $10 million and much more money, it would be impossible to satisfy everybody.
Although I do not have the Canada Council annual report here, I understand that several candidates complained that they could not obtain the scholarships they were entitled to while several persons thought that other candidates who did not seem to be serious candidates obtained them.
Canada Council
I take this opportunity to say how much I am in favour of the recommendation of the committee on procedure and organization requesting the establishment of a standing committee on cultural affairs so that we can, not only intervene directly in the administration of the Canada Council, but at least take a look at the guide lines, the basic principles of that agency's policy.
If I remember correctly, we were told that the Canada Council made fairly large income producing investments in order to support and assist various people who applied for scholarships. And if I am not mistaken, last year the Canada Council stated in its report that it had granted loans to various companies, including finance companies. Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was among the directors of one of those finance companies.
I suggest that the house should be able to discuss and scrutinize the reports made by the Canada Council as well as those of all other cultural bodies and should endeavour to lay down a policy which the council would have to follow, so that the interests of the Canadian people would be preserved.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we can only rejoice when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) tells us that a special amount is to be granted or given the Canada Council for the purpose of assisting the arts and the humanities. I also heard the right hon. Prime Minister talk about increasing scholarships for special studies.
In view of the fact that the Canada Council grants many scholarships for special studies in this country, I would suggest that our Canadian artists benefit more therefrom. I believe that the council has a large amount of work ahead, and it should assist to a greater extent the performing arts.
We have a great number of artists, many talented opera singers who were applauded in New York, Buenos Aires, San Francisco, at the Scala of Milan, the Vienna Opera; we also have others who belong to the Sadler's Wells Ballet, but unfortunately in Canada we still lack a professional and permanent opera company.
We have musicians who belong to symphonic orchestras in every country, but our orchestras are still lacking in that financial assistance which would allow them to prosper. We also have theatre groups which should be granted greater financial assistance, though our theatrical groups have benefited greatly since the establishment of the Canada Council.

Procedure Committee Report
I believe that the best recommendations we could make to the Canada Council would be to not only promote the training of artists but also assist in planning artistic manifestations.
It is not enough to have talents, for we can find them in the public; it is not enough to train them in Canada, they must have the opportunity to perform for the Canadian people. I think this would be the specific role of the Canada Council.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we hope that this is merely a temporary measure. But according to what the Prime Minister said, this temporary measure would become permanent before long. This is our hope also. With regard to scholarships for university students, about which some hon. members have already spoken in the house, Mr. Speaker, I think the Canada Council should be careful not to encroach on provincial autonomy in the field of education. It is recognized that education comes under the provinces. In my opinion, the Canada Council should respect the provincial autonomy in the matter of education.
At all events we hope the government will increase its assistance and grants to our artists, that it will put more money at the disposal of our artists, our classical scholars, our poets, our composers and others, so that the artistic, literary and cultural life may flourish in our country and that our people may enjoy henceforth a more active cultural life.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964-65

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1965, was presented by Hon. G. J. Mc-Ilraith (President of the Privy Council), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 18-Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Olson, seconded by Mr. Walker,- 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 George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Prime Minister would be willing on behalf of the government to permit this matter to be postponed for a moment so that we may have the question period and then return to this motion. Because it begins to

look as if the motion is going to take the rest of the day. If there were a restriction on questions to half an hour, no harm would be done and it would be helpful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we hope the motion would not take the rest of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I understood the consensus or the agreement reached yesterday, I believe the motion was to stand this morning and not be proceeded with, but of course I am in the hands of the house.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not think that understanding is shared by all members. The suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to proceed now to the orders of the day for questions, and then return to the order of motions, I think is quite fair.


Gilles Grégoire: With reference to this suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), exactly two days ago, I think, the government house leader, as well as Your Honour, asked us to suspend the debate on the question of privilege in order to proceed to the question period, which we gladly agreed to. I trust the house leader will return the courtesy we extended in allowing the Prime Minister to give an explanation which has been so helpful to him today, and that the question period as requested by the opposition will be allowed.
I think it would be a fair exchange for the courtesy we extended to him the other day.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition is dealt with perhaps I could take a moment to deal with the motion, since it may be that the suggestion will not need to be considered.
The situation yesterday was that I had understood clearly the consensus was that a full, long day would be assigned for debating this motion, and it was in accordance with that understanding that the debate was had yesterday. Near the conclusion of the debate, a speech was made by the Prime Minister in which he dealt at some length with the report. In the course of his speech, the Prime Minister made very clear that, speaking as Prime Minister, he considered the main recommendations of the report most important. In dealing with the part of those recommendations concerning committee structure and referral of estimates, he went on to say that

he felt those recommendations should be adopted as quickly as possible. Then he said that the government would certainly welcome such a standing order being formulated-* that is in connection with the point I have mentioned.
In view of the fact that the report before us is in rather wide, general language, and the committee has undoubted authority to bring in more refined or, more specific suggested standing orders, and in view of the fact that, from the impressions I gained in discussions with members of that committee- I cannot speak for them, of course-their wish now in light of yesterday's debate is to get on with the preparation of more precise recommendations arising out of the proposals contained in this report, or variations of them which were discussed in the debate yesterday, I would ask that this motion stand.
In view of the willingness and eagerness of hon. members to get on with this work, and in view of the Prime Minister's clear indication of the government's willingness not only to co-operate but, if it becomes part of government responsibility to take any action, to take such action, I hope we will be able to get on with government business today and allow this motion to stand. Technically, no doubt, there is a right to proceed with it or to allow it to stand on the order paper so that all rights will be reserved in respect of it, or to let it drop from the order paper.
I wonder if hon. members will consider this; because after all there is some government business of importance and urgency now before parliament. I think that course should commend itself to all hon. members, and I would ask those members who have asserted their right to proceed today-and that right undoubtedly exists-to let the motion stand for today, in view of what I have said and in order to permit us to have discussions with you, Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, and other committee members to see whether the committee cannot resume its work immediately. I believe that course of action would be most effective in achieving the result which I believe all hon. members desire to achieve, a thorough examination and the implementation of any improvement to our proceedings.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that some of the members of the committee agreed that we would require and perhaps be satisfied with one full day's debate on the fifteenth report which, as the President of the Privy Council has said, we did in fact have yesterday. As far 20220-795J
Procedure Committee Report as I am concerned, I believe the special committee that was set up on procedure and organization was given a specific task. That committee, after having made an inquiry, has come back to this house with certain recommendations, and it has completed its job up to a point.
I was very pleased with the speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday, as well as the speeches made by the hon. member for Peace River and other members who have contributed to this debate. However, we have not solved the procedural problem with which we are faced at this moment. Whether or not there was a general agreement among house leaders and members of the committee, we must recognize that such an agreement cannot be extended to cover what we now require, and that is unanimous consent. For that reason I feel we should consider citation 322 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which appears at page 251 and is as follows:
When the motion to concur is proposed-
This refers to a committee report.
-the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend it in any respect.
The next part of the citation I believe to be extremely important, Mr. Speaker.
It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, but if the house resolves that such reconsideration is necessary, the correct procedure is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
It is my impression that in the speech made by the Prime Minister as well as in speeches made by other members there was an indication that some reconsideration is necessary, and I am sure the committee is prepared to carry out such reconsideration. How can we get around this matter of unanimous consent to either stand the debate or, for that matter -and I would be willing-to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion? Again this would require unanimous consent, and if that is not forthcoming it seems the only way we can accomplish that which I believe most members wish to accomplish is by a motion to refer the report back to the committee for further consideration. This can be done, but it must come from the house unless we have unanimous consent either to withdraw or stand the motion. As far as the committee is concerned, there were some very useful suggestions made and I am sure we are prepared to deal with them, but citation 322 really obliges us to have some instruction from the house before amending this report.

Procedure Committee Report
1 have put these suggestions forward, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that they will be helpful and that we can deal with this report according to the wishes of the house, but there is a real procedural problem involved requiring unanimous consent.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, on the point that has been raised, I think the suggestion made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is well worth considering. That is, that we proceed to orders of the day, have a limited question period and then come back to this report. We do not want to debate it at great length, but we do think some definite decision should be reached. I gather from the statement of the President of the Privy Council that he is suggesting-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would allow me to ask a general question. Would he consider letting the matter stand for today and allow us to consider a method by which we can arrive at a definite decision? I have in mind a method that would be satisfactory and would meet the consensus of the wishes of this house; perhaps some kind of motion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be difficult, but I understand that the Canada pension plan is coming up again for discussion on Monday, and we certainly want to get on with that as quickly as possible. It seems to me that we should have a short discussion today on this report. If I understood the President of the Privy Council correctly, he suggested that the committee could now meet and, in light of some of the submissions in the 'excellent speech the Prime Minister made last night, could prepare certain amendments to the standing order. With the greatest deference to the Prime Minister-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that was not my suggestion. I suggested that we prepare a motion by way of referral back which would be satisfactory as to form.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is exactly the point I was about to discuss. I am suggesting that with the greatest possible deference to the Prime Minister, what he has said cannot be taken as necessarily being the consensus of this house. He has suggested what parts of the recommendations are acceptable to the government, but there are other recommendations which ought to be taken into consideration, and I think we ought not leave this report hanging in the air. I would certainly be opposed to withdrawing it.

In relation to the point made by the hon. member for Port Arthur yesterday, one of the things that has brought parliamentary committees into disrepute has been that nothing or very little is done about committee reports. Those reports ought to be dealt with and ought to receive that attention which they merit. I see no reason why over the lunch hour a motion could not be prepared referring the report back to the committee with instructions to prepare amendments to standing orders along certain specific lines. This could be done and the debate could be reintroduced at 2.30. In all probability that debate would not last more than half an hour, and this motion could then be passed. The motion would then have been tidied up, the committee would have its report received and dealt with and, in turn, receive some recommendation so that it might continue its work.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this motion ought to be dealt with today. The recommendation made by the leader of the official opposition is a good one. Let us have a limited question period, at the conclusion of which the motion suggested by the President of the Privy Council could be prepared and considered.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the President of the Privy Council, let me state that we should use some care in what we do. The suggestion has been made that a motion be drafted to refer this report back to the committee with instructions to do certain things. The report of the committee has not been fully debated, and I for one will not accept without debate statements made during the course of the consideration yesterday. There is additional comment that will have to be made. We are not in a position where we are going to say that the suggestions made yesterday, even by the Prime Minister, are necessarily ones that will be immediately accepted, and I would not want the assumption to be made that a referral back to the committee with instructions to amend meant that yesterday or today we were in agreement with the committee report.
There is a tendency to rush the matter, but on the particular subject of the rules and procedure of the house there should be an extended debate. There is not time to have that extended debate if the government wishes to conclude this session very shortly. So I cannot agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Some other solution will have to be arrived at.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said he would be willing to see Easter and summer holidays granted when he dealt with the recommendations in the fifteenth report of the committee on procedure and organization.
Why would the government not agree, with the consent of the whole house, to send that report back to the committee, so that amendments could be made to paragraphs 23 and 24, and then present it to the house again to be concurred in?
If the Prime Minister is willing to accept those suggestions I think it is neither desirable nor in order to discuss those amendments in the house at this stage. It would be better, in my opinion, to send the report back to the committee on procedure and organization to prepare the said amendments and submit them again to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite our proceedings I think perhaps the best thing to do would be to accept the suggestion that we have our question period. That will bring us close to lunch time, and during the luncheon recess we will probably be able to work out a generally satisfactory procedure for dealing with this other matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Very good.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the suggestion of the Prime Minister. Is it agreed that this suggestion be accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour seems to have departed and I had an important question to bring to his attention. It has to do with the unusually cold winter experienced in western Canada, which has resulted in a need for the extension of the winter works program.
In the absence of the minister I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the extreme weather conditions, to quote from the information I have received, which are still continuing and which will mean that for certain companies over 50 per cent of their winter works homes will not be completed,
Inquiries of the Ministry thus resulting in a loss to both customers and contractors, will the Prime Minister give consideration to extending the winter works program to April 30? This is a matter of extreme importance to many hundreds of prospective home owners in the western provinces, and there is also the question of the help provided in the matter of employment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact to which the right hon. gentleman has referred, and I can assure him that the matter is now under consideration by the cabinet and that a decision will be reached in a day or so.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked a question stressing that the weather had been exceptionally cold in western Canada this winter.
Since it was also very cold in eastern Canada, will the Prime Minister study at the same time the possibility of allowing the winter works program to run after March 31?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question is being considered not merely in respect of one part of Canada but all parts of Canada, and a decision will be reached within a very few days.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another question arising out of a question I asked the Prime Minister earlier today regarding the winter works program. This morning I suggested that by reason of the climatic conditions in western Canada there should be an extension of the 30 day period to meet these conditions. During the noon hour I received five similar telegrams from various builders in the province of Ontario m this regard, and I would ask the Prime Minister to take those views into consideration when deciding whether there should be such an extension.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that I received telegrams along the same line, emphasizing the need for quick action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I might say that I have received similar telegrams as well, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: Mr. Speaker,
I just wanted to put a question supplementary to an earlier question asked by the Leader of the Opposition concerning winter house building. The Prime Minister replied that a cabinet decision would be made in a day or two. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of the matter and with lay-offs becoming likely, this decision could be given priority and rendered in the house on Monday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to say that we could do it on Monday, but I think it will more likely be on Tuesday afternoon, if my hon. friend would permit that 24-hour delay.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the fact that a radio station claims to have been in touch with police forces in all the large United States cities from New York to San Francisco and from Houston, Texas, to Detroit, and has ascertained from the police authorities in all these places that they have received no notification whatsoever of the escape of Lucien Rivard. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, as a result of this investigation and survey by the radio station, the government is taking any steps to inquire why this information was not sent out by the R.C.M.P. as we were given to understand it was being sent out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice to reply to that question.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that full particulars and description of Lucien Rivard have been communicated by the R.C.M.P. through long established channels to every United States federal law enforcement agency. The United States state police forces in states adjacent to the Canadian border were, in order to save time, also advised directly by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In addition, information was supplied to a number of important branch offices of various United States federal enforcement agencies.


Hon. members will recognize that the case in respect of which the extradition of Lucien Rivard is being sought is a United States federal case, the prosecution of which is being carried on by the United States bureau of customs. Distribution of this information within the United States is therefore a matter for the United States federal authorities to whom, as I have already pointed out, all available information was fully communicated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When was this information sent out?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my information is that this information was sent out very shortly after the first report of Mr. Rivard's escape.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One more question, Mr. Speaker. Was this information sent to the state police authorities of the state of New York?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I pointed out in my statement, the state police authorities in each of the states bordering on Canada were advised of these particulars.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statements which appeared at the time of Mr. Rivard's escape as to the widespread manhunt set up by the government, could the parliamentary secretary inquire into some of the taped interviews which have been carried on the radio station indicating that detectives even in Texas, where Rivard would have been returned, never received any official notification and that such cities as Miami, Dallas, Seattle, Albany-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reid Scott: -Burlington, New York, Boston, Houston and Detroit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a question or giving information?


Reid Scott: -received no notification?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all of what the hon. member said, but I would point out again that this was a United States federal case and the United States federal authorities, of course, would assume the responsibility of advising the 25,000 police authorities, I think it is, within their own country as to the details of this particular case.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be able

to tell the house whether the United States police forces were advised of the $15,000 reward for this man, or has that been kept under cover?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a supplementary?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I will yield the floor to the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: My supplementary question is directed to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and relates specifically to whether Detective Hightower, a member of the Houston narcotics squad, was notified of Rivard's escape.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is the type of question, although urgent and important, which it is not reasonable to expect the parliamentary secretary to be in a position to answer just off the cuff. It is so important it should be put on the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this is a particularly important matter in view of the fact-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did you not give us notice, then?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that the government has told us about the extensive efforts that are being made to apprehend Rivard. It seems to me the answers received are not satisfactory. Will the Prime Minister undertake to have someone on his staff hear the tape recordings of interviews with the heads of police authorities all over the United States who, without a single exception, claim not to have heard anything about Rivard's escape? If the Prime Minister would look into this matter to see where this search for Rivard appears to have broken down in so far as apprehending him in the United States is concerned-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will be glad to look into it. If my hon. friend had given us notice in advance that he was concerned about this matter, perhaps we would have had the information for him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister has said I might have given notice. I would certainly have
Inquiries of the Ministry given notice if at all possible. I point out that these tape recordings were only broadcast last night and there has been no opportunity-


An hon. Member:: Or this morning?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member realizes that this is the question period. Perhaps he could phrase his demand in the form of a question, which is the proper way at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am speaking to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not take kindly to the suggestion about the efficiency of my work coming from a parliamentary secretary representing a department that has not even yet informed the police authorities in the United States of Rivard's escape over two weeks ago.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is alleging I made some remarks about him or his work. I made no remarks except that I referred to the fact that between 90 and 95 principal police authorities in the United States including the United States federal authorities were advised of this situation. The hon. member is making a completely false statement when he says I made any criticism of him either from my seat or while I was speaking.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, the only question I want to raise is the Prime Minister's suggestion that I might have given notice before I made this inquiry. These tape recordings only came over the air, to my knowledge, last night. I did not want to depend on my memory, so I waited until this morning to get transcripts of them. I got those transcripts about five minutes before I came into the house, and therefore could not possibly have given notice of this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I accept my hon. friend's explanation. If he will give me the transcripts it will help me in the investigation I propose to make.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 16, the hon. member for Lapointe asked me a question

Inquiries of the Ministry concerning the activities of the Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Quebec.
The business of the house prevented me, until this morning, from replying to that question which I find on page 12392 of Hansard, and I quote:
Could the minister explain how it is that out of the loans totalling $49 million made by the Farm Credit Corporation from July to September of last year, only $1,798,000 went to Quebec farmers, while loans totalling $18,300,000 and $12,900,000 went to Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively? Could the minister explain that fact?
I am informed by the Farm Credit Corporation that according to their files-and that is why I insist on answering immediately- the following loans have been approved during the three-month period from July to
September 1964:		
Quebec	491	$ 6,651,100Alberta	783	13,271,200Saskatchewan	671	8,885,500Canada	2,893	43,660,700
As for the hon. member's statement that most loan requests have been turned down, I am informed by the Farm Credit Corporation that in the present fiscal year, it has approved so far 82 per cent of all requests received from the province of Quebec.
If one wants to compare the activities of the Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Quebec with the rest of Canada, one must admit, as I pointed out yesterday, Monday, that the Quebec farm credit board began its operations in 1937 and that not only does it extend loans at a very low interest rate, but it is also very well known to Quebec farmers who are used to dealing with that agency. The volume of the activities of the corporation in the last four years appears in the following table. I will not read it to the house, but I will give it to the parliamentary reporter.
Quebec Farm Credit Board-Approved Loans and Amounts Disbursed
Approved
Year Number Amount
Disbursed
Number Amount
1961	3,447	$26,454,700	4,0811962	4,524	34,407,400	3,4971963	3,184	25,341,550	3,3521964	(Statistics	not available)	3,078


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to refer Your Honour to citation 181 of Beauchesne.


Mr. Choqueiie:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) have something to say?


Gilles Grégoire: No, his stomach ulcer is acting up.


Georges-J. Valade: When I ask to have the rules of the house respected, I do not like to be interrupted by the neurotic member for Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to citation 181 of Beauchesne, page 153 and I quote in English because I have the English version here:

I should like to quote citation 181(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition:
Questions must be answered briefly and distinctly, and be limited to the necessary explanations, though a certain latitude is permitted to ministers of the crown whenever they find it necessary to extend their remarks with the view of clearly explaining the matter in question.
fTranslation]
My point of order is this. The minister is abusing the latitude granted by citation 181 because he just gave us a political speech.

We are interested in obtaining the information that the ministers are prepared to supply, but I think that Your Honour has the right and the authority to call the minister to order if he takes advantage of the occasion to make a political speech.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether in view of the lateness of the hour it would not serve everyone's purpose if we allowed the minister to continue, in spite of the somewhat lengthy statement which the Chair was not in a position to anticipate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am already on a point of order.
I am sorry if my reply was somewhat lengthy but the hon. member and others accuse the Farm Credit Corporation of not doing everything it can for Quebec. The hon. member's question is based on inaccurate information and since he asked three questions on Monday, I feel justified to give him all the necessary information.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not object to the minister giving us as complete a reply as possible but I feel he should have made his statement when motions were called, thus enabling us to point out all the errors and falsehoods it contained.
When the minister declares that 80 per cent of the loans requested by the province of Quebec have been granted, I say it is a fallacious statement because the statistical data used by the minister are erroneously calculated, because he has made his statement in the wrong way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would be of great help to the Chair if hon. members, especially on the last working day of the week, would use a little control so that we could get on with the business before the house. We would all save time.


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) asked a question following a report published on March 15 or 16 in Montreal Matin. The reporter confused certain documents. For the hon. member's informa-20220-796
Inquiries of the Ministry tion, and that of the house, I shall immediately send him a report on the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which is administered by the Department of Finance, and a document issued by the Farm Credit Corporation, which comes under the Department of Agriculture, so the hon. member can check his assertions instead of relying on a newspaper report for his questions. He should take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) and check his facts before asking a question. I suggest the hon. member should read the required corrections carefully.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister of "rural displacement" a supplementary question?
Is it not true that the figures we gave the other day about farm loans would apply to the rural development board, that is to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and that the proportion we mentioned, that is an outlay of $1.7 million out of $49 million, was accurate and that there is in the administration of that act an obvious disparity between Quebec and the other provinces and the whole of Canada?


Maurice Sauvé: I know that the hon. member is quite aware of the basic distinction between the farm loan board and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Besides, when the hon. member asked his question on Monday last it did not refer to that legislation but to the farm loan board. He made a lengthy speech suggesting that there was some discrimination toward the province of Quebec, and I am sending him today other material which I would advise him to read carefully before asking other questions.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think all hon. members have heard enough on this subject and we should go on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Crouse:: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Lapointe resume his seat? I call on the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is trying to provoke the Chair into naming him he is getting very close to succeeding. He is

Inquiries of the Ministry a member of the committee on procedure and organization and he knows the rules as well as the Chair. He is aware that one of the obligations of hon. members is to assist the Chair, not to make things more difficult.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.


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


Georges-J. Valade: You had better keep quiet or you will go back to jail.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry- or rural development, I do not know which.
Could the minister tell us why there is such a difference between the loans made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in the province of Quebec and those granted in the other provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, in relation to the total amount granted in Canada?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the difference in the total amount of loans may be explained by the fact that the Quebec government assists the borrowers from that province by paying the interest on loans granted under the farm credit legislation; this does not apply to other provinces.
As I said this morning, the government of the province of Quebec pays part of the interest on the loans made by the farm loan board or the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation. The interest on loans granted under the Farm Improvement Loans Act is not paid either in Quebec or in any other province of Canada. Since there is no difference between the interest paid on the loans granted by the farm loan board and those granted under the Farm Improvement Loans Act in the other provinces, farmers may borrow under the provisions of either act. In the province of Quebec borrowers apply mostly under the provisions of the farm loans legislation.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry.
Could the minister tell us whether Quebec gets much fewer loans than the other provinces under both the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the farm credit legislation or under either of them?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think that is due to the value of agricultural production in the provinces mentioned this morning by

the hon. gentleman. I should like to point out to him that in 1960-61 the Farm Credit Corporation made 106 loans for a total of $1,646,550, in Quebec, whereas it would seem that it has granted 1,348 loans for an amount of $20,171,000, in 1964-65, that is up to February 28, 1965. Since that is an increase of more than 1,000 per cent, it is a remarkable improvement.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement made on Wednesday evening by the Minister of Fisheries that the federal government has decided to open a new port at Belledune point, New Brunswick, at an estimated cost of $60 million to accommodate the most modern deep draft bulk carriers, will the hon. gentleman tell us the house whether a study has been made into the possible effect this port may have upon industries in Halifax and Saint John, as well as upon the federal installations in those two ports?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I can tell the hon. gentleman very positively that the new port was recommended strongly and unanimously by the Atlantic development board, which I am sure had all these considerations in mind. It was also supported very strongly by the government of New Brunswick, which would naturally be most sensitive to questions of this kind.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is in a position to answer the question I put to him last week concerning the causeway which is proposed to be constructed across the Minas basin.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question some days ago. I am informed by the Atlantic development board that the board has received a request from the government of Nova Scotia to undertake studies to determine the engineering and economic feasibility of tidal power develop-

ments at Shepody bay-Cumberland basin and Minas basin. A causeway could be part of this development.
The board has already completed a first phase study of tidal power development at Shepody bay-Cumberland basin and is now considering further studies which would include investigations at Minas basin similar to the first phase study of Shepody bay and Cumberland basin.



REQUEST FOR STUDY OF EFFECTS OF FOREIGN CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of press reports that the proportion of the Canadian economy subject to foreign control is still increasing. In view of the widespread interest in this, and in view of the very real need for the widest amount of public information, would the Prime Minister consider directing the economic council of Canada to make a study in detail on the effects on the Canadian economy of such foreign ownership and control?
Right Hen. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and far reaching question, which I am sure my hon. friend would not expect me to answer categorically now. I would be glad to take it under consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question intended for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but in his absence perhaps the acting minister could answer it. I think the subject matter is well known to the government. Has the secretary of the Canadian army benevolent fund ever been officially notified of his suspension and, if so, has he been given any specific reason?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associale Minister of National Defence):: It is my understanding that he has not been notified officially by the government or by the department. I understand the decision was taken by the directors of the organization itself and that it was communicated to the secretary. We were, I think, informed of that decision. That is all I can say. Maybe the Minister of Veterans Affairs would know more.
20220-796J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the acting minister answer the second part of the question? If the secretary has been notified has he ever been given any specific reason for his suspension?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I cannot answer that part of the question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Does the minister know that the successor to Mr. Eric Kierans at the head of the Canadian stock exchange and the Montreal stock exchange has stated that substantial tax reductions are needed to give a stimulus to the industrial development of this country?
If so, can he tell the house what are the government's intentions in that regard?
The reason I am asking this question is that I know that the Minister of Finance usually shows much regard for the opinions expressed by Mr. Kierans.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minisfer of Finance):: I am a little confused, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought my hon. friend was discussing the opinions of Mr. Kierans' successor; I am not too clear what that has to do with the opinions of Mr. Kierans. If my hon. friend will wait for a little while, and if we ever get on with the business of the country, we might have a budget and be able to deal with the matter he has brought up.



DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS TO AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister would give consideration to extending the maximum loans now available under the industrial development bank so that small Canadian car parts manufacturers might be able to obtain capital with which to increase their establishments so they would be in a better position to compete with their United States competitors.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to consider this, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCE ON FRENCH PROPOSALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoulimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Has the government delegated officials from the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada to the international conference on currency which is being held at present in Princetown, New Jersey, and where France's recent proposals are to be discussed? If so, who are the delegates?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into this and reply on Monday.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the right hon. Prime Minister based upon an article appearing in today's Montreal Gazette by Peter C. Newman. Mr. Newman quotes some comments of the Minister of Transport, as follows-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: "I think Mr. Pearson has the proper evaluation of the current parliamentary situation", says Jack Pickersgill.
"He's right in feeling that the management of this particular parliament is not worth his time."


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely the hon. member knows that the question in its present form is not in order. Under the rules given to me, questions should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Nor pollute Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is developing his question into a statement with regard to allegations, or at least statements, made by someone outside the house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to find out whether the article is correct, but in order to properly ask a question I have to read the full quotation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That was the point of my interruption. Surely the hon. member can

put his question in capsule form without giving a long dissertation on and quotation from the article.


Frank Howard: I am very happy to do that,
Mr. Speaker, and I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he feels that the management of this particular parliament is not worth his time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; though there has been some evidence to this effect this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. Can the Prime Minister state what action the government has taken or is taking to further the establishment of a youth parliament to mark Canada's centennial year, a project which I believe the Prime Minister personally endorses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. I have received this what I consider to be very imaginative proposal which I would like personally to see brought into effect, for a youth parliament during centennial year. I sent the proposal on to the centennial commission, and they are considering it. I would be glad to have a word with them in the light of my hon. friend's question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister, in passing on the suggestion which I think came from Bill Fair, a young chap from Saskatoon, also pass on to the commission that Her Majesty's loyal opposition thinks it is an excellent idea, too, and joins with the Prime Minister in that regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker; and I hope that if and when the youth parliament is convened the right hon. gentleman and myself will be able to take part in it.


John George Diefenbaker: In the youth parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Nowlan:: In reverse positions.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him if it is the intention of the government to introduce for first reading the constitutional repatriation formula legislation before or after all the provinces have approved it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt with this question, to the effect that the parliament of Canada will have to consider this matter after the provincial legislatures have taken action in regard to it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question that I intended to ask the Minister of Justice. I see he is not here, so perhaps the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice might answer it. It is based on the point of privilege raised yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Did the government of Canada forward to the government of the province of Ontario and other provincial governments the resolution for approval by the legislatures of the provinces, in a form which stated or implied that addresses of the Senate and the House of Commons had already been presented to Her Majesty on the subject of the amendment of the constitution of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would certainly not think so, Mr. Speaker; and if it was done that way, it was by inadvertence. But I will look into the matter at once in order to convince my hon. friend that it was not done that way, and I will reply on Monday.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES OTTAWA-ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATION OF ETHNIC ORIGINS OF CIVIC EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked of me the other day by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. The hon. member asked whether I was aware that the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism is now
Inquiries of the Ministry inquiring into the ethnic origins and culture of civic employees of the city of Ottawa, and whether this was illegal under the laws of Ontario.
This, of course, is a matter between the royal commission and the city of Ottawa. The commission is in the process of carrying on negotiations with the city as one of the municipalities in the national capital region concerning a research project about linguistic and ethnic representation and language usage in municipal government and administration. I am informed by the commission that the commission is satisfied that its proposed research activities are not contrary to the Ontario human relations code.
The next day, I think it was, the hon. member for Carleton asked me whether instructions were given to the research commission which is investigating city employees to include a prior conclusion to the effect that before undertaking the investigation they were confident there had to be more dualism. I am informed by the commission that no instructions were given to the research staff stipulating any prior conclusions about the nature of the findings, nor has the commission itself in any way reached any such conclusions.



INQUIRY AS TO HONORARIA PAID TO COMMISSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.
Could he inquire into the figures published in Montreal Matin of March 18 in connection with the fees paid to each commissioner?
Could he also explain to the house why a simple commissioner like Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon received $27,500, while one of the joint chairmen, Mr. Davidson Dun ton, earned only $17,200, which is $10,300 less, and the other joint chairman, Mr. Andre Laurendeau, earned only $24,800, about $3,000 less?
Furthermore, in view of the fact that the other commissioners received an average of $9,000, $10,000 and $11,000, could the Prime Minister explain why the amounts paid to these commissioners differ so much?


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

Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST THAT TELEPHONE OPERATORS REPLY IN BOTH LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works-


Gilles Grégoire: An imposing candidate.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, could exprisoner Lapointe shut up?
In view of the fact that all members of the House of Commons have been craving for bilingualism recently, including the die-hard member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works to instruct all government telephone operators, in order that the bilingual image of parliament may be strengthened, to answer the telephone in both languages by saying: "Government of Canada, gouvernement du Canada", as it is done in ministers' offices where they answer: "Minister's office, bureau du ministre."


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere is no doubt aware that practically all parliamentary services come under the Speaker's jurisdiction.
On the other hand, for some parliamentary services, the Department of Public Works acts as agent for the Speaker.
I think the hon. member spoke loud enough for the Speaker to hear his suggestion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Did the Prime Minister receive any complaint from the hon. member for Lotbiniere about telephone operators not answering in French?


Auguste Choquette: The only complaint I
made-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has continually evinced his great interest in this matter.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for 
the Minister of Finance with reference to an announcement a few days ago by Canadian Motor Industries that they would establish themselves in Nova Scotia. May I ask the minister whether he could tell me what tax incentives or concessions were provided this corporation over and above those which would have been available in other designated areas in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take this question as notice.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would have directed my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister, or if he thinks it should go to someone else he can act accordingly. Is the government aware of a decision apparently taken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to deny entrance to Canada at Winnipeg today to a Professor Mulford Q. Sibley, who was scheduled to address a public meeting in Winnipeg tonight held under the auspices of the Voice of Women? Whether or not we agree with Dr. Sibley's ideas, may I ask if the suggestion that he is being denied entry to Canada because of his ideas is correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I myself have received a telegram this morning about this matter, which I am investigating. I might say at once, though, that organizations sponsoring speeches in Canada such as ones to which my hon. friend has referred by persons whose admissibility to this country is a matter of question ordinarily seek permission for such entry, giving the authorities sufficient time to check and reach a decision. No such approach has been made by anyone on behalf of Professor Sibley, but I am looking into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Prime Minister have anything in front of him which would indicate the reasons for the nonadmissibility of this professor from the University of Minnesota, who among other things is a Quaker?


Mr. Herridge:: And a socialist.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a matter which I will look into; I have no information on it at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the matter is one which is current today, if the Prime Minister is not too busy during the lunch hour would he look into it then?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will look into it at five minutes past one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister also inform the house who this Mr. John C. Morrison of special services is? Apparently this action was taken on his advice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to inquire into that at 1.10, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilion Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. If the decision on the Bergsma case is upheld on appeal, is the government going to do anything to rectify the defect in the citizenship act which appears to deny the religious freedom which is granted in the bill of rights?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would prefer not to answer a question which is hypothetical, as this one is, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could pose a question to the Prime Minister. The other day, in reply to a question I posed to him regarding the Alaska Panhandle, the Prime Minister said the possibility of access through the Alaska Panhandle is now being studied by authorities concerned in Ottawa. I wonder whether at some convenient time, perhaps on motions, the Prime Minister or some other minister could make a statement to the house relating to this subject matter, as to who are the authorities, when they were established and the expectation of the time it will take to complete this study and the like.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can do that at a very early date.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether we could complete questions before lunch so we can proceed with whatever business we are going to proceed with this afternoon.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the procedure agreed on was that on the conclusion of questions we would revert to motions to consider the fifteenth report of the committee on procedure and organization.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister should move that motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was hoping we could conclude questions now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we complete questions and go to orders of the day?


Gilles Grégoire: No. We still have some questions to ask.


William Heward Grafftey: Then ask them.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any further information regarding the case of Professor Sibley to which I referred just before one o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been making inquiries about this case and without going into detail, as I cannot do that at this time, may I say that certain information was conveyed to the authorities regarding the possible arrival at the border of that man en route to Winnipeg. This information required the department to make some inquiries. The man in question has not yet appeared at the border, and I hope that as a result of the investigation which has been made there will be no difficulty in this regard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am pleased to hear that.

Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether an investigation has been ordered into the circumstances surrounding the crash which occurred in Newfoundland of an Air Manila DC-3, and whether, because of the apparent superficial similarity between this crash and the unfortunate fatal crash which occurred a few days ago of an E.P.A. aircraft, any precautionary action has been taken until the results of the investigation are known?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the usual investigation was undertaken immediately into this crash in Trinity bay about which we heard last night. It appears that this was a DC-3 flying to the Azores, but there does not seem to be any very obvious reason for what happened. The last report I had was to the effect that a radio message was received that they were going down, but that nothing more was heard. According to the report I received the plane was on fire. This crash is under immediate investigation.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a brief question to the Minister of Finance. I am not interested in money, except as a collectors' item, but has the minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement which has appeared in Canadian newspapers to the effect that coin sets are being advertised in the United States at $8 each, and can he assure the house that Canadians will get all the 1965 sets they require without having to pay $4 in profit to United States companies?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I should like to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question, Mr. Speaker. He did not say in his notice that he was not interested in money, but I think for that reason, along with many others, we will all agree that he is a very remarkable member not only of this house but of the country. I have not seen the particular advertisement to which the hon. member refers.


An hon. Member:: He is a remarkable member of the human race.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Let us say that he is a very remarkable member.
I have not seen the particular advertisement to which the hon. member referred although I have noticed others in the same vein. I can give a categorical assurance that an expansion of facilities at the mint will permit it to fill all orders for these 1965 coin sets at the mint's regular price. For this reason there is no necessity whatever for Canadians to pay a speculative premium to others in order to obtain these sets.



PROCEDURE


[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 n.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the motion for concurrence in this report was moved yesterday in accordance with what I thought was the general wish of the house that there would be a one day debate on the report, that one day of course to be a full day and not a Wednesday or a Friday. We proceeded throughout the day and had a rather useful and extensive debate. Near the conclusion of the debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) dealt with the report in a fairly comprehensive way and indicated the importance that the government attached to many of the recommendations in the report. He then went on to indicate that he would welcome the changes in the standing orders that would achieve the objectives set out in part of the report. He had already dealt with other things not in the report, had indicated their importance and had gone on to indicate with regard to two of the changes in the report, one having to do with the committee structure and the other having to do with the desirability of referral of estimates to committees, that they were substantial changes and that he hoped something could be done to bring forward actual standing orders that could be considered by the house and either accepted or rejected. In any event, the point I want to make is that he indicated the importance and urgency that the government attaches to this matter.
I had assumed, maybe wrongly but certainly my assumption was based on general

discussions, that it would be agreeable that after a day's debate had taken place, the matter would be left for later consideration. Since it is an interim report only and not a final report, the committee has full authority to go ahead. Because I had understood from conversations with committee members that they in their turn were willing and anxious to go ahead, I believed that the committee should refine their suggestions further, in a way that would involve the presenting of specific standing orders for consideration by the house. In any event, as was demonstrated this morning, my assumption was wrong.
In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we are now at a stage where I think all hon. members will agree that we are seeking to bring this session to a termination and get on with the new session, and the government has indicated only a very few items of government business that have to be finished. We have in fact discussed at some length the exact procedure for terminating this session and starting the new one. In the light of that, I do not propose at the moment to enter into a discussion of the report in detail, much as I should like to do so. Rather, I should like to repeat what I said this morning by way of a point of order when this motion was first called.
I sought then to bring about some agreeable conclusion to the debate on this report, a conclusion agreeable to the main body of opinion in the house and, I hope, acceptable to all others who might not be in full agreement with what was being done. I made one or two suggestions and those suggestions did not seem to find acceptability. I do not know whether or not they were worthy of it. In any event, they did not receive acceptability in the house.
I think there is a consensus among members of the house to go on to other business and I am prepared to move that the report be referred back for further consideration. In doing so, I want to state again, as I did on the point of order earlier, the concern of the government to make progress with any procedures or changes in the procedures that will improve the ability of the house to handle its business. I think that wish is shared by all hon. members. Since this is a committee matter and as I am not a member of the committee, it is not proper for me to say what the committee will do. But I have in mind their past history, the number of reports they have already made, this being the fifteenth, some of which have been very good and have resulted in action
Procedure Committee Report being taken. I know from conversations I have had that the committee members are anxious to proceed.
I am also sure that the government is willing to do anything it can reasonably and properly do by way of co-operation with the committee. If the committee feels there is anything the government can do by way of being of assistance, by having any of the ministers who have experience in procedural matters meet with the committee on behalf of the government or any other such step, the government would be willing to take it.
Since I am seeking to achieve an agreeable conclusion to this matter so that we can put this work in hand and get on with other work, I can do no better than move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
That the said report be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the said committee for further consideration of the recommendations outlined therein.
I think it will be noticed that the language is general because after what consultation I could have over the lunch hour I was not able to achieve any draftsmanship that I thought would more fairly and accurately enable the committee to consider what they sense to be the consensus of the house arising out of the discussion. I considered this form to be better than a specific, detailed type of motion. I hope my action in preventing this motion will commend itself to the house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of difficulties that I think should be apparent, but before we deal with them I think it should be pointed out in fairness to everyone who is interested in the committee report which I am sure includes all members of the house whether or not they have spoken on the matter, that the report was presented to the house before the Christmas recess. In addition, it was understood at that time that, primarily at the request of the government, the motion to adopt would be moved by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) only for the purpose of explaining to the house the full implications of the committee's thinking in regard to the report. The government wanted a period of time to elapse so that members of the house would be able to study the report in detail, which I am sure was done. When we resumed following the Christmas recess it was again at the request of the government that consideration of this report was postponed because there were other matters of concern to the country that needed to be dealt with.

Procedure Committee Report
One of those was the Canada pension plan. There was no inclination to interfere with the progress of the Canada pension plan. In fact, there was an intense desire on the part of members in the opposition, and in my own party which I know more intimately, to see the Canada pension plan proceeded with as quickly as possible so that it could become law in the nation. The situation therefore is not entirely as put by the President of the Privy Council. There are some other factors which I have just outlined, namely that the progress on this particular report and the motion attendant upon it has been to suit the convenience of the government almost entirely.
The motion before us is to refer the report back to the committee for reconsideration and study, at least of parts of it. If we are to take the words of the President of the Privy Council at their face value, and knowing that it is the desire of the government, indeed a necessity, to conclude this session as quickly as possible, then we may very well find ourselves in a position, by making this referral back to the committee, of having the committee disintegrate at the prorogation of this session. The committee only has life until the end of the session. We could very easily find ourselves in a position of having a report referred back to the committee although they may not have a chance to embark upon the re-examination. It may well be that the session will end, the committee will end and all the work the committee has put into this report will go down the drain. Presumably, when the session resumes the committee will have to start all over again, be reconstituted and have the subject matter referred to it again.
In one sense, the amendment placed before the house by the President of the Privy Council could very easily, if it is not designed for the purpose, have the effect of killing completely the ideas contained in the committee report. This, I do not want to see. Each person who spoke about the report has done so in glowing terms of the direction in which the committee is headed. There have been differences, there are bound to be differences, over the details as to whether or not this or that particular point is good or bad. However, in essence, everyone in the house, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), has spoken in favour of the general principle advanced by the committee. I am very much afraid that the amendment posed by the President of the Privy Council will


have the effect of destroying that intention, that hope, if there is an early prorogation of this session, or dissolution, whichever the case may be. Until a new committee is established in the following session we will be in a position of having nothing to reconsider. It would be a disaster if that occurred.
I feel that what should have occurred would have been for the government-I was hoping the Prime Minister would have done this-to go down the list of recommendations detail by detail and lay out clearly the desires and hopes of the government with respect to each one of them. Instead, the Prime Minister made a sort of catch-all speech in which he took bits and pieces of objections and tried to put them together, saying in a vague sort of way that the government would agree or disagree with certain things. The course I have advocated has not been followed by the government, and as a consequence parliament is now in the awkward position of having to kill proposals with which we all agree. This results from the minister's having moved the amendment that he has, coupled with the fact that this matter has been delayed persistently at the request of, and for the convenience of, the government itself.
If there is the chance that the committee will have an opportunity to examine further these and other related matters, then I think it should take cognizance of one simple factor, namely the difference of opinion that exists and that has always existed in parliament between the desires of the government and the desires of private members. There is this conflict between the desires of private members and their opportunity to function properly, and the desire of cabinet to have control over the procedures of parliament. We were hoping we could perhaps get out of this situation. Last evening the Prime Minister and other members who spoke spent almost their entire time looking at this report from the point of view of the advantages that would accrue to the government from it. They looked at it from the point of view of how it would enhance the position of the cabinet and give to the cabinet a greater degree of control over the operations of parliament.
I think what should occur to balance that is to have some consideration given by the committee to the position of private members in order to ensure, so far as possible, that the members of the opposition particularly, who are the most active private mem-

bers, will have the opportunity to fully examine government activities in detail and have an opportunity to get their points of view across, have them considered and dealt with *either by defeat or by passage, whatever the case may be. I believe this subject should be given a greater degree of consideration by the committee, namely, what can be done to alter the rules of parliament to enhance the position of the opposition, to give to it its rightful function and place in the parliament of Canada, to provide private members an opportunity to express their points of view and to have those points of view either rejected or accepted.
May I just make one reference here. Today is one of the days upon which public bills in the names of private members will be considered. The traditional approach, with some few exceptions, on the part of the government has been to treat these bills as a necessary evil, as a sort of exercise in debate. Persistently the approach has been, not only by this government but all governments over the years, to talk out private members' proposals-not to consider them on their merits, not to meet them head on, not to argue about a good or a bad proposition, but to talk out the propositions advanced by private members. This is something the committee should consider. How can we make changes in the rules to give opposition members, and government backbenchers, the opportunity to present their views and to have them met on the basis of the merits of the ideas themselves?
Perhaps one way to do this would be, automatically upon the introduction of a public bill by a private member, if it is in order and meets the other rules of the house, to have it referred to one of the standing committees where it could be examined on its merits, where individual members or cabinet ministers could argue for and against the bill. Perhaps a better approach would be to give to the committees that we seek to establish here the right to initiate legislation, to come up with ideas themselves. After all, Mr. Speaker, the concept that all the brains in Canada are in the heads of cabinet ministers is a foolish one. There are many brilliant members in this parliament who are not cabinet members, who have exceptionally good ideas, meritorious ideas which, if accepted, would advance the cause of democracy, the economic and social structure of this nation. But they do not have the opportunity to see those ideas presented and some conclusion reached about them.
Procedure Committee Report
I think also that we should make some other alterations in the committees structure, notably to give to the committees research facilities and research staffs. If we intend that all the estimates with one or two exceptions should be referred automatically to committees for examination we should give to those committees adequate facilities for examining them; we should provide them with staffs of statisticians, economists, lawyers and whoever else might be necessary to provide background information so that the committee may examine the proposed expenditures in detail. Right now the whole weight of the civil service of Canada, thousands upon thousands of experts, together with some who are not experts, is available for the purpose of assisting, guiding and advising the political head of a department. Against this mammoth structure there exists only the private member with whatever abilities he himself has and whatever research facilities he is able to rely on to give him advice and information about the operation of government departments. If we were to take action along the lines I am suggesting we would be enhancing the position of parliament in the mind of the average Canadian; we would be bringing parliamentary activity closer to the average Canadian; we would be providing not only for the proper study of the estimates to be made but we would be furnishing the necessary staff so that such studies could be carried out in depth, as well as providing an opportunity for public organizations, groups and individual citizens to present their ideas about particular proposals for government expenditure. These are among the questions which I hope the committee will examine if and when it has the chance to do so.
My hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) yesterday made a special appeal to the government with regard to one phase of the committee's report, protesting against the lumping together of the three subjects of health, welfare and veterans affairs. As a consequence of this appeal, or perhaps independently of it, the Prime Minister agreed that veterans affairs should not be lumped together with health and welfare but that they should be considered by a committee specially designed to deal with them.
I wish I had known the outcome of the remarks made by my hon. friend from Kootenay West. I would have asked him to speak for others and make the same suggestion with regard to Indian affairs. Here, too, is a special group of people requiring special consideration, and to lump in the consideration of In-

Procedure Committee Report dian affairs with such subjects as the R.C.M.P., the criminal law, civil rights, prisons and all the other subjects which presumably come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, as well as a whole field of matters relating to the operation of the citizenship and immigration branch, is in my view altogether unfair. However, following the eloquent submission which the hon. member for Kootenay West made yesterday I can only suggest that this is another subject which should be given special consideration and examined solely by a committee designed to examine the affairs of the Indian affairs branch, and the relationship of government with our native Indian people.
Members of this party who have spoken earlier in this discussion have stated that in general we are favourably disposed to the report of the committee. That is the position I take. I am not disposed to favour certain of the details but I am sure every hon. member has similar views with respect to certain of the detailed proposals which have been made. Somewhere along the line I think the government itself should have spelled out in detail the views it holds about these various proposals. After all, this matter has been delayed to suit the convenience of the government day after day since Christmas. Surely in that time the government could have produced some ideas indicating what it believed to be the most advantageous parts of this report, so that we might be dealing now with something conclusive. But because of the inaction, or inability, or lack of desire, or split which may exist within the Liberal party about this report we are faced with a distinct possibility of having to destroy that which we do not want to destroy-of having to kill something which each one of us would endorse in principle. I think it is a shame we should have got to such a stage when we are considering a question as vital as the operation of parliament, which is so fundamental to our approach to democracy.
I think it is regrettable that by continued procrastination on the part of the government as well as by this killing motion which the President of the Privy Council made today, we should find ourselves being asked to destroy that which we do not want to destroy. Somehow or other we have to extricate ourselves from this position.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not intend to speak at any length. However, last evening, I am informed, the hon. and attractive member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) appeared as a

news commentator, objective and unbiased, on the television program "Viewpoint", and expressed herself in a way which is not quite in keeping with what one might expect from her. She obviously presented only one side of the case-the government side of the case.


Miss Jewett:: I presented the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: She gave the impression to the Canadian people that no one from the front bench of Her Majesty's loyal opposition had spoken.


Pauline Jewett: Correct.


John George Diefenbaker: The reason for this, according to her interpretation, was opposition to the recommendations made.


Pauline Jewett: Where were you yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: I want to say at once that the hon. member is seldom so wide of the mark as she was last evening. I will say no more than this: Her objectivity was somewhat destroyed by the apparent bias which was shown. I say this in the greatest spirit of kindliness, having the highest regard for the hon. lady's intellectual attainments.
I wish to make it clear that the attitude of of the opposition is one of the fullest cooperation at all times in assuring that parliament shall remain effective. It is of interest that we are celebrating at this very moment the 700th anniversary of the foundation of parliament. Great celebrations will take place at Westminster in the month of June. But it is at this very time, between I believe the middle of February and the 20th of March, that the first parliament was convened in the United Kingdom. There was an earlier parliament in Iceland, but we in the British tradition think of the parliament of Simon de Montfort as constituting the beginnings of our parliamentary system.
All through the years there have been criticisms of this system. Much has been said about the need for reform. Cynics have always criticized this institution. Cynics today criticize the parliament of the United Kingdom as they did before and after the first world war and during and after the second world war. Yet that parliamentary system has been made effective-so effective that the voice of freedom was heard from Westminster all over the world. Whatever its shortcomings, parliament has been effective.
The hon. member who just resumed his seat made a very reasoned argument. He said we must guard against the possibility that the government-and all governments are

liuman-is most anxious to bring about changes in the rules that will assure to the greatest degree possible the least amount of debate from the opposition. So often we hear debate criticized as useless and as worthless. We have no filibuster under our system of government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and yet the expression has found its way into the language of our country. Long debates are necessary when principle is at stake. We had the best example in the last few days of what debate will do. I speak of the hon. members to the far left of this chamber who took a strong and definite stand to make this parliament in fact bilingual, as it is constitutionally, a stand not only desirable but prescient. They were joined by the rest of us on this side of the house. With all the excuses which the government offered, finally the government had to capitulate. In other words, long debate brought about the necessary change in the thinking of a government that would have brushed this whole thing aside.
In my days as prime minister we brought about simultaneous translation. There were many who said, "Why bring this in?" My [DOT]contention was that parliament is and must remain bilingual and the only way to make it effective is through the instrumentality of a system such as that. I mention this because there was great criticism that parliament was being held up and the pension legislation was going to be destroyed because members in the opposition dared to stand for the rights of parliament. They stood. Excuses were given, all kinds of excuses, for not acting. The government had acted most cavalierly in its attitude when asked for a copy in the French language of the proceedings of the committee. Their request was ridiculed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh). Excuses were given that it would take four months-


An hon. Member:: Four weeks.


John George Diefenbaker: -and finally it ends up that it is going to take a matter of four days. This just shows the effect of argument strongly held and contended for. I think of the story told of Lord Kitchener in South Africa in 1900, who called a group of generals together and said, "I want you to do such and so", and they spent an hour, two or three, saying it could not be done. Then he said, "Now that you have given me every reason why it could not be done, go and do it". That is
Procedure Committee Report what happened here. Parliament spoke, the opposition stood; and the government, surrounded by its own supporters, was silent or evasive.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we want to make parliament efficient, and one thing that we must guard against is that we make the cabinet more powerful than it is. The trend in parliamentary government-as the hon. gentleman has said, and so well said- following two world wars has been to bring about an all-powerful executive, holding support oftentimes by that tremendous authority that is exercised by a prime minister of having it in his power to recommend a dissolution, which I am told has its effect in bringing recalcitrants to change their viewpoint, and very soon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Listen to this.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Minister of Labour, because he will be interested in this. This is what Mr. Mackenzie King said, and I am sure that, having quoted from the gospel according to William Lyon Mackenzie King, the hon. gentleman will now give more serious attention to the remarks I am making than he has up to the present moment. I said the cabinet is becoming all powerful, and one has only to see it in examples that we have from time to time. If these hon. gentlemen opposite could speak, what would they be saying about Mr. Rivard? What would they be saying-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -regarding the explanation that he came to one of the warders and said, "Give me a hose; I want to water the rink"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We have always heard, Mr. Speaker, that crime does not pay. The warder should have known that crime does not play, either. The very suggestion is ridiculous. But they don't say anything over there. We have not been able to find out even today whether they ever let the United States know about the reward.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the degree to which objection is offered to what I am saying indicates that argument can be and is effective. That does not mean we should continue to follow rules that are no longer applicable to the complex nature of the

Procedure Committee Report problems that we face. I go back to 1879, and here is something that indicates the cynicism of that time. It appeared in "Grit" published in Toronto on February 15, 1879, and this particular member of the press gallery used these immortal words:
Yes, 'tis pleasant to think as I sit in the gallery,
They agree upon one thing and that is their salary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a cynical view that is held; but I am just pointing it out, not because of its applicability to today-far be it from me to think of that-but simply because as far back as 1879 it was stated that there was only one thing upon which we agreed. The parliament of the United Kingdom today is criticized as never before; all the parliaments in the British tradition have been. But we must always remember this, that in making changes we ought not simply to follow the theoretical idealism of some who with it have not the practical knowledge of years in public life. I would like to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -a fine parliamentarian-


Gordon Minto Churchill: He used to be.


John George Diefenbaker: -the dean of the house, on this subject. I would like to have the benefit of his views.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to have the benefit of his mature thought on this subject. It would be helpful to the rest of us to know his views. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) expressed himself at considerable length. I shall say no more; he necessarily must be absent from time to time. But I will say one thing, without being disrespectful, that reading over what he said reveals that he had the idea that diplomatic negotiation might bring about evolutionary changes. Negotiation is an excellent process; but changes, in order to be achieved, have to carry with them not only the hope but also the assurance of being practical in their application.
The objective which we all have in mind is to make parliament more effective. I am not going to reiterate what I have already said. Certainly my experience with committees has not led me to believe that, on any matter on which there is strong controversy or aroused partisan feeling, committees are divorced from

the feelings of individual members, generallyspeaking, or the parties to which they belong. However, there is a place for the committees system.
There is also a need for the fuller examination of the estimates. I have said on other occasions that a government could put $10 million in the estimates without there being, any justification of the item, and in the rush at the end of a session that item could be passed. This means it is quite impossible for members to carry out and discharge their other responsibilities, at the same time giving to the examination of supply, which is the first responsibility of parliament, the attention it deserves. Anything that will bring about improvement in the examination of supply will at all times command my support, in fact my enthusiastic support.
I do not agree with the suggestion that because recommendations will seem radical they are therefore necessarily beneficial. But I do feel that the study which has been made of the committees system by the committee-on procedure has certainly been worth while. If there is one thing you have been able to dof Mr. Speaker-and I say this with great respect __it is that you have been able to give to parliament, through the assistance and counsel you have given, a degree of importance to this committee that few committees have enjoyed in this house. When I was prime minister we set up committees in this connection which operated and did well; but the present committee, continuing from session to session, deserves the commendation of the house.
There is one matter to which I wish to make reference, however, and I do not believe in being diplomatic regarding a matter you cannot accept. I am concerned over paragraph 23 of the report:
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...Your committee therefore recommends that the house should adjourn at regular intervals for two weeks at a time in order to accomplish-
__the purposes mentioned there. I do not
agree with that. I cannot see a departure from, not the regular routine but the regular tradition of parliament which would conduce to such a course being effective.
With regard to the recommendation that certain suspensions of sittings should take place during the session within three weeks of the tabling of the estimates, with such subsequent adjournments of two weeks duration following at regular intervals, I would be less

than frank if I were to say in a diplomatic way "Well, this deserves to be considered". I feel that while in general the recommendations as to the greater use of committees should receive the support of members in all parts of the house, this particular portion does not come within the ambit of approval.
Then there are limitations on time for discussion. I am not going to deal with that because the hon. member who has just taken his seat has stated that obviously these sections limiting time could have been sired by a government which does not desire criticism, and the less time for criticism the less criticism there will be. So I say to you, sir, that the report as a whole, taken with the other 14 reports, is a tribute to those who brought it forward. They have challenged the thinking of the house.
I now come to the last point I want to make, and it is this. A motion has been made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith):
That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the said committee for further consideration of the recommendations outlined therein.
There is no indication as to which of the recommendations the government accepts. There is no indication as to which should be reconsidered. I can only suggest that this motion was conceived and born in the desire of the government to bring about some unity among its own followers in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are having follower
troubles, not us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that I get a reaction indicates I have touched something most sensitive. I am not going to designate the self-appointed authority on the rules as its originator, but I will say this, that shorn of all the diplomatic niceties that we have heard from the government up to the present time, this is the application of the guillotine. It is simply the amputation of the head of this committee. It is the end of the recommendations.
I would have thought that instead of destroying so healthy an offspring parliament would have been able to accept some of these recommendations immediately; and where there is disagreement, that the committee might give further consideration thereto. But I must say that if this motion passes, the committee passes-out of existence. For this session is almost at an end. This may indeed be the epitome of diplomacy-to draft a
Procedure Committee Report motion in these words. But when you look at it directly, Mr. Speaker, you can conclude only that it is a nice diplomatic way for the government to give a pretended support to the recommendations while at the same time destroying the possibility of those recommendations being carried into effect.


Mr. R. W. Priftie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks on the committee report I do not intend to mention Lucien Rivard or bilingualism at all. However, it has become more than abundantly clear that there will be no unanimous consent to agree to the amendment proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), and as speakers before me have said, the effect of the passage of this amendment would be to kill the work of the committee for the present time. I cannot conceive that the committee could carry out a proper study, do the research and report back again before prorogation of this session, and this would mean the end of the work of that committee.
Had the government's amendment not been so general, and had there been some specific recommendations, I think it might have received wide support in the house. Personally I have found that the report almost in its entirety is a good one and I see no particular reason why it should go back; but rather than see it defeated in this house, this seems to me to be the next best thing. However, as I have said, I do not think the motion should have been made in such general terms.
If all the recommendations of the committee had been accepted, certainly there would be a vast improvement in the committees system of the house. I think hon. members should not delude themselves by thinking that if all the recommendations had been accepted we would not still be a long way from having a congressional type of committee.
Everyone in the house has expressed concern about the growth of the power of the executive in parliament during the past few years. This is common in Canada, the United Kingdom and in all parliamentary democracies. Everyone has expressed concern about the growth of the executive and a weakening of the power of a private member; however, no one really does very much about this. I suggest that changes would be difficult to effect. It seems to me that no cabinet in a parliamentary democracy would really want to see very much change, because by the measure of the increase in private members' powers, and by the measure of the strength of committees, the power of the cabinet is

Procedure Committee Report reduced, and a cabinet is not likely to want that. That is only a human feeling and I think it is true of almost any cabinet in power. It is difficult to reconcile the growing strength on the part of private members with the existing powers of the cabinet. It seems to me that this conflict must always exist, as it exists in the United States where even with the separation of power the congress is relatively strong.
Last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) mentioned that the committees of the house divide on party lines quite frequently, as of course we do in the house. He then had this to say, and I should like to quote briefly from his remarks as they appear at page 12544 of Hansard:
-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 as 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.
I can assure the Prime Minister that party divisions certainly do show themselves in some committees. However, we do have some committees which are relatively non-partisan. I have been informed that the defence committee operates in that way, and the public accounts committee operates in that way; but others do not. Partisan feelings were very obvious in the flag committee, and they were certainly obvious in the committee on the Canada pension plan. During the many sessions of the Canada pension plan committee party feelings were very evident and we had many examples of Liberals and Conservatives sniping at each other. I sometimes thought that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself were the only ones who took a good, constructive non-partisan approach.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert William Prittie: Since Hansard does not record facial expressions, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should add that I was smiling at that point. It is certainly possible that a committee can do good work even though partisan feelings are in evidence. In connection with the Canada pension plan committee I should add that in spite of rather bitter party fighting at times, it did a very good job and made some very good recommendations, whatever the shortcomings may have been.

I should now like to deal with several of the recommendations made by the committee on procedure and organization, and to do so I will refer to page 992 of the report of that committee where the recommendations are summarized. Item No. 6 on page 992 is:
The quorum of a standing committee, like the quorum of a special committee, should consist of a majority of the members.
I cannot disagree with that statement, but it seems very strange to me that we should demand a much higher quorum for a committee than we do for the house. If we had to have the majority of the members in the house at all times we would very rarely have a quorum after the question period.
Item No. 7 on the same page is a very good recommendation. It is this;
Provision should be made for the appointment of alternate members to committees.
I have thought of this recommendation in relation to the sessions of the Canada pension committee, some of which were held during the Christmas recess at which time some of the members of the committee had to be away from Ottawa. Had such a rule been in existence at that time, before we adjourned in December we could have designated alternate members. For example, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) was the only member of that committee representing his party. He attended as often as he could but he had to be in his constituency for at least part of the recess. During the recess we could not appoint alternate members. This certainly is a good recommendation.
Items Nos. 8 and 9 appearing at page 992 are as follows:
8.	With specified exceptions, each member should serve on at least one of the nine standing committees on legislation and estimates.
9.	With specified exceptions, each member should serve on one of the other six standing committees or as an alternate member of one of the nine standing committees on legislation and estimates.
I was pleased that the committee used the word "should" rather than the word "must" because while it is probably very useful for every member of the house to have experience on one or more committees, there are members who have neither the inclination nor the ability to serve on committees, so this should not be obligatory.
Item No. 14 states:
The house should adjourn at regular intervals for periods of two weeks at a time, during which committees would meet and members would attend to constituency duties in their ridings.
Others have commented on this particular recommendation and I should like to say that

without following it to the letter I hope something of that sort will be implemented before very long. This question of appointing time during which hon. members may leave Ottawa, yet be faithful in their attendance in the house, is a very difficult one, particularly for members who come from distant constituencies. Even though air travel is very fast, it is very difficult to make a long journey. In my case it takes a day to travel from here to the west coast and a day to return, so it is difficult for me to be in the house as much as I would like. This is a very good recommendation. I believe the Australian parliament follows a similar practice and I should like to see some variation of it put into practice here.
Item No. 16 states:
Members should be required to attend the meetings of committees to which they have been appointed.
I agree that they should be required to attend these meetings, but I do not know quite how this is going to be enforced. We have a rather loose system for enforcing attendance in the house and I do not think that problem can be solved until we solve the problem in respect of attendance in the house itself.
Item No. 19 states:
Not more than 20 days should be set aside for debating the estimates in committee of supply.
I think that is unrealistic, Mr. Speaker, even though certain standing committees would consider the estimates of various departments. I cannot conceive that all these estimates could be passed in the house in 20 days. I do not think anyone wants to take the position that committees should have the final authority in respect of estimates. That being the case, and in view of the variety of operations of the government and its many departments and crown corporations, with 265 members in the house it seems unrealistic to expect that 20 days would be a sufficient time for the estimates, even considering the amount of work that would be done by the committees.
I should like to quote briefly from recommendation 22 which appears on page 989 of Votes and Proceedings:
In order to eliminate delays and the necessity for numerous routine reports, your committee recommends that all the powers a committee is likely to need should be delegated to it when it is first appointed.
It goes on to suggest that committees should have the power to bring persons to Ottawa to appear before them and also the power to sit in other parts of Canada in order to carry
Procedure Committee Report on investigations. I can imagine that the people in charge of the budget are having nightmares over that recommendation and are thinking of the congressional junkets in the United States. However I think the idea is a good one and the power need not be abused.
But when the committee says that committees should have all the powers necessary, I am wondering whether this means they should also have the necessary research staff. The subject of research help for members and for committees has been mentioned before and the problem is a very real one. I have been a member of many committees, such as the one on railways, canals and telegraph lines and the sessional committee on the C.N.R. and Air Canada, where various experts have appeared and usually the contest has been a very unequal one. On one side you have a crown corporation with the president, numer-out vice presidents, directors and a host of expert people. Usually the average member is really quite ill equipped to do a good job of questioning. Occasionally there are members who have particular knowledge of the field under discussion and can do a very good job, but this is just a matter of luck. Normally all a member has at his disposal is the report of the particular agency, plus his newspaper clippings and speeches he has saved. He certainly cannot do the job that should be done.
The same thing is true in the house. When the estimates of various departments are being considered a member cannot do the kind of job he should do. I thought of that last year when the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce came before the house. I looked across at the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who we will all admit is very competent. He had his experts with him and in the gallery there were more experts from the various branches of the department. I felt rather unequal to the task that had been allotted to me by my party.
So I hope that the reference to powers in recommendation 22 envisages the committees branch being developed so that there will be people with expert technical knowledge available to all committees. Otherwise we will go on as in the past and the job of investigation and scrutiny that should be done will not be done. If these changes are not made, one will have to conclude that the executive does not want them to be made. As I said earlier, this is usually the attitude taken by the executive because any increase in the strength of members and in their

Procedure Committee Report knowledge and effectiveness reduces the power of the executive.
Unless some real change can be made it seems to me that one must ask the question: What is the value of parliamentary committees? In this connection I think we have much more to learn from the United States than from the United Kingdom. One of the participants at last summer's Couchiching conference, sponsored by the Canadian institute of public affairs, was a lecturer from the London school of economics, Dr. Bernard Crick. According to him the House of Commons of the United Kingdom is not much more effective than our house from the point of view of the private member or of committee work. In the Toronto Globe and Mail of July 27, 1964, there is an article headed, "U.K. House in Morass: Professor". I should like to quote some of the remarks he made in an interview at Geneva park.
If one looks at the cabinet, the government in general and the whole apparatus of the executive including the civil service, one sees constant change and improvement. But if one looks at poor old parliament it can be said without too much exaggeration that there have been no fundamental changes in its method of operation since 1908.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the author of that article a member of the House of Commons or has he ever been a member?


Robert William Prittie: His name is Dr. Bernard Crick and he is a lecturer at the London school of economics. I could not say whether he has ever been a member but I suspect not. However, I believe there are people who are not members of parliamentary institutions who have some knowledge of their operations. It is equally true that some members of parliament do not have much knowledge of their operations. However, my point is that if we are looking toward the improvement of the committees system and bringing about a more efficient committees system, then perhaps the United States presents a better model for us than does the United Kingdom.
I will conclude by stating again my very great disappointment should the amendment proposed by the President of the Privy Council pass, in that at this session we will not have achieved anything really by way of reform of the system. Certainly good, basic work has been done by the committee and this will remain, but all the work to be done in connection with the mechanics of reconstituting the committees in the new session will have been almost completely wasted if no action is taken before this session ends.
[Mr. Prittie.l


Mr. John N. Turner (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at
once that I would yield the floor immediately if I thought there was any chance of an immediate vote on the amendment to send the report back to the committee. However, I rise at this time because I take it that the sense of the house is to continue the debate. As a junior member on this side of the house I should like to say first of all that I think I speak for and represent the views of those on this side of the house when I say that the effect of referring this matter back to the committee will not result in the killing or shelving or pigeonholing of the report, because the basic philosophy behind the committee report meets with the very strong approval of most members on this side of the house. It is our view that the house would be further ahead if the general recommendations of the report were reduced to specific drafts of standing orders which could be brought back into the house in concrete form and dealt with item by item, and I am sure it is because of this view that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made his suggestion last night and that the amendment was moved this afternoon.
I disagree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat when he says that the effect of the amendment would be to kill the committee report.


George James McIlraith: The very opposite.


John Napier Turner: It is the very opposite. It would convert the generalities and the basic general philosophy of the report into concrete propositions that could be dealt with item by item by the House of Commons. If the session should end before the committee is able to report back to the House of Commons, the committee could quite easily be reconstituted, as it has been once before, and the entire body of evidence and the recommendations so far adopted by that committee could be accepted by the same committee so reconstituted in a new session of the House of Commons.
When one comes to deal with the specific items of the report I suppose there is not a member of the house who would be in total agreement with each one of them. There are items with regard to which I would respectfully disagree, but with the basic motive of the committee report I am heartily in agreement and I have nothing but admiration for the chairman and members of the subcommittee who have brought it forward for

[DOT]discussion in the house. I want to deal in a broad way with the general substance of the report. It is set out at the beginning where the committee says:
X. Your committee is of the opinion that the potential value of the committee system of the House of Commons is not being exploited to the full-
2. Your committee, through its subcommittee on committees, has examined a number of reforms relating to the committee structure of the house-
It will be my argument, in the few moments I have at my disposal, that the position of individual members of parliament, whether in opposition or on the government benches, can be strengthened by a strengthening of the committee system. I think we should look at the role of the member of parliament in this House of Commons, and indeed in the role of a member of parliament in a parliamentary democracy. What should he do? Ideally he should translate the wishes of his electors into debate, into action on the floor of the House of Commons. At the same time he should lead opinion, if he can, in his riding. He should be an influence upon his electorate. He should contribute toward the formation of a collective opinion in the area of the country which he is called upon to represent. In other words he is the liaison between the people and, if I may call it that, the establishment or the bureaucracy.
Now, the member of parliament, in my opinion, is the linchpin in our entire parliamentary democracy. It is he who represents the people who elected him, and because that is so it is essential to the good working of the parliamentary system that he have an effective role. There are severe limitations on the role of an individual member of parliament, no matter on which side of the house he may sit. First of all, I suppose the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet is bound to have a restrictive effect upon his effectiveness. By "collective responsibility" I mean the doctrine under parliamentary tradition that the cabinet stands or falls as a unit. If a minister is challenged on a matter of government policy, the cabinet stands behind him and will stand or fall with him. As a result of that collective responsibility, there is always the threat of dissolution, always the threat of an election. This means, to a certain extent, that the cabinet has a leverage over the House of Commons because of this perpetual threat of dissolution and, to that extent, is immune from parliamentary control except on issues of crisis.
Procedure Committee Report
I am not questioning the cabinet form of government. It is a necessary part of the urge for efficiency in a parliamentary process and in the management of the business of the country. All I am saying is that perhaps the management or efficiency side of the house outweighs the democratic impulse of the house as expressed through the role of the individual member of parliament.
There are further restrictions on the role of the individual member, Mr. Speaker. These are caused by party discipline and by party organization. A century ago in the United Kingdom and in Canada a private member was generally free to defy his party whip or the disciplinary agent of his party. It was this independence of the ordinary member of parliament that gave the House of Commons its place of importance in public opinion. It was this independence that was the best check on the government of the day. Richard Crossman, who is now a minister in the labour government of the United Kingdom, once wrote that the prime responsibility of a member is less to his conscience and electors than to his party, because without accepting the discipline of his party he cannot be elected and if he defies that discipline he risks political death. I believe he overstates the case. The point I want to make is that the necessary efficiency of parliamentary government inflicts certain limitations on the role of the member. Here again there has to be a proper balance. If there were no cohesion of views, if those of us who are in the political system did not link ourselves toward common ends under a common leadership and contend under an adversary system with those of opposing points of view, there would be chaos. In other words, under a system of one man one vote, you would have anarchy as they did under that system in the third and fourth French republics.
This fact of party decisions being taken in caucus has, to a certain extent, made the role of the members of parliament on the floor of the House of Commons less important than it once was. The real struggles for power are today less on the floor of the House of Commons than within the party caucus. I see the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) smiling at me. He knows, from personal experience, just what I mean. The caucus of the government party and the caucus of the official opposition party have become, to a certain extent, the chief battlefields of politics, and to that extent democracy has become invisible. The struggles are carried on behind closed doors. The point is,

Procedure Committee Report how long can democracy remain invisible? How long can these struggles remain hidden from public scrutiny and still conform to the principles of democracy?
I said that the party discipline argument could be exaggerated because I am sure there is in the conscience of every member in this chamber a point where the principles for which he stands and the loyalties to which he adheres, would dictate that on specific issues important enough to him or to his electors, he would rebel against his party. This still happens, and it will continue to happen. It does not happen as often as it used to happen. As the political party becomes more organized and more discipline is required, the backbencher on either side of the house becomes more restricted.
I should like to mention a third force restricting the independent role of a member of parliament. I refer to the permanent establishment of government, the civil service, the bureaucracy or what I once was bold enough to call "the mandarin class". I may say quite clearly this is not an attack on the civil service, because all of us realize we need an efficient civil service which gives us again the balance of efficiency on the one hand against what we represent on the other, the impulse of freedom and the democratic voice. Democracy may flounder from time to time when the country is undecided or confused about issues. This indecision, this confusion, will be reflected in the House of Commons; but because of the efficiency represented by the civil service, the permanent establishment of government, the daily business of government will continue. However, today the power of the permanent civil service, the concept of efficiency, in my opinion outweighs the impulse of freedom as represented by the individual member of parliament. What we need is an effective counterbalance in this chamber in the form of an effective member of parliament. The average member is faced with a monopoly of information, as the last speaker mentioned, in the hands of the government, backed by the expertise of officialdom. There is this monopoly of information and technical competence that he, himself, cannot match except from time to time when the subject matter falls within his own competence, perhaps gained before being given his mission to this chamber by the people.
As governments increase their intervention in our society, with economic planning, five year plans, transportation legislation, pension plans and so on, the technical background


needed by each one of us for intelligent criticism becomes more complicated. The member of parliament finds the monopoly of technical information in the civil service. It is our duty here, as representatives of a working democracy, to restore the balance between freedom and efficiency. It is within this context that I view the committee's report, because by strengthening the committees system we will by my submission, strengthen the role of the individual member of parliament and allow him to compete against the restrictions of cabinet government, the restrictions of party discipline, the restrictions a monopoly of information in the hands of the permanent establishment of government may place upon him.
It is for this reason that I support heartily the committee's report to the extent that it recommends the strengthening of the committees system. It means we shall establish a procedure whereby legislation can be submitted at an earlier stage to standing and special committees of the commons for scrutiny by members. This reform would, in my opinion, achieve two main results. First, it would allow an individual member of parliament access to information upon which to base intelligent criticism. Before entering the committee he may not have had this information at his disposal. As a result of his power on that committee he will be able to call witnesses either from the civil service or from outside government to give him the information and the documentation on the basis of which he can make decisions. Evidence from civil servants and others summoned before the committee to testify as to the facts concerning the proposed legislation will make each member of the committee a more intelligent critic. In other words, the monopoly of information of which I have spoken would be broken.
The second result of this reform would, I suggest, be this: A member sitting on a committee is relatively freer of party discipline than he is when sitting and speaking in this chamber. He is freer from the lash of the party whip. Thus it is that certain committees have been conducted in a very non-partisan way. With the encouragement and extension of this system a member would have more scope to use his own judgment and talents and would be less restricted by his commitments to his party.
This report of the committee of which Your Honour is the chairman has as its motive the finding of ways in which to speed up and modernize the work of this house. This is

all to the good. It means that we who have the good fortune and the honour to be elected to represent our fellow citizens may accomplish more for the country. I wish to suggest, however, that this is not the entire solution- the streamlining of business and the modernization of procedure. We must not only get more business done here in Ottawa but we must ensure that the ordinary member of parliament who is the linchpin of democracy makes a better individual contribution to the work of the house. We must ensure that there is not only a more efficient transaction of our business but also a more democratic transaction of our affairs.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to comment briefly on some of the remarks which have been made, because I am disturbed by the suggestion that acceptance of the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council would have the effect of killing both the report and the committee for the present session. I hope it will allay some of the fears of members of this house if I deal with this and say that if the report is referred back to the committee the subcommittee is prepared to begin its meetings again on Monday to work out specific proposals based on the debate which has taken place in this chamber.
This special committee on procedure and organization is not a committee which was set up by the government. It is an all-party committee which was set up by this house. The report which was brought in was the result of a great deal of study. We did come up with a certain new concept of what should be done to deal with the estimates of expenditure. We went about as far as we could go in devising ways and means of doing this in the absence of some guidance from the house. In the course of the last two days some useful suggestions and comments have been made and the committee can take these into consideration when it begins its meetings next week, and revise its proposals accordingly. We hoped there would be this kind of discussion and comment from hon. members and I am satisfied that a large number of very useful suggestions have been made. We could try to work these into specific proposals in a new report to this parliament, but I suggest that the only way in which the committee would really be competent to do this would be if the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council were accepted. It would be difficult to proceed if the fifteenth report were still standing in our routine proceedings as well as, possibly, an eight-
Procedure Committee Report eenth report. It would be necessary to get rid of one of them in some way. The best way to do that would be to accept the motion before us. I might point out that citation 322 of Beauchesne's fourth edition states the following:
It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision, but if the house resolves that such reconsideration is necessary, the correct procedure is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
Thus, if we are to achieve what I am sure most members desire, that is, a reconsideration of the recommendations, there is no other way in which to achieve this except by accepting the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council allowing the committee to be re-activated with at least some kind of instructions. So I hope there will be no misconception of what this amendment would do. The committee will certainly get back to work very quickly and try to come forward with further specific recommendations before the end of this session. Even if we are not able to complete the work within that time we have a firm undertaking from the government that the committee will be set up again very early in the next session and we can complete the recommendations then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to make a few brief remarks in connection with this report and indicate my attitude with respect to the fears which have been expressed, that if this amendment moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is carried the whole cause of parliamentary reform will be dealt a damaging if not a fatal blow.
First, I think the house generally appreciates the necessity of undertaking fundamental changes in the procedure we have been following. In fact it may be true that the house is behind public opinion in coming to grips with a necessity for parliamentary reform. The committee on procedure has put forward a package of proposals, each element in the package being related to the other, and the package in itself does constitute an important step in trying to deal with the question of parliamentary reform. The three main elements in the proposals are the allocation of 20 days to dealing with estimates, an effort to restructure and upgrade the committees system in the house, and the establishment of regular adjournment periods.
The discussion so far reinforces, I think, the necessity for the reconsideration of much of these proposals. The committee proposed

Procedure Committee Report that the estimates, or the main estimates, be considered in a period limited to 20 days. There is no explicit reference in the report to supplementary estimates and interim supply. In fact, in one part of the report the committee talks about estimates and in another part it talks about main estimates. I suggest here is one instance where reconsideration would be most useful, because the purpose of confining debate in committee of supply would be frustrated if the proposals were applied only to the main estimates and if the time formerly used on the main estimates spilled over into interim supply and supplementary estimates.
The committee, I feel, ought to be given an opportunity to clarify this particular aspect for the benefit of the house. I agree in general with the restructuring of the committees system, but I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his statement that the standing committees can never be a true substitute for the House of Commons itself. That is not the suggestion inherent in the report. The House of Commons itself must remain the main and central forum in which we operate. That does not preclude the necessity of upgrading the committees system.
That point leads me to the third aspect, namely regular adjournment periods. The purpose of having regular adjournment periods was twofold; one, to give members regular opportunities to do their constituency work -and that still is an absolutely vital part of the work of a member of parliament-and the second, of course, was to have special, regular periods when committees would sit; the house would not be sitting, members would devote themselves exclusively to committee sittings which they would be obliged to attend, and this would have the effect of upgrading the work of the committees and also reducing the necessity especially of dealing with the main estimates in committee of supply. It is obvious from the discussion so far that there is not unanimity, nor is there likely to be unanimity, on the proposal made in the committee report that we have a three weeks sitting of the house, two weeks of an adjourned house, one week devoted to committees and another to visitations to constituencies. That has been regarded as too rigid, but the principle itself is still worth thinking about. I simply want to refer members of the committee to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that he in principle agrees with this particular proposal that committee sittings also be in periods of adjournment.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
There are other variations that could be considered by the committee. I believe the time has come when we must face up to the necessity for regular adjournments of the House of Commons. Why cannot we consider further in the committee agreeing on a regular summer adjournment, a regular Easter adjournment and a regular Christmas adjournment; and then possibly a particular period that might be called a committees adjournment? This would to some extent meet the objectives proposed in the committee report without imposing the rigidity that has been alleged and which may exist. I go a little further, Mr. Speaker, and say that coupled with regular adjournment periods must be the assurance that there will be an opportunity to get the business of the house done. That is provided for, at least with respect to the main estimates, by the 20-day proposal. I suggest that if regular adjournment periods, in the way mentioned, are to succeed then this proposal must be joined and coupled with time allocation in connection with principal debates of the house. Freedom of speech must be maintained, but I think our experience this session ought to have taught us that the length of time spent on a particular measure does not necessarily ensure that a good, effective and useful debate has taken place.
Mr. Speaker, we in the government are serious about parliamentary reform. We are not supporting the amendment moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mc-Ilraith) with the purpose of abandoning parliamentary reform; rather, we hope we can get this report sent back to the committee today. The committee could then get busy and bring back a report at the earliest possible moment incorporating at least the recommendations in this report that have common support. I suggest that the alternative is to continue the debate indefinitely; if the main motion for concurrence were put to the house it is doubtful whether it would pass. The quickest way to get an agreed solution is to get this report back to the committee for a speedy report, if possible, and then deal as quickly as possible with the further report. I want to reply to the Leader of the Opposition in that respect, who had the view that the idea of the government was to abandon this question. That is not the intention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister whether, as a scholar of political economy, as he is recognized to be, he can really find any justification for the

exclusion by paragraph 17 of the fifteenth report of the committee of certain members of the House of Commons from committees. The question that is in my mind is this: It appears to me that as members of parliament we in a sense should be equal. If in the wisdom of a particular parliament certain members, be they cabinet ministers, the leader of the opposition, the whip of the government or the opposition, should be deemed by their peers to be useful committee men for certain purposes, does the minister really feel that by class they should be excluded from participation in these committees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the committee intended to discriminate against the leader of the opposition or ministers. I think it was a recognition of a practice that has grown up over the years, that only on very rare occasions does the leader of the opposition, or indeed do cabinet ministers, attend committee meetings. But certainly this is not a matter that ought to divide us. If the view is that all members of parliament should still be allowed to sit on committees, I am sure the committee on procedure would have no difficulty in rewriting that section of the report.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen). He will recall that last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said there was a strong plea made for a shorter question period when he was leader of the opposition. Would the Minister of Labour know what the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, had to say about a shorter question period and why there is the necessity for debating that particular point any further?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, the then leader of the opposition and the former member for Laurier had made proposals from time to time in connection with procedure. I think one of the proposals put forward was to consider the possibility of limiting the question period, and there was also the question of the allocation of time. I cannot make any further reply to what my hon. friend has said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, as often happens in the House of Commons, there has been a turn of events that had not been anticipated. My understanding some time ago was the same as that of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), that in response to requests from the members of the committee
Procedure Committee Report on organization and procedure one day would be set aside for a discussion of their report, and that was yesterday. It was our understanding that that would be all we would have time for in this particular session of the House of Commons. But apparently there has been an insistence on the part of the members of that committee to have a further discussion of their committee's report, or have some conclusion reached immediately. Therefore a compromise was attempted by the government house leader, that we would ask to have the report referred back to the committee for further study. This did not pass immediately, and the result is that that motion has been debated this afternoon and there is not now time to go on to the business we had anticipated for today, namely Bill No. C-142.
The only reason I am entering into the debate at this time is this. After listening carefully to what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) last night, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) today and by the chairman of the subcommittee, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), I have reached the conclusion that unless people express their opinions with regard to this report now the subcommittee, which is going to go to work Monday, so says the chairman, will base its further report or conclusions on what has been said in this chamber, and accept that as the consensus of the House of Commons.


Mr. McIntosh:: Which is not right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I cannot accept that conclusion from what has happened so far. I hope that other members will have the chance to express their opinions before the subcommittee attempts to draw up any further recommendations. Because if the subcommittee is simply going to draw up its recommendations on what has been said by those who have spoken up to this point, then not all of the ground has been covered.
I think this is a bad turn of events indeed, and I think it is bad for this reason. I appreciate the difficulties facing the government house leader. I have been through the mill on that job myself. When his timetable is upset it is then very difficult to get the session back on the rails; and his timetable has now been upset by the insistence of a subcommittee of the rules and procedure committee whose object, so they tell us, is to reform parliament. These people will not even co-operate with the government house leader in his very difficult task of trying to

Procedure Committee Report get the business processed in the limited number of days ahead of him. These people are all for a reform of parliament, yet they cannot give him some assistance now in the practical management of this house. They have advanced quite a bit of theory, but I suggest to the members of that committee that you have to use some practical common sense in conducting the business of this house. I think in this instance they have not been fair to the government house leader.
Before they reach their conclusions, Mr. Speaker, if they start again on Monday, I should like them to consider some other aspects of the whole question of the rules and procedure of this house. We have heard from members of the committee who have worked on this problem, and from others, and we have read articles in the press and even heard a quotation today from somebody in another country. It is sort of common talk that there is something wrong with parliament and that public opinion is dissatisfied with parliament. Even the Minister of Labour suggested this afternoon that fundamental changes-"fundamental" changes, mark you-had to be made in parliament, and he said-these are his words-that perhaps we are behind public opinion with regard to reform.
The public should be interested in parliament, very properly so, and it does show a great deal more interest now than it did years ago. This is thanks to a number of factors: the rather disturbed world in which we are living, internationally; to better means of communication, television and radio as well as a good press in the country; and to the fact that there has been a fair bit of political turmoil in Canada for the last several years. So there is much more public attention centred on parliament than there was when I first came here 14 years ago. And this is all to the good.
However, it does not follow that because public opinion is centred on this institution we have immediately to make changes. What does this institution exist for? It has been developed over centuries. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned today, this is the year in which people interested in parliamentary government celebrate the 700th year of the existence of parliamentary institutions. It has a long and honourable history. Parliament has evolved as a method of giving the people in a democracy the means of arranging for their own government, of checking the administration of that government, deciding how much they are going to

be taxed and investigating how their taxation money is spent. This is done through debate in the House of Commons, as the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) pointed out in an article in a newspaper-I read the article before I realized who had written it; otherwise I might not have read it-we have exchanged the hurling of epithets across the floor of this chamber for the striking of blows, which is exactly what has happened. So that force does not rule; we attempt instead to govern ourselves by means of reasoned and logical argument. We are satisfied not to strike blows and bear people down by brute force but rather to engage in discussion. This is what parliament is. The freedom of this country is maintained in its parliament.
Why do people say that fundamental changes are required? This disturbs me very much. Fundamental changes would mean a change in something which has been established by trial and error over a long period of time. It is not sacred. It is not important merely because seven centuries have elapsed in the evolution of this system. But just because it is old and ancient is no reason for suddenly having to make fundamental changes. People talk glibly about the fact that we are living in a new age. It is a new age from the standpoint of technological improvement, of course it is; and our living conditions have changed beyond all knowledge. They are quite different from what previous generations had to endure. But the method of debate has not changed. The rules of debate do not need much modification from one century to another. You determine how long a person may speak and whether he gets his chance in turn with others who also want to speak, and so on. Are we going to make fundamental changes in the rules of debate? I think that is nonsense.
Therefore I question the use of the expression "fundamental changes in parliament". I do not want to see fundamental changes in an institution which has proved its worth. As the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, it has proved its worth in time of war and time of emergency.


Pauline Jewett: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question. I am not quite clear what he means by fundamental changes. Is he suggesting that the kind of changes in the rules of debate that the British and other parliamentary systems have instituted in past years are not of a fairly important nature?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was criticizing the expression used by the Minister of Labour

(Mr. MacEachen), so that question should be addressed to him. What does he mean by "fundamental changes"? I can see certain small changes taking place from time to time, improving conditions here as a result of some of the methods perhaps getting out of date, or because they are not satisfactory. I could suggest offhand certain minor changes-I would not call them fundamental-with regard to questions of privilege and things of that nature; but what did the minister mean by "fundamental changes"?
I think the committee on rules and procedure started off from the wrong premise. It started off with the idea that reform of parliament was necessary. I sometimes think it started off with the idea of change for the sake of change. That committee worked on the basis that there was something wrong with parliament. Parliament is fulfilling its function. It does not operate in quite the same way each year, because this depends on the composition of the house, the strength of the government and the opposition, and on the number of parties in the house. It does operate from year to year in somewhat different ways.
The multiplicity of parties in a house changes the temper of a house and changes to a certain extent the modes of progression in a house. I have seen that happen and so have you, Mr. Speaker, during the time you have been here. We have to adjust ourselves to that fact. The people through their voting power have decided that there should be quite a number of parties in the House of Commons. As one of my colleagues pointed out the other night, the House of Commons reflects to a certain extent instability, if you like, in political life in Canada. That instability is manifested by the multiplicity of parties here. The public having made that decision with regard to the composition of this house has to put up with the situation here, and may find that things do not go along quite as smoothly or as rapidly as they might if we had a two-party system with a government and an opposition.
The committee started from the wrong premise and it reached the conclusion that great changes had to be made. The committee in its report has argued that there would be a substantial improvement in this house if the committees system was thoroughly overhauled. The first sentence of their report has been read, but I will read it again. It is this:
Your committee is of the opinion that the potential value of the committee system of the House of Commons is not being exploited to the full- 20220-797
19, 1965
Procedure Committee Report
We have heard various members of this house state that there should be an expansion of the committees system and that committees should be given more power. The hon. members of the N.D.P. who have spoken so far lean toward the congressional system in existence in the United States and favour that committee system which formulates policy and attempts to get the administration to accept it, or which rejects policy put forward by the administration, or modifies it. That is the republican form of government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred to it in his speech last evening. It is not a parliamentary system, and I hope that when the special committee commences its work again it will not try to put powers for formulating policy in the hands of the committees of this house. I object to that because it is wrong and because it does not fit in with a parliamentary system.
The committee makes a great point about the fact that an expansion of our committees system would be excellent for individual members because they would have more to do. Some people suggest that the individual member of parliament does not have enough to do and that by increasing the number of committees they will then be able to keep themselves occupied. I think the situation which faces any member of this House of Commons at any time is that without any committee work whatsoever a member of parliament has more to do than he can adequately accomplish.
I see no limit to what a member of the House of Commons can do by way of informing himself and participating on occasion in the debates of this house without any need for multiplying the number of committees, but this again depends on the individual. With 20 departments of government to examine, any member who comes to this House of Commons can in the course of time become reasonably expert and proficient in respect of one or two of these fields of activities. We do not have to have committees in order to accomplish that purpose.
The one value of the committees of the House of Commons not mentioned by the rules and procedure committee is that the committees may bring before them officials and experts from which the individual member of parliament can obtain information rather quickly. The committees do not exist just for the purpose of supplying members with information. The value I see in committee work is related to the fact that administrators in the civil service, or public service, have to come

Procedure Committee Report and give an accounting of their trusteeships to members of parliament. My experience with people in those capacities has been that they rather welcome the opportunity of explaining what they are doing and this applies to departments of government and crown corporations, unless of course they are being harassed toy committee members. Senior members of the civil service have told me that an appearance before a parliamentary committee is good for them and for their associates in the departments, because it keeps them on their toes. They know from year to year that what they are doing may be examined very carefully by a committee of the house. That is a useful and purposeful type of committee work.
Whether or not members can obtain information and knowledge through committee work depends entirely on the individual member. I have attended many committees and I know the frustration of members. I listened to all the praises of the defence committee. I served on that defence committee for a year and I know that there was no influencing of government policy by that committee. In fact, the minister said he did not want us to tell him what to do in the way of policy. There was a great deal of expert information given by officials of the Department of National Defence, but with 24 members on the committee the restriction in respect of questions is great. An hon. member may ask one question or one supplementary question, and then the ball passes to someone else who in turn asks one question or a supplementary question. With 24 members sitting around a table questioning an admiral or a general the opportunity of a committee member to obtain information is restricted to one question per meeting, or perhaps not even that.
I am not impressed by the laudatory phrases which have been used as to how valuable the work of a committee is, or by the suggestion that members can ask questions and ferret out information. I have been on too many committees to accept that statement without a grain of salt. There is some value in gaining information from some of these committees, but there is some difficulty in getting on them. In the first seven years I was here I would have liked to be on the external affairs committee, but there was a tight little corporate body that controlled the membership of that committee. I was not put on it, except for two days on one occasion, because I had made a special study of the subject of genocide and the external affairs committee was discussing that matter.
IMr. Churchill.]
But after the two days were over I was shuffled off again and nevermore appeared. So there is some difficulty in getting on some of these so-called elite committees. I got information on external affairs by reading all the committee reports and everything else I could lay my hands on with regard to international affairs, and any member of the House of Commons can do the same thing. So you do not actually have to serve on a committee.
I want to deal with something in the report which I think strikes at the root of our freedom of speech here, and would be very bad if introduced as a recommendation by the subcommittee next week or the following week. It is something which seemed to get the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen) this afternoon and perhaps of some others. I refer to how we are to deal with the main estimates in the House of Commons.
As I see the work of the House of Commons, our main job when we come here is really the budget, or how much taxation is to be imposed on the Canadian people. That is our main purpose. That is why parliament was assembled in the early days. The second purpose is to see how the taxation money is spent, and the third purpose is the passing of useful legislation. You can put all three on much the same level but I do not by any means put the budget or the main estimates in an inferior position.
The committee is likely to propose, as they have indicated in their report, that when we come to the main estimates in the House of Commons we will be restricted to 20 days. Their argument is that if the estimates are referred to committees and studied there in great detail-I have been all through this and I know how much that amounts to-we do not need to discuss them at length in the House of Commons. This is not a new idea. An estimates committee was established in former years which was very active. As a matter of fact, in 1955 six departments were referred to that committee, six in 1956, eight in 1958 and a similar number in 1959. The officials were present and were examined. That estimates committee worked well and it should have been set up again so that it could have been operating.
But the restriction to 20 days in the House of Commons will limit freedom of speech, will prevent examination of cabinet ministers to see whether they have knowledge of their departments and are good administrators and will not provide us with the opportunity to find out what their policy is with regard to

their departments. I suggested informally to the rules and procedure committee eight months ago that on a trial basis we should allow 45 days for the study of the main estimates here in the House of Commons, with the public able to be present and listen and the members of the press gallery also present. If you shift these things to committees you lose the press. They would not know where to find some of the committees in the buildings we have. Examine the estimates right here in the House of Commons. Put the ministers on the spot. We were put on the spot when we were in the government. That was all right. As a minister of the crown I welcomed it. Let us examine the ministers publicly as to their knowledge of their departments. Let us examine them with regard to the policies of their departments. It is not so much a question of finding out whether they need another $5 or $10 or $15 million, although that is important. What we want to know is whether the government is being properly conducted and whether the ministers know their jobs. This is the place to do it. Restrict us to 20 days and we are chopped off.
Normally it takes 60 days to deal with the main estimates in the House of Commons. I suggested that as an experiment for one year we should set a limit of 45 days. The committee has cut this down to 20 days. This is one of the things in the committee report to which I object. When the subcommittee is examining this matter next week I hope they will bear that in mind and not come up with such a restrictive idea which will limit debate and prevent us from doing our job.
May I add that although there may be 15, 24 or 60 members on a committee there are ether members of the house who are not on those committees and who are entitled when the main estimates come to the floor of the house to make speeches, investigate policy and ask questions. For example, the very fact that I may not be a member of the veterans affairs committee or of the defence committee or the external affairs committee should not prevent my talking on any of these three subjects in committee of supply when the minister is facing the public. I exert my right, which is that of any member of the house, to have my say with regard to some of these problems.
However, as an experiment I suggest a period of 45 days. Let the opposition select the departments it would like to deal with and at the end of the 45 days let the guillotine fall. Then there can be no complaint on the part of the opposition. But if you have a period of only 20 days the guillotine falls too 20220-7971
Procedure Committee Report soon and millions of dollars in estimates will be passed in the house without adequate discussion. We had an example of that last fall. I suggested to the government house leader and he accepted the idea that we take seven days to complete the main estimates. We did so, but as hon. members will recall the guillotine fell on Friday afternoon without the Department of Transport and other departments having been examined. Millions of dollars in estimates were put through without examination. That is a good example of what happens when you have a fixed date for the end of a debate. Anyone who was here will remember-those who were not can look at the record and see-how easily some of the ministers got off because of the guillotine falling and how little attention the house was able to give to several major departments.


John Napier Turner: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


John Napier Turner: I followed what he said quite closely but I do not know from what he said whether he is willing to vote in favour of the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes. I have been in favour of the present amendment for hours. The only reason I participated in the debate was that there seemed to be no purpose in going on with Bill No. C-142 and I was not too impressed with the statement of the chairman of the subcommittee that he was going to take the consensus of the house up to that moment as the basis for further consideration. I hope he will pay some attention to my ideas about the rules.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the purpose of the amendment is to kill the report and therefore I am not sure whether we should allow that to be done. However, some very interesting suggestions have been made and if this matter is carried over and debated at a later time there may be further suggestions made that will prove advantageous.
I think it has been generally agreed that certain changes can be made without taking away the authority of the individual member, but I believe it should be borne in mind that the reason why this matter is a subject of concern at the present time and why the committees of the house have been given predominance in the discussion is to be found in the fact that there is a minority government. For the first time the government cannot control all the committees. For the first

Procedure Committee Report time they have not been able to direct what the committees can do. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the situation has been so bad that the opposition has been responsible in many cases for seeing that quorums were arranged for committee meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps I am a bit unfair, but certainly it has been the fact that opposition members have been predominant on committees lately.


Pauline Jewett: Which ones?


William Arnold Peters: Agriculture is one good example, and privileges and elections is another.


Pauline Jewett: No.


William Arnold Peters: I am a member of it and the hon. lady is not, so it appears to me she is making a suggestion about something of which she has no personal knowledge.


Pauline Jewett: I am on the committee.


William Arnold Peters: Well, you have not attended. However, we do not want to get into an argument of that kind. I have been a member for only a short period of time and since I have not seen her there I assumed she was not a member.
No cabinet wants strong committees when the government party has a large majority. I think the official opposition will agree that the question of committees did not become important until there was a minority government. Then this proposition becomes very important. It is necessary to get business done, Mr. Speaker, but have we really decided what we want to accomplish? I have been a member of many very good committees. I believe a good example is the defence committee. The defence committee is an excellent example of a committee that studies a great many matters. However, look at your newspapers, look at the announcements of changes in defence policy that have been made in the house, and you will find that none of them has been referred to this particular committee. The recommendations a committee makes are never taken into consideration. There is no way in which our committees can become part of the legislative branch. Unless we are willing to give some legislative responsibilities to committees so that the cabinet will have to make a decision upon whether or not they agree with the committee, there might as well not be any committees.
I have always found committees to be an exercise in futility. You can have as many IMr. Peters.]
research people as you want; you can be as smart as you want; you can know as much about the subject as you want, but when the committee present its report to the house that will be the end of the matter. Then you ask yourself: What in hell was the use of spending two or three weeks hard work in a committee, if nobody is going to even read the committee's recommendations? Unless the government is willing to say they want committees to help in the legislative process of government as well as in the consideration of estimates, I think we are really not facing up to the problem.
I am sure the opposition parties are faced with another dilemma. Last year we agreed to debate of 20 days on the estimates. I have no objection to the fact that the official opposition chose to debate the estimates of the Department of Justice. As it turned out, they could not have picked a department that needed scrutiny more than this department. However, the result was that every one of the other departments was excluded from consideration. There were some of us who did not like that experience. I agree with the member who spoke before me, that under the committees system we have used we do not seem to produce any results. We are of the opinion that there could be changes made and that some reconciliation could be made between what is done in committees and what the government itself decides to do.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) discussed some of the other problems we have in other fields. It seems to me the government has to be fair and reasonable in these other fields. I am referring to the role of the private member in introducing resolutions and bills. It is a disgrace, and the government knows it-many members of the government were on this side of the house not long ago-that good ideas are advanced by private members and no consideration given to them. Some members on that side will agree they are only a couple of years older and not that much smarter than when they were on this side of the house, and the ideas they advanced then are still good ideas but they were not given any consideration.
I believe this procedure committee should be commended on the work it has done. There still has to be a relationship between what happens in the government and what happens to the role of a private member. There is no question about the fact that there is no possibility for members of parliament, individually or collectively, to supervise the expenditures of this country. At the moment
125S7

we do not have the machinery that would make it possible for us to do so. I am sure that the setting up of these committees in the manner advocated in this report is not going to produce that result. Even if we set up committees where members can question officials who have knowledge of the various departments, we are going to have to give some legislative powers to these committees. I do not believe we have the machinery available yet which would permit the committee to request the government to say yes or no to certain things.
An example of this is the committee report with which we are dealing now. The government has said the report will be referred back to the committee. If the government would say they will refer it back because the cabinet has decided specifically to accept this and that, then I would be in complete agreement. I do not know now that I am able to vote either for or against this motion. The committee is going to examine the report in the light of the speeches that have been made. I suppose the only speech they will really examine will be the Prime Minister's.


Mr. Walker:: And yours.


William Arnold Peters: If the committee examines some of the other speeches they will find themselves in the same quandary in which they were in the first place. I believe the government has to make this decision. They have to say what they intend to do in relation to the committee report. I ask only that the government say they agree-I am not referring only to this committee report but to all committee reports-with this, and will accept this but not that, so that then the house can make a decision.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question at this point?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why does the hon. member insist that it is a government decision? Is this not a matter that concerns every member in the House of Commons? This is a Commons decision, not a government decision.


William Arnold Peters: We are probably in complete agreement. I feel that the parliament of Canada can do absolutely nothing. We do not have a parliamentary form of government; we have a cabinet form of government! If the cabinet does not intend to do anything about it, then parliament is not going to do anything about it. In my opinion, legislation can only flow from the cabinet. I am not familiar with the intricate details of how a
Procedure Committee Report cabinet becomes seized of a particular problem. However, it seems to me if they are not willing to consider a matter, we cannot consider it.
The other night the Prime Minister went down the list of items and said that he personally agreed with this or that; that this should be changed or that should be done. I am of the opinion cabinet has to do that sort of thing. It is for this reason I say that when a report comes back to the house from a committee, if the cabinet is not in some way charged with making a decision, then the committee has wasted its time. I have been a member of some excellent committees and I think they made some good decisions.
I was pleased to have the opportunity of listening to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) when she spoke on television. She was really pleased with these suggestions which have been made: They were exciting; they were new. I am excited, too, that the committee has finally decided to do something. I am pleased that one of the ministers sat with this committee. He now comes before the house and says the committee should have done this, and that, and made other changes. I believe there is a desire in this parliament to do something about some of these problems.


Pauline Jewett: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not realize that the earlier reports of the committee on procedure which did recommend changes in standing orders were passed by this house without the intervention of the government's initiative?


William Arnold Peters: No, I did not know that. I will use an example. This is maybe not the example I should use but it is the one I will use. There are 30 or 40 government supporters who are violently opposed in principle to the British flag. When a vote was taken they all supported the British flag. It may be said this was a free vote, but it seems to me that if the cabinet does not decide, a decision by government supporters is not possible. I say this because, if enough of them to form a party the size of my own were to take an independent view, there would be no government. This is not a supposition, it is a fact. I am sure the hon. member for Northumberland is one of the most outstanding independents in her party.


An hon. Member:: In caucus.


William Arnold Peters: And probably in her ideology. But I am also sure that because of the make-up of this house there are very few

Procedure Committee Report people who can really pursue an independent line. I may be wrong. Maybe "cabinet" is not the proper word, but for want of a better one I say I think we have government by cabinet, and that parliament is the tool of the cabinet rather than the cabinet being the tool of parliament. Constitutional authorities may disagree but I think in practice this is a fact. For this reason I hope this question will be reconsidered by the cabinet and we will not be asked to vote against it, not because we do not agree with it but because we do not feel it goes far enough in bringing about the results for which we hope.
For this reason I should like to call it five o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the hon. member would reconsider and permit the amendment to the motion to pass.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me this important question really cannot be decided in a matter of a few days-within the few days which will be left to us. It seems to me that if we vote for or against the motion we are probably killing-


George Clyde Nowlan: We could try it and find out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to reiterate what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The government would very much like to have a concrete recommendation made before the end of this session. It could be carried out, as the Prime Minister indicated, in the next session of parliament. We are not asking the committee to do something different from what it has suggested, but to put the suggestions in precise language and bring them back for consideration. We believe this would be quite possible and I can assure the hon. member on behalf of the government that we have the utmost goodwill and the utmost anxiety to see something done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On behalf of the alternative government, we agree.


Frank Howard: The only incongruous thing is that the very government which is now asking for this to proceed is the one which wanted to postpone action on this question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not correct.


Frank Howard: It is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman must have misunderstood the position. In any case, whatever may have been the government's sins in the past, our attitude now is that we would like to get some action
[Mr. Peters.l
and we hope the motion will be allowed to pass so that the committee can get on and bring something definite before us which the whole house can agree on.


Frank Howard: Whatever were the sins of the government in the past, that is a good basis for its activities now.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to all hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



RAILWAY ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-67, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs).
He said: I am pleased to have this opportunity of giving the house a chance to approve a bill which has already in exactly the same form won the approval of the main committee of the house which deals with these matters, and which is actually a committee of this particular parliament.
In 1963 the committee considered the subject matter of this bill. The bill had been referred to the committee at the request of the government. This was in line with an indication of a similar course of action by the previous government when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) was minister of transport. The bill went to the committee, hearings were held during the summer of 1963 and we heard strong representations particularly from spokesmen for the major railways, including Mr. Emerson who is now the new president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the committee approved a series of recommendations. In effect, it approved the substance of the bill.
For this reason I feel some optimism, in bringing this forward at the present time, that the bill will receive quick agreement in the house and that the general idea will be forwarded to the railways committee which at the present time is considering in an informal way, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) knows, the very act to which this is a minor amendment.

The problem which is involved in this measure has been before the house repeatedly. I am looking here at the submission made to the government of Canada by the national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods dated January 28, 1959. It has a section on page 8 making a recommendation almost identical with what is embodied in this bill. Actually, the railway brotherhoods first brought this idea forward in 1957 and have been advocating it for a long time. Only last week on March 11 the same group of railway brotherhoods, through their national legislative committee, made a submission to the government of Canada. I hope to read part of that submission and part of the reply given by the Minister of Transport to it. But first I thought I might make better sense out of what has transpired in the last week or two by quoting from an article which appeared in Railway Labour on August 1, 1964. The heading is: "Rail Job Security Issue Revived" and the subheading reads: "Flipflop charged to Pickersgill on Law Change." It says:
Executives of Canadian rail unions met in emergency session here last week to deal with the apparent rejection by Minister of Transport J. W. Pickersgill of a recommendation made over seven months ago by a Commons' standing committee.
That committee proposed that railway employees adversely affected by automation and technological change be compensated for their loss. The transport minister had said the recommendation was under "active consideration", but he has apparently repudiated that assurance, according to the unions.
The repudiation was seen in his response to a question put to him recently by the same committee when president Donald Gordon of the Canadian National was testifying.
m The transport minister at that time was asked: "What has happened to the recommendations of last year's committee on this matter?" He replied in part:
The principle involved here is so far reaching that I think it would be very difficult to contemplate applying very easily to the railways a principle that was not going to be applied to other aspects of the economy. This is a consequence of automation.
"I would ask myself a basic question which every member of parliament has to ask himself, whether we feel that we should attempt to make the shippers pay for something. If it is to be a social policy, perhaps it should be paid for by the taxpayers. These are some of the problems that arise in this field."
That was in August, 1964, Mr. Speaker; I want you to note that:
But two members of the committee-J. H. Horner, of Acadia, and Douglas Fisher, of Port Arthur- pointed out to Mr. Pickersgill that just such principles as these were very carefully considered by the committee during several months of hearings in 1963 that led to the following recommendation:
Railway Act
"The government shall give consideration to amending section 182 of the Railway Act to ensure the rights of railway employees in those cases where abandonment, merger or co-ordination between railways, or the closing or near-closing of terminals and shops, or the introduction of run-throughs is undertaken by the management.
"The committee would prefer that such matters as adjustment, compensation, retraining arrangements, and other ameliorations of dislocation be a matter of negotiation between management and the employees' legitimate bargaining agencies, but it recognizes that a strong encouragement to such means of settlement will ensue when section 182 is read in such a legal way as to offer firm protection to the employees."
I do not want to go into the long history of the interpretation of section 182 of the present Railway Act or the difficulties involved in section 168 of the present Railway Act; but the point is that in this Bill No. C-120 that was brought in by the government there is a deliberate-I can only assume it is deliberate -ignoring of section 182, and the only changes that are made in reference to section 186, it seems to me, relate to the abandonment of branch lines; in other words, it is to fit in with part of the policy that we are seeing in the future in western Canada. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that it seems very odd to me that the Minister of Transport can argue so vaguely against the import of this particular bill at the very same time as he is marshalling in a bill that in effect sets up a number of agencies-at least two agencies-and very large subsidies in funds in order to take care of rail line abandonment in one particular part of the country. I hope my friends from the west do not think I am against that, but I just want to make the point that if you can set up this kind of authority and make the arrangements for one section of the country to deal with one specific problem, to save communities and employees from damage, then surely it should be made universal.
Now I would like to turn to the submission of last week from the national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods. They say on page 1;
Since 1957 we have, in our annual briefs to the government, requested an amendment to section 182 of the Railway Act. The historical background regarding section 182 and other relevant sections have been placed before you-
That is, before the cabinet:
-on innumerable occasions, and we see no reason to repeat them all again.
The amendment we are seeking is intended to give application to the principle of compensation to railway employees who lose their employment or are required to change their residence as a result of changes beneficial to a railway.
You will recall that this matter was referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and

Railway Act
telegraph lines on June 27, 1963, on motion of a member of your cabinet.
That, of course, is the particular bill that we now have before us:
The committee held eight hearings and heard representation from representatives of all the railway brotherhoods-
Then it goes on to re-quote the recommendations that I have already read. Then later, on page 2, they say:
Subsequent to the report of the standing committee, we have requested your government to introduce legislation designed to implement the recommendation of the committee with no success to date.
On September 14, 1964, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill introduced in the house, Bill C-120, an act designed to implement certain recommendations of the royal commission on transportation. When speaking to the resolution on the bill, the honourable minister, beginning on page 7981 of Hansard, said in part:
"With respect to what the government will be proposing, I may say that of course we are taking our responsibility as a government for the proposals in general, but it is the intention of the government to have this bill sent after second reading, provided the house sees fit to give it second reading, to the railway committee, because it is of such vast importance to everyone in the country. We think it would be quite unreasonable to take any other course. We would expect that the committee would hear representations from all seriously interested bodies."
With all due respect for the assurances given by the hon. minister in this regard, we suggest to him and to your government that we have already appeared before the railway committee, and as we have pointed out, we evidently satisfied the 60-member committee that our cause was justified, our requests reasonable, and they recommended accordingly. We have no choice but to express extreme disappointment in the fact that the committee's recommendation that section 182 be amended is not contained in Bill C-120 and we recommend that concurrent with consideration of Bill C-120, your government introduce an amendment that will implement the recommendation of the standing committee.
That can be done very easily if the government is prepared to take some action out of the opening that is offered to them today with this particular bill. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to quote briefly from a press report the minister's reaction to these proposals by the national legislative committee. This is from the Port Arthur News-Chronicle of Friday, March 12, 1965, a story by Ben Ward to the Canadian Press. The headline is, "JobJarring Automation Under Study by Ottawa" and the article says:
Transport minister Pickersgill said Thursday the government is trying to decide who should carry the financial load of easing the job-jarring effects of automation-the companies involved or the public treasury.

This is the same pitch that he was on last August, only he is a little bit more vague now. The story goes on:
He told a delegation from the railway brotherhoods there are strong arguments on both sides of the question and the government is taking a serious look at them.
The government has been taking a serious look at them since December, 1963. How long, oh Lord, how long does it have to take a look at them? The article goes on:
The delegation, representing nine unions and 100,000 operating railway employees, asked in its brief that job protection and compensation for job dislocation be written into the railway legislation now before parliament.
The brief said many railway workers will lose their jobs and many more will be forced to move their homes when the railways are allowed to abandon money-losing lines and services. Some railway communities would be faced with "economic ruin".
Mr. Pickersgill said he sympathizes-
One of the things we are strong on here is sympathy:
-with the union's arguments and stressed that "the government has not closed its mind on this matter".
But there was some doubt whether the necessary compensation involved should be a charge on the railways-and ultimately the shippers-or be borne by the general economy.
He said the railway situation is just one part of the much larger subject of automation and its effects. He indicated the government is thinking of a general policy to apply in all such cases, not just railways.
J. S. Huneault, chairman of the delegation, said the brotherhoods "need more than just sympathy... we are looking for action".
Labour Minister MacEachen indicated that he plans to amend labour legislation later this year to make automation issues open to negotiation during the life of a contract. This is not provided in the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
We have had this circuitous approach to this subject under consideration for many months by this government, and for many months before that by the previous government. We have a situation where the Department of Labour is supposedly looking at it. Yet the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and his officials seem to be in conflict with the national employment service. Certainly they are in disagreement with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Economic Council of Canada over the way to approach this particular problem.
Given this kind of confusion at this stage, after months of so-called consideration of the matter, it seems to me that waiting for this government to make an over-all approach is not good enough. I appeal to the minister as a practical man, as a person who is prepared to

move in small ways or to take minor steps rather than to make any great big majestic change, to consider that this bill offers the government an opportunity to send once again the recommendations of our railway committee to the committee, with the request that they include them in their considerations and discussions of the act. One way in which I would back down from this request would be if the minister gave me the assurance that the new form of the bill which he is introducing in the next session will seriously take account of this particular point.
One last matter I might mention is this. The minister, if he does take the opportunity to make some remarks, may suggest that this bill is somewhat out of place in view of the fact that an inquiry is looking into certain matters which are partially covered by the provisions of this bill. However, I should like to make the point that if the minister has been reading the proceedings of that inquiry or the press reports, he will realize that contained in this general problem is a responsibility right across the country that is very large and great. I think the most able judge who is considering this would not feel that parliament or the committee of the House of Commons was impinging on the work he is planning to do if, during the time he is considering the material before him to reach a decision, he could hear something more definitive from this parliament or from the government as to where it stands on this particular question.
I would hope that if this bill is talked out- and we have to be realistic; it probably will be-then even then it will not be necessary to reintroduce it in a future session of this house. I hope the minister will realize that a government can in a sense posture only so long. In many ways it would be better, and certainly braver, if it just said no, instead of this continual dragging out of matters with the suggestion that perhaps they will or maybe they won't, but gosh, it's all very difficult.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to speak after so decisive a speaker as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). In his column which he writes in his other capacity, what I might call his capacity as the Dorothy Kil-gallen of our little Hollywood here, he described me the other day as a shilly-shallying, indecisive person. Perhaps it would be a mistake for me to prove him wrong by listening to the appeal he made just a few moments ago to be practical in small matters, if I 20220-798
Railway Act
could not be so in large matters, by doing something about this. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not a small matter. This bill seeks to do something which, in my view, is only one aspect-I admit a very important aspect-of what I consider the greatest problem which faces any industrial society today. I do not think there is any other problem in the world today which is more important, except the problem of maintaining the peace of the world. Because if we do not do that, these other things do not matter much. But outside of that I do not think there is anything more important than finding the right kind of answer to what is loosely called automation or technological change.
I think unemployment breeds the same kind of fears and uncertainties in men's minds as in the great depression days. Happily, so far it has not reached any proportions. In fact it has been very gratifying in the last two or three years to see that employment has been rising, that unemployment is not as great as it was, though we cannot be too satisfied with the situation as it is now. But I think the most tragic aspect of unemployment is the kind of unemployment that comes to men in their forties and fifties, men who have been faithful in doing a good job, who are established in a community, who have every normal reason to believe that their occupation is going to continue for the rest of their lives, and who suddenly find themselves, through no fault of their own whatever, without employment of the kind they have been used to, and in many cases without any satisfactory alternative, owing to a change in technology or in the method of doing things.
I do not think that this problem can be taken lightly at all, and I hope that no one thinks that I take it lightly. However, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, and notwithstanding the great respect that I have for the members of the committee who in 1963 did give, I know, serious and conscientious consideration to this matter, it is not always easy to convince the generality of the population that one aspect of a problem should be dealt with, when it is not being dealt with for other members of the population.
I know it is true that most of the occupations in this country which are affected by what we loosely call automation are not directly under the jurisdiction of this parliament; these workers are under the jurisdiction of the legislatures. We had the same problem when my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) was dealing with

Railway Act
the labour standards bill. That bill, of course, is going to affect only a very small proportion of the workers of Canada, but it is going to affect all of the workers who, as workers, come under the jurisdiction of this parliament. This bill singles out the railway employees, and not all of them. It singles out certain of the railway employees and offers them, or purports to offer them, a degree of job security which we are not giving to others who are equally under the jurisdiction of parliament. It seeks to impose the financial obligation for this job security, not upon the community generally but upon the railways; and since the railways have to try in some fashion or other to recuperate what they spend from freight rates, or possibly from passenger rates-though they do not seem to be very successful in that field-it is not financially possible. I think this is true, notwithstanding the fact that I said it last summer and again the other day. The fact that one says things twice six months apart does not make them any less true.
It is really important economically to decide whether or not we should impose a tax indirectly upon shippers in order to deal with this problem, or directly upon the generality of the community. I do not think the arguments are conclusive either way, and to that extent the hon. gentleman was quite right when he wrote the other day stating that I am indecisive. There are a great many things about which I am indecisive because I try to be honest enough not to pretend to know the answers to questions when I do not know the answers.
Frankly, if I was quite convinced that this was the proper way of dealing with this problem I would recommend it to my colleagues, and if they were agreeable to accepting it, it would be included in the railway bill when it is brought down the next time. I feel that until a little more progress has been made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) with the work he is doing in the field of automation, and until we have had an opportunity of deciding on an approach which will deal with all the aspects of this problem, we must avoid taking certain unknown steps. I think we must look at this in much the same way we considered the labour standards bill. I confess that if that can be done it would be a much preferable way of doing it, and would be fairer to everyone.
I think we can go on a little further than that, and I think I would find it very difficult to say that I could support this bill. That
[Mr. Pickersglll.l
does not mean to say that I think the hon. member is necessarily wrong. I did attempt to restore the law to what everyone believed it was, in respect of this matter, in that abortive bill which is now in a corpse-like state-and I realize that I am mixing my metaphors rather badly. In respect of the supreme court decision, it does seem to me that it did not properly construe what parliament meant the statute to mean. I hasten to say that I do not in any way wish to reflect on the judgment of the court, as I feel it was probably right in the construction of the statute. If the law should be the way it was before, then we should put it back to that.
I do not think the hon. member will entirely disagree with me when I suggest that there are many aspects of this problem involving job security which can be more effectively dealt with by collective bargaining than by the rather blunt instrument of legislation. If we did accept this bill, what we would be doing would be to instruct the board of transport commissioners to fix, without setting any real criteria, such compensation as they may deem proper for financial loss. That is not going to be a very easy thing to do, particularly for a board such as the board of transport commissioners. Is that board to deem that everyone who will be replaced, or who loses his occupation because of these changes, is going to be unemployed for the rest of his life? Is the board going to decide that a period of one year will be required and that certain moving expenses should be allowed? There are many criteria that will have to be worked out, and I am not sure that we should leave legislative provisions of that character and scope to an appointed body like the board of transport commissioners, considering the generalities of this case. I know the hon. member could well say that it is done in the cases that are already referred to in the act, but there is a fairly restricted number of them and there is a certain amount of jurisprudence in this regard.
I am trying to be quite honest about this, and I do not think that the board of transport commissioners as presently constituted would be an adequate body to deal with job security in so general a way as this.
Even if we decided that the railways should bear this cost and there should be no contribution to it by the taxpayers or the general public, I am not at all sure that we would not have to lay down criteria for such compensation in this parliament, because while it is true that railways are soulless corporations, if

you like, and it is not a good principle to
confer, whenever it can be avoided, upon anybody other than parliament the right to tax even indirectly. There is no use in pretending that the railways are going to dig up a great treasure that they have hidden somewhere and therefore will be able to pay this compensation. They are going to pass it on to the shipper, if they can. If they cannot, then of course we are going to worsen the financial position of the railways.
Quite frankly I would rather see us tackle this problem directly. I have not had a chance to speak to the Minister of Labour about this, but I hope some appropriate committee of this house such as the industrial relations committee could tackle this problem in respect of automation at the next session of parliament, finding out what is being done by the government and elsewhere, and thus airing this whole situation. I cannot think of anything else that, in human terms, is more important to deal with than this problem.
So far as I am concerned, if I felt that this was the most effective way of tackling the problem I would ask this house to pass the bill this afternoon; but I do not think it is, and I suggest I am not shilly-shallying by putting the thing off. I agree with the hon. member that Mr. Justice Freedman's inquiry is going to be very useful. It is being carried on I think by a very able man and one of the most fair jurists in Canada, who certainly is not devoid of what might be called a social conscience.


Douglas Mason Fisher: He would make a good chief justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He would be good in any occupation where fairness and intellect are both required. I have known him practically all my life. He belongs to that same university where I got the rudiments of my education, although he is perhaps a much greater credit to it than I am. I do hope that he will in the course of this inquiry he is carrying out throw more light on this problem which is, in my opinion, only one corner of the biggest problem that now faces us.
Up to now I am happy to say it has not entered into the realm of the kind of partisan politics that some other questions have, and therefore I think it is something that parliament as a whole through one of its committees could really investigate. I do not say we would find many solutions, because members of parliament are here to put questions and to get answers rather than, in most cases, to provide them themselves. But I 20220-7981
Railway Act
do suggest that we as members of parliament, especially those members who are not burdened with administrative responsibility for day to day government, might very well address themselves to the bigger problem rather than just to this somewhat limited though very important aspect. After all, I suppose the railways by quite a margin are the biggest single employers in this country. This matter represents a big problem, but it is only one part of a larger problem which in my view is the biggest problem that faces our industrial society.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to detain the house for only a few moments, but in opening my remarks I should like to state at once that I think the minister's arguments, with all due respect to the hon. gentleman, are very weak. First of all, he did broaden the topic somewhat by bringing in automation and technological advances, commonly referred to, I believe, as cybernation, and I do not think there is any disagreement anywhere in the house that this is one of the major problems that society must face.
There is an old adage, "no work, no eat". This is not the case any more in these days of technological advances and automation. However, we are faced with this problem and one must start somewhere. If the argument put forward by the minister were one that would hold water, no progress would be made in any direction under any circumstances in dealing with legislation within this house. Somewhere along the line we are going to find inequities in what we do here, but the point is that we are moving in the right direction. With regard to the Canada pension plan the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) has made the plea over and over again that we have to start somewhere and move ahead. We are certainly not going to achieve something that will end all problems. There are going to be inequities. On that basis the minister's argument is of no value at all in dealing with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) which is now before us.
By way of argument the minister said that attention must be paid to the principle of compensation. I want to say that this principle is already in the act. The principle of compensation to employees is spelled out, not in connection with the loss of wages but with regard to other aspects of the economic wellbeing and welfare of the individual. So I must say that the minister's argument is very weak.

Railway Act
There is also the fact that the national railroads are being compensated to a degree from the federal treasury and therefore the whole burden does not necessarily fall on the railway companies. In addition, I think this amendment would be an incentive to both employees and employers with respect to retraining programs which would restore individuals to gainful employment. All in all I cannot help but say, much as I regret having to do so, that I think the minister's plea was a hollow one.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I wish I had today's Hansard in front of me because I should very much like to be able to quote to the Minister of Transport some of the brave words he uttered at about five o'clock this afternoon with regard to the desire of himself and the government for action, and to draw a contrast between those remarks and the kind of action he was prepared to see taken with regard to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).
I certainly agree with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) that in dealing with problems of this kind we have to start somewhere, and the bill before us does present a specific means of dealing with what I think we all recognize is an urgent and specific problem with specific application in the railways field. I listened to what the hon. member for Port Arthur said in introducing his bill and at no time did I hear him suggest that the measure he is proposing to meet this problem is necessarily the final solution to the broad problems of automation to which the minister referred. For that reason I certainly cannot agree with the minister's contention that we must put off any action until we have finally made up our minds as to how we are going to cope with the broad problems of automation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair in any way and I do not think that is quite a correct interpretation of my point. I think my point was that if we can find some way not only of dealing with all the problems of automation but of dealing with all workers under the jurisdiction of this parliament, by one measure, it would be desirable to do so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am quite glad to accept the minister's correction but I think my basic argument still stands. I will alter it to say that I do not think we need to sit back and wait until we have devised ways and

means of dealing with the problems of all of the workers under federal jurisdiction before we deal with this kind of problem. At this particular juncture in time I believe the effect of automation is bearing down with greater severity on this particular segment of the working people under federal labour jurisdiction than it is on any other. Perhaps the kind of experience we might gain out of what may not be a complete proposal for all the problems would give us some indication of where we should go in developing broader policies.
When I heard the hon. member for Port Arthur ejaculate in the course of his remarks, "Oh Lord, how long?", I was reminded of the fact that the very first motion which ever appeared in my name on the order paper of the house had reference to this very problem. It is quite true that the Minister of Transport was not the minister then-I am referring to 1953 or 1954-but he was a member of the then government. When we talk about length of consideration I respectfully suggest to him that if he has not had this problem under consideration for at least that long it is my humble view, as the introducer of that resolution, that he should have had it under consideration for that long, although not continuously, of course. While the proposal I advanced may not have been a complete answer to the problem, nevertheless it was a proposal which, if it had been taken up and developed by the government of the day could have created a situation where the machinery would have been created to deal with this problem of the dislocation of railway workers.
My proposal at that time was that, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider setting up a form of national insurance which would be universally applicable. If some development along this line had been followed the railways, as one segment of our economy, would have been making a fair contribution into some such national fund and this problem of whether or not the whole load in a particular situation should fall upon the railways, to which the minister referred, would not now be a problem. Apparently it is a problem that has been distressing him over a period of many months. I am quite prepared to accept the fact the minister is concerned about this problem, and it is a complicated one. Having listened to what the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said, and the kind of reply made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), I could

not refrain from rising and saying briefly that I echo his sentiments of, how long, oh Lord, before we get the kind of action that is required?


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: In the few
minutes left I think we can get right to the basic problem at issue in this bill, that is the problem of who should be responsible for people who are displaced or lose their employment as a result of some form of change. Obviously, I believe everyone in the house feels that somebody should accept this responsibility. The argument is, should that responsibility rest on the state or should it rest on the company? The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), in his column and in discussing the bill, indicated that the minister tended to shilly-shally or be indecisive on this question. The minister has the burden of responsibility in connection with this problem. The hon. member for Port Arthur and I do not have responsibility for the action that is to be taken to meet this problem. We can, therefore, afford the luxury of being a little more decisive.
I have made up my mind about this question. I feel that this bill should not pass because I do not think the railways or any commercial corporation should be saddled with the problems caused by unemployment, which is a general problem. Here we are dealing only with the railways, but this problem has general application throughout industry. We have to bear that in mind. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) suggested we have to start somewhere. This is true, we do have to start somewhere. However, when we start I think we have to make sure we are starting down the right path. I feel it is very important that whatever precedent we first set be the right precedent, because the action that is taken will probably set the pattern that develops later. If we adopt a precedent here to the effect that the railways are responsible, it may be a precedent that will follow throughout every industry.
Let us look at the specific things we have to do when somebody is put out of work as a result of change. The first thing we have to do is to find some means of supporting that person and his family during the dislocation period. The next thing we have to do is ascertain what possible jobs this man might take. We have to know what his potential skills are. We have to know what skills are in demand in the country and where they are in demand. Having ascertained that, we can then start a process of retraining this person to qualify
Business of the House for the skills that are needed. Having done that, having retrained the individual, you then have to make some provision for the individual to move to where the job may be. This may involve the cost of moving his family, disposing of a house, getting a new place to live, and so on.
I cannot believe that throughout the whole country, throughout the whole of industry, private industry is the best mechanism for coping with this sort of problem. In the railway industry, we happen to have a board, as the minister indicated, which could be used to resolve this sort of problem. Let us translate this to other segments of industry- not the railways, but private commercial corporations. To whom would they turn to make decisions about compensation? To whom would they turn for a decision about retraining? They have nobody to whom to turn. I think the only way we can deal with this sort of problem is to accept this as a national or governmental responsibility. There is no doubt that in the past the trend in dealing with unemployment has been toward retraining. We have also tended to try to move jobs to people, which is also a good scheme.
I believe that sooner or later we are going to have to face the fact that if we are going to have full employment in the country we are going to have to move people to the jobs that exist; we are going to have to do a much better job of knowing what jobs exist now, what jobs are likely to exist in the future. I believe these are functions of the Department of Labour in this country, rather than of private industry, as this bill would indicate. I feel this bill would set a precedent which is wrong. I would much sooner see activity and effort on the part of our Department of Labour to build up the sort of services that will be required so we can cope with this type of problem, not only in the railway industry, not only in the one small segment of the economy, but cope with this problem nationally in all parts of the country.
May I call it six o'clock?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Monteilh:: I wonder if the acting house leader could tell us what will be on deck Monday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; on Monday we will resume debate on Bill No. C-142, regarding

Business of the House federal-provincial cost sharing programs. Assuming it is completed during the day, I think it would be the desire to try to complete the Companies Act. In any event, the next item
of business after that would be the Canada pension plan.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 22, 1965