1965-06-11

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

Mr. Speaker:: Today this House is signally honoured by the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of Lai Bahadur Shastri, Prime Minister of India.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the first visit to Canada by Prime Minister Shastri, who is such a worthy successor to the late and beloved Prime Minister Nehru. We welcome him as a fellow parliamentarian and as the elected leader of the world's largest democracy.
The Prime Minister of our great Commonwealth partner is a man of the people, a man of peace. At the early age of 16 he became a follower of Mahatma Ghandi and played a courageous part in the struggle for national freedom. Since then he has been a leading figure in India's constructive and successful quest for self determination and has served his people with integrity, competence and humility. The election of Lai Bahadur to the highest office within the gift of his people demonstrates very strikingly the effectiveness of the democratic process in India.
Relations between India and Canada have always been close and cordial. We have very much in common. We are both countries that stretch from sea to sea. It was in the search for a short route to India that our country was first discovered, and our original inhabitants still carry the honoured name of Indians. On the world scene, as fellow members of the Commonwealth of Nations we have worked together and have shared the same aspirations for a world at peace. In the management of our own affairs we have each followed the parliamentary process as common inheritors of the British tradition of democracy.
Today in Canada we are striving to meet and master problems of national unity that are the product of 400 short years in which men and women of two languages and two
cultures have lived side by side. Surely we can take heart from the example of India- a multilingual, multiracial society, an amalgam of many religions and cultures, with a history extending over so many centuries. Her very substantial accomplishments, in the face of so many hardships, are surely an example to all the world.
We welcome you, Sir. We honour you as the leader of a great and historic nation whose future progress will be a major determinant in the ultimate survival of democracy and peace among the nations of the world.



PROCEDURE


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the special committee on procedures of the House of Commons. Copies are available in English and French for all hon. Members. I intend, in accordance with the agreement of last Tuesday, to move concurrence in the report later this day.
Before motions are called, Mr. Speaker, since the motion I will make will be for concurrence in the report I wonder whether it would be agreeable to the House to proceed with routine proceedings and oral questions in the usual way, with the understanding that the House would grant permission to revert to motions after the oral question period in order that the question period will not be lost.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



SOCIAL INSURANCE


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with a commitment I gave the Leader of the Opposition some days ago I wish to advise the House of certain decisions which have been made about the future use and form of the social insurance number card.
It will be recalled that this card was first issued last year in connection with unemployment insurance, and was designed to provide the same numbering system for the

June 11, 1965
Social Insurance Card Canada Pension Plan. Some Provincial Governments have expressed an interest in the possible use of the same numbers and cards in connection with other programs. This clearly would be a considerable convenience to the public. It means, however, that the card should be one suitable for use in connection with programs under the authority of Provincial as well as Federal legislation. It also makes the durability of the card even more important. The Government therefore intends to introduce a plastic card.
Second, in order to provide a national symbol equally appropriate for programs under either Federal or Provincial jurisdiction, the card has been redesigned with a maple leaf superimposed by the word "Canada" in place of the coat of arms which is a distinctively Federal symbol and therefore not the most suitable for Provincial use. The card in this new form will be suitable for many possible uses besides the most urgent one which, of course, is for both Federal and Provincial pension plans.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather interesting disclosure finally forced out of the Minister of Labour by questions on orders of the day by the Leader of the Opposition over the last week. He has now given us a very weak excuse for removing from the social security card the coat of arms-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -which of all symbols is surely the most distinctive of the national unity of this country. For the Minister to tell us shamefacedly that this is not suitable because of Provincial attitudes will not go down with the public at all. I think it is a disgrace that this Government should continue its whittling away of our history and traditions. We now see a continuation of their program of destruction of our history and traditions. The removal of the coat of arms from the social security card is the first step, I suppose, in the removal of the coat of arms from all other places where it is displayed in Canada. Will the next step be the removal of the coat of arms from this building? This is a disgraceful announcement by the Minister of Labour.
ILater:]


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It is related to the announcement made this morning regarding social security cards. Can the Minister tell us which provinces requested 
the use of these federal security cards for provincial programs, and what programs those provinces have in mind?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The two Provinces which occur to me immediately in this connection are the Provinces of Quebec and Saskatchewan.


Michael Starr: Can the Minister tell us what programs they have in mind for the use of these cards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In Quebec, of course, the provincial pension plan is a program which will need a numbering system. The hon. Member can appreciate the confusion which would arise if two numbering systems were used by the same people for various programs. This is why we have produced a card which can be used with a single numbering system for both Federal and Provincial purposes, now and in the future.


Michael Starr: What is the program in the other
province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what the program is, but I understand from the officials that the province of Saskatchewan has expressed an interest in using the card system, possibly for the medical insurance plan.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: In view of the fact that the Minister's statement on these social security cards this morning is related to question No. 650 in my name on the order paper, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could complete his answer and tell us whether the machinery and plates for these cards were imported from the United States and, if so, at what cost to the public.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In order to process these new plastic cards, which are very attractive in design, it is necessary to use additional machinery. I will answer the question as to the source of the machinery and the cost when the question is called.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Is the
removal of the Canadian coat of arms from these social security cards to be the policy of this Government in the printing of future documents?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. The reason for the change has been explained. It certainly does not imply any diminution in our respect for the Canadian coat of arms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 11, 1965


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: 1 should like to ask the Minister of Labour a supplementary question. Is there any truth in the rumour that he or someone in his department held discussions with representatives of one or more provinces with the idea of having the social security numbers allotted by the vital statistics branches of the provinces when births are registered?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no discussion along these lines with any provincial people.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Did any provincial authorities suggest to the Minister that incorporation of the coat of arms would make these cards not suitable for joint purposes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer of course, Mr. Speaker, is no. No objection has been expressed to me by provincial governments with respect to the Canadian coat of arms, but it was desirable to have a single numbering system and a general purpose card. Of course the Canadian coat of arms is a distinctively federal symbol and would not be appropriate for use on provincial programs, and that is the purpose of the change.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether his description of these cards as general purpose cards will extend for numbering purposes to the military services?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



WATER LEVELS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I wonder if I might table a statement that is being issued today concerning low water levels at the port of Montreal, which I undertook to make available to the House before I spoke in the port of Montreal on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EDUCATION


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I wish to table a statement relating to the Canada Student Loans Plan, together with three reports which have been adopted by Federal and Provincial representatives dealing with the administration of the program. In view of the widespread interest in
Proposed Legislation
this plan, particularly among the many students who have a vital interest in this matter,
I would ask leave of the House to have the statement and reports printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to above, see appendix "A".]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-115, to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this Bill is to reduce the death and accident toll taken by traffic. It would seek to do this by enacting legislation to control the impaired driver. Statistics show that in recent years one third of the road accidents in Canada involve persons who have been drinking. The Bill which I put forward incorporates proposals made by the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Highway Safety Council. Specifically it would amend the Criminal Code to make compulsory breathalizer tests for determining blood alcohol levels.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ATTENDANCE BY MR. SPEAKER AT CEREMONIES OVERSEAS

Mr. Speaker:: If I may have the attention of the House for just a moment I should like to make a short statement.
I am sure this House will be interested to know that I have accepted an invitation from the Speaker of the British House of Commons to attend, in London, a conference of Speakers from the 21 member nations of the Commonwealth. Following that conference I have been asked to participate in a ceremony at Westminster to mark the 700th anniversary of the Parliament of Simon de Montfort and the 750th anniversary of Magna Carta.
I propose as well to journey to Geneva for discussions with Mr. Andre de Blonay, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary

June 11, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Bureau, concerning the annual meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to be held in Ottawa in September of this year.
I plan also to make a brief visit to Paris to discuss with M. Chaban-Delmas, President of the French National Assembly, ways and means of strengthening the links between Parliamentarians of our two countries. I expect to return to Ottawa the week end of June 25.
During my absence, with the leave of the House, the Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Stormont, would occupy the Chair. I ask leave of the House to engage in the service of the House overseas.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is reported that a group of Canadian businessmen, headed by prominent western industrialists, made a Arm offer to purchase Air Canada, and also made the same offer to purchase C.P.A., and that this offer was turned down by the Cabinet. Would the Minister care to comment on that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no truth whatever in that story.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I might say to the Minister that it was reported in several good Liberal newspapers.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 the Prime Minister said the Government was giving consideration to whether it would continue its policy of calling for regional bids for ships being purchased by the Government. In view of the fact that the Government is ordering three ships on the Pacific coast the outcome of the Government's deliberations in this regard is of great importance to those employed in the shipbuilding industry. Is the Prime Minister ready yet to announce the outcome of this consideration?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I hope there will be an

announcement very shortly and that it will be satisfactory to all concerned.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Several times in recent weeks I have asked him whether companies other than the publishers of Canada Month are being prosecuted as a result of refusing to force their employees to take out social insurance numbers. Are other companies or organizations, such as teachers organizations, refusing to force their members to take out these numbers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the only prosecution is the one referred to by my hon. friend, under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. In connection with the teachers I understand that encouragement is being given by the officers of the Canadian Teachers Federation that its members secure social insurance numbers. Originally a protest had arisen from the fact that teachers were not covered by unemployment insurance and therefore were not obligated to register; but now, in view of the passing of the Canada Pension Plan, in which statutory authority is laid down for future registration, the teachers associations are encouraging their members to register.


Robert Norman Thompson: As a supplementary question, does the Government intend to prosecute other companies that are also refusing to force their employees to take out social insurance numbers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the prosecution is on the grounds of failure to comply with the law as established for 20 years under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If there are further infractions of the law, then consideration will be given to further prosecutions.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
June 11, 1965

Could he tell the house whether the report forms used by the R.C.M.P. are bilingual?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I rise on a point of order. The minister said yesterday that officers may use either official language. He must have known then whether the forms are bilingual or not.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that verbal instructions had been given to the effect that any complaint received should preferably be reported in the language it was made. However, it will be readily understood that as far as administrative matters are concerned, especially in the case of forms which may be used in any office in Canada, I could not say off the cuff how things are.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Minister of Justice intend to see to it that in the near future all those forms will be bilingual throughout the country, so that if a French Canadian in Western Canada or an English Canadian in the province of Quebec is involved there will be no discrimination of any kind?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, every aspect of bilingualism within the R.C.M.P. has been under consideration for several months by the commissioner, some of his officers and myself. I already have on my desk reports on that matter. I will inform the house as soon as possible but it is obviously a rather complicated matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister has been telling us since March that he would be announcing in a few days a decision with regard to a replacement aircraft. Can he now tell us just when those few days will end, and whether the 60 days of decision have gone by the board?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I tried not to be too precise in my answer, being fully aware of the problems
Inquiries of the Ministry involved in reaching a decision on a matter as important as this. However, I do hope we shall be able to reach a decision within three or four weeks at the outside, now that most of the information we require is available.



HALIFAX-INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF MINESWEEPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such request, notwithstanding the fact that I saw a newspaper report to this effect.']
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether any decision has been reached yet with regard to the minesweepers at Halifax. Will they be placed in reserve or turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for sale?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, four will be declared surplus immediately, and in respect of the balance we are waiting for a further study that is being done by the Departmental staffs.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to open negotiations with President Johnson in order to prompt him to stop air raids over North Viet Nam as a prerequisite for negotiations or is he in a position to renew the hope expressed to that effect by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) before the committee on external affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no negotiations are intended with regard to that matter. We discussed these matters with the President of the United States.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of External Affairs. I should like to ask him whether the proposed Moscow-type military display in Ottawa on Saturday will assist him in maintaining Canada's prestige abroad as a peace loving nation and will assist him in his activities with regard to

June 11. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry disarmament proposals; or will it give the impression that Canada is becoming very militaristic?
Kon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I hope that tomorrow's occasion will be, as I expect it will be, a display of the effectiveness of the Canadian armed services which is so ably demonstrated by those who represent Canada in the various UN peace keeping forces for example on the Gaza strip and in Cyprus. I should think that until such time as we are able to have an effective system of world wide disarmament all Canadians, including my hon. friend, will be pleased to see this display of Canada's military forces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My interest in Canada's military forces exceeds that of the Minister, but I was wondering whether this is the appropriate time, in the disturbed conditions of the world, for this type of display. If there were a war imminent for Canada this would be appropriate, but is it now when we are pressing the peace loving nature of Canada in international affairs?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend did not take my last response in any way as a reflection on his gallantry, which no one in this House disputes.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Pailerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the Government to renew Canada's participation in the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus beyond the present commitment; and if so, have any agreements been secured for a sharing of the cost by other member nations of the United Nations?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is no. The Security Council will probably be meeting next week to consider the renewal of the mandate. After we have been notified of the decision of the Council the Canadian Government will make its decision.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of reports of basic shifts in the policy of western countries in NATO, is the Minister in a position to advise the House whether this will involve a reduction in the Canadian forces in Europe at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as one who represents a riding which has always made a fetish of physical and moral fitness I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of which I have given her oral notice. In view of the mounting interest in the sports and fitness program in Canada, will the Minister consider providing other avenues for sports and other groups to make representations to the Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, a channel does exist in that the national sports governing bodies make representations to the Advisory Council, which advises me. However, as I understand my hon. friend's problem, it is with regard to sports groups which have not had their applications referred to the Council by their national bodies. I would be very pleased, at the request of the hon. Member, to take this question under advisement and see whether there is some appropriate way to make sure they will be considered.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Websler (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Canada hopes to send a ten member team of athletes to the World Student Games in Budapest in August. What answer has the hon. Minister
June 11, 1965



given to the request from the Canadian Union of Students for a $10,000 travel grant for this purpose from the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such request, notwithstanding the fact that I saw a newspaper report to this effect.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry based on the meeting he had this morning with the delegates from Oshawa, Ontario, representing the workers in the automobile industry and its parts plants. I would ask the Minister whether he can advise if he was able to allay the fears which this delegation brought before him regarding the probable loss of jobs in the Oshawa area as a result of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement, and whether he was able to advise them what safeguards there are or are contemplated so as to look after these displaced workers who are in the 35 to 65 age group.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to both questions is yes.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the fact that tenders close on Tuesday next, and in view of the fact that millions of dollars of public funds are involved, will the Minister consider extending the closing date for tenders and reconsider the method of disposing of surplus D.E.W. Line equipment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure why the hon. Member feels that the whole method of disposal should be reconsidered. The problem of disposing of large quantities of equipment which has become surplus consequent upon the closing down of the mid-Canada line has been given very intensive and serious consideration. I do think that the 22620-144
Inquiries of the Ministry procedure being followed is in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayer.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question. Does the Minister not feel it is worth while considering the suggestion that the Government transport this equipment themselves, taking advantage of what would appear to be tremendous increase in the price they would receive for the equipment if they were to bring it out themselves?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In comparing the relative return to the Crown as between the Government bringing the equipment out to the market and allowing the bidders to make their own transport arrangements, the advantage seems to lie in favour of seeking bids on the "as is, where is" basis.


Robert Simpson: One further supplementary question. I would again ask the Minister whether he would give this his fullest consideration, because there seems to be considerable fear that this equipment will go for a relatively small amount of money due to its particular location at this time, and much more money could be derived by the Crown if the Government were to bring it out themselves.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a more valid assessment could be made of this particular problem at the time the bids are in.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. We have been here for three sessions and on many occasions we heard the present minister and his predecessor say that, eventually, federal buildings would be erected in Hull, Ottawa's sister city, if you like. But everytime the matter is mentioned we are given the same answer: the project is under consideration. Could the minister finally tell us today whether or not the federal government or his department intend to erect federal buildings on the other side of the river, that is in the city of Hull?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the Department of Public Works to build public buildings in the whole area of the national capital, including the city of Hull.

June 11, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry I am not in a position to say at the present time which building will be erected in Hull.


David Réal Caouette: Will there be any?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent, Ont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I do it in this fashion because of the extreme urgency concerning this year's crop. Since we have learned that last year a new corn disease called dwarf mosaic reached epidemic proportions in U.S. corn growing areas adjacent to our own, causing millions of dollars of damage, would the Minister consider the immediate implementation of a crash program at the Chatham Entomological Laboratory and other Federal institutions in the Canadian corn growing areas, with a view to the possible control of insects suspected of transmitting this new com disease?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, we will be glad to consider this, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked for the estimated cost of the Armed Forces Day parade to be held this Saturday. The cost attributable to this parade is estimated to be $36,000, which includes $29,890 for petrol, oil and lubricants used by the various service vehicles and aircraft and for the local hiring of buses to supplement service transport. This figure does not include normal pay and allowances, as this is not an extra cost. On the other hand, all extra out of pocket expenses are included.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Re-
[Mr. Cardin.l
sources. Is the Government aware that Greyhound Corporation of the United States is negotiating to purchase Brewster Transport Company Limited and the Brewster Rocky Mountain Grey Line of Banff, Alberta; and if so, what is the Government's position with respect to the question of substantial private business in our national parks in the hands of non-Canadian interests?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very important question, but it is a good question for the order paper and I am sure the hon. Member will receive a detailed answer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the urgency arises from the fact that the negotiations are taking place which vitally concern Canada's interests.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY NOVA SCOTIA-CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PICTOU HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday the Premier of Nova Scotia announced that work will begin immediately on the trans-Canada highway across Pictou Harbour. Since this is the trans-Canada highway route to Prince Edward Island, I should like to ask the Minister whether this announcement is accurate?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the article to which my hon. friend refers. My information is that the necessary approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act has not yet been completed and that the public notice of the construction which is required under the Act has not yet been given.


John Cooney Mullally: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to ask the Minister whether a route has been selected for the trans-Canada highway near Truro, Nova Scotia.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the general location of the route up to Truro has been selected. However, the proposed by-pass of Truro has not yet been approved by the Federal Government.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It
June 11, 1965

is reported that Mr. Justice Porter of the appellate division of Alberta, and a member of the Redistribution Commission, is being considered for appointment as Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. I wonder whether I could be assured that this is correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is of course quite improper on the orders of the day to ask about the appointment of a representative of the Crown in the provinces. May I tell my hon. friend even though the question may be out of order, that this is just a newspaper rumour.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could put a related question to the Secretary of State. Has the Minister any report to make on the question I put to him two or three days ago in reference to the apparent leak that appeared in Alberta before the redistribution maps were published in the Canada Gazette?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, we are in communication with the Commission but we have not yet received any answer. I must also tell my hon. friend that these Commissions are not agencies of the Crown, so they are not even obliged to answer.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether the Government has received a request from any of the provincial Premiers to have the subject of the financing of higher education put on the agenda for the forthcoming Federal-Provincial Conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The correspondence has been tabled, Mr. Speaker. I will have to look into the correspondence to see if that subject was mentioned. I will be glad to answer on Monday.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



VANCOUVER-EFFORTS TO SETTLE STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the Alberta Wheat Pool terminal elevator at Vancouver has been tied up for well over a week because of a strike. Has Dr. Perry been successful in arranging for any meetings between the labour union involved and the Alberta Wheat Pool; and if so, has there been any indication that the workers are going to conclude this strike that is tying up a capacity of some five million bushels of wheat?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Perry has had meetings with the unions and the employers and is continuing his mediation efforts. I have received no report which would indicate that he has reached a conclusion of this work at this moment.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OF PROGRAM OF SMALL POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Does the government intend to continue building post offices in designated areas, such a step being appreciated by the citizens, since it helps reduce unemployment in winter?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is at present under consideration.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry a question arising out of the decision to consolidate forestry research in Sault Ste. Marie, which he announced so indirectly yesterday. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will undertake, when his estimates come before the Agricultural, Forestry and Rural Development Committee later this session, to co-operate by supporting a re-

June 11, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry quest for the calling of outside witnesses by the Committee in order to present views and opinions about this consolidation.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Is he in a position to tell the house when the debate he promised on the Address being forwarded to Her Majesty the Queen by the Quebec legislative assembly will take place? At the same time, would he tell us whether such an address has now been presented to the Queen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, there should be opportunities for discussion of this matter. A supply motion would provide one opportunity. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the address has not yet been received by me from the Governor General. It may have been received this morning, but it had not been received last evening.



STUDY OF EFFECT ON CANADA OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. Could the Prime Minister make the progress report he promised to the House some time ago on the study that has been undertaken by the Federal Government with regard to the possible or probable effects on Canadian Confederation of Quebec separatism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no study being made in those terms. There is a question on the order paper about the interdepartmental examination, and I think I O.K.'d the answer to that this morning. My hon. friend will recall that a few weeks ago I tabled in the House an interim report of the study.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Do I take it the Prime Minister does not intend to make a report to the House on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when the work is completed there will be a report made to the House.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition put a question to the Prime Minister, who was unavoidably absent, regarding the reported proposal for the establishment of a representative assembly that may come up at the Commonwealth Conference. The Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, quite candidly admitted that with his limited capacities he could not answer the question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has received an opinion from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this matter, and is he prepared to reply to that question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, naturally I feel somewhat elated at being able to answer a question that defeated my hon. friend the Minister of Transport. The question of parliamentary discussions within the Commonwealth and the possible setting up of an agency for that purpose is to be discussed in London at the Commonwealth Conference. The proposal for such discussions was made by the United Kingdom Prime Minister. He said in his message to the other Prime Ministers that he hoped for a general discussion and exchange of views on the possibility of progress in the direction of further Parliamentary discussions among members of the Commonwealth. Naturally we will be very glad to participate in that kind of examination, but we are very conscious, as I am sure all hon. Members are, of the important part played in this field by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I think one would have to keep that in mind in the consideration of any new parliamentary machinery.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a ques-
June 11, 1965

tion to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In reply to a question of mine on June 1 the Minister indicated that within a few days advertisements would appear in every newspaper in Canada telling people when they may apply for old age security under the new provision which lowers the qualifying age. Now that some nine or ten days have gone by can she say when these advertisements will appear and can she say whether they will answer the questions people are asking about this matter?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, they will appear next Tuesday or Wednesday in all newspapers across Canada. They will contain a chart indicating that if you were born on or before such and such a date you will apply on such and such a date. I am sure they will answer any questions.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which will recall to his mind his appearance before the Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries on the matter of the extension of our fishing zones. Have the negotiations for the establishment of base line co-ordinates been completed? If not, what is the Minister doing to assist his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in this connection in view of the Minister's primary responsibility for external affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What am I doing, Mr. Speaker? I am working very hard together with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in respect of a negotiation that is proving very difficult.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of the fact it is almost a year now since the act was proclaimed in connection with the extension of our fishing zone?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am only too well aware of the fact.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the House some indication of what progress, if any, is being made as a result of his efforts?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just give your opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is not, of course, a member of the External Affairs Committee, but I hope to make a full statement on this matter. As a former Minister of Fisheries my hon. friend knows that we have negotiations under way with a number of countries, including the United States. These negotiations involve matters that are of great concern to these countries not only from the standpoint of fisheries but from other points of view. However, we are hopeful that, notwithstanding these difficulties, we will be able to reach some agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the Minister consider his appearances before the External Affairs Committee are informative?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my appearance yesterday helped to educate the hon. gentleman.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that a recent survey in Ottawa indicated opposition to the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission by 15 to 1, and the growing feeling that this Commission is destroying the tolerance built up in Canada between our two founding races during the past 100 years, would the Minister give consideration to withdrawing this Commission, especially in view of its excessive cost to the Canadian taxpayers?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, although I do not accept the allegation made by the hon. Member I must repeat to the House that I am not responsible for this Royal Commission.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Then may I direct this question to the attention of the Prime Minister. May I say it is not a matter of an allegation; the Ottawa newspapers reported the results of a survey that was made which indicated opposition to the Commission in this City by 15 to 1.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not even accept the conclusion of that particular survey, and
June 11, 1965

House of Commons Procedures I think it would be most unfortunate and inappropriate for the Government to intervene at this time and wind up the work of that Royal Commission when its work is not yet completed.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arnold Alexander Webster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has any progress been made in setting up the organization to recruit the Company of Young Canadians?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. An organizing committee has been set up, the personnel of which has been announced. It might be of interest to the House if I were to make a report as soon as possible on the progress of the organizing work, and I would be glad to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the Prime Minister enlisted?



PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House now consent to revert to motions in order that the President of the Privy Council may move concurrence in the report of the Special Committee on Procedures of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)


George James McIlraith: I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport:
That the first report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House of Commons presented this day be now concurred in.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate that the motion is debatable, and I appreciate also the fact that we are working under a guillotine imposed by the House of Commons some time ago so that the discussion of this report, plus the other matters before us in connection with the rules, have to be finished by five o'clock. I should like to say this, that the report which has been brought back to the House, as the report itself states, was adopted by the Committee on division and is not a unanimous opinion from that Committee.

I intend to speak very briefly in order to give to the backbenchers of this House, who are almost in revolt against limitations of time that are now being imposed in the House and who have apparently discovered that the major changes in the rules are striking at the freedom of the backbenchers, an opportunity to speak. On the other hand, I realize that if there is a vote on this report it will be an open vote since the rules affect every single Member individually. It is not a case of the Government versus the Opposition. I presume if there is a vote we will be able to observe the independence expressed by various Members of this House without the whips compelling them to do something they do not wish to do.
I just want to say this, Sir. Now that we are reaching the end of this revision of the rules and procedures, the most extensive revision since 1955, I hope there will be an appropriate pause for a year or two until we see the effects of the changes rather than trying to press on with some more changes. It has become obvious that once you start making changes in the rules and procedures of this House you discover problems that were not evident before. What is coming out of this major change in the rules and procedures is an increase in the power of the executive, which already was too great and should have been diminished. The private Members of this House are beginning to realize that, but rather too late in the day.
The second thing that comes out of it is a restriction on the freedom of speech so far as the Opposition are concerned, and the time they may devote to matters of public interest can be seriously restricted. This is a dangerous move and may have bad effects in the future.
The third matter that comes out of the study of the proposed changes is that shackles are being placed on the private Members of this House by the private Members themselves. They failed, a few days ago, to pay close attention to the speeches that were made on this subject. Only yesterday did they appear to awaken to the fact that they were encouraging the executive to put shackles on the private Members. We heard quite a bit about the advantages that accrue to those who are on the front benches and the disadvantages to those who are somewhat further removed from the aisle. I hope today the backbenchers will assert their rights by their vote and restrain the Government from the imposition of a second method of closure.
June 11, 1965	COMMONS
They have one on the books now and they are putting on another one.
Quite a bit of this has come about because of the composition of the present executive. Several of the most prominent members of the treasury benches have not gone through that orderly progression from the back row to the front row. It is a rather slow process, as some of us have found out, but it has its advantages. You get the point of view of the private Member which a person who is catapulted into the front row does not get.
The present Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport-I will not mention all the others-were catapulted into the front row. The Prime Minister entered the front row, I presume, when he entered the House, and the Minister of Transport got into the second row from the front, which was too far advanced a position for him at that time anyway. Nevertheless, there was the unusual progression from outside of the House of Commons right to the treasury benches. These gentlemen did not receive the training that I believe a parliamentarian should get; that is, to start at the curtains in the back row and gradually move forward. In this way an hon. Member has an idea of the penalties that fall upon the less prominent Members of the House of Commons as they sit in the back row and then gradually move forward.
I put in a plea ten days ago on behalf of the backbenchers, and I return to that subject now. People come into this House in the same way, by the votes within a constituency. There is a great equality at election time when you are standing for election. Every person is in the same position, in that it is the votes of the people in the constituency that move him into the House of Commons. When he gets into the House of Commons he finds everybody there is equal, but some are more equal than others. He discovers, slowly and painfully when he sits in the back row, that he is to be seen and not heard unless the whip of the party, acting under instructions, discovers that a debate requires somebody to carry it on. Then the backbencher is a very useful person. I have been all through this, and I realize what it is.
It is nice to have a backbencher around to vote, very nice to have him around to maintain a quorum in the House. Under the rules now it will be the backbencher who will be here during the lunch hour because the people on the front benches will have to go to have their meals. I realize that when you are in the back benches you must not interfere with the front benchers when they are making the
DEBATES	2261
House of Commons Procedures lead off speeches on some subject. After they have made their speeches, then the backbencher is called, the subject having been fairly well exhausted by those previous utterances of the front benches. The backbencher is asked often to make a 30 or 40 minute speech because one of the frontbenchers who is away wants to come back the next day and contribute to the debate, so it must be kept open. I have been through that on many occasions. This goes back a good many years.
This is the function of the backbencher. He is a very useful person on occasion. When there is a limited debate, when closure has been applied, it is only the frontbenchers who are to be heard, the people who will speak for their party and express the opinion of the party. The backbencher is just to sit and listen and when the time comes, to vote.
This is the most difficult position the backbencher occupies in this House under the changes in the rules that have been brought forward. The first major change came in 1955 when a restriction was placed on the length of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the Budget debate. Backbenchers were then squeezed out because there was not sufficient available time for them to participate in debates. Now they are contributing to squeezing themselves out further, and their function in Parliament will be less prominent than it has been in the past. [DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
In the report presented to us today a sop is thrown out to the backbencher, in that on a closure motion which gives one day for debate on third reading there can be an extension of four hours beyond normal closing time if backbenchers who have not been heard, but still want to get something on the record, suggest to the Speaker that their names be placed on the list of speakers to be called. The extra four hours will be granted to them to express themselves but each individual will be limited to 20 minutes, so that only 12 may be heard; and if 40 others wish to be heard they will be chopped off.
This is what I call the anti-whip amendment, because it gives the backbenchers who are not in good standing with their whips, who cannot get on their party list of speakers, an opportunity to go direct to Mr. Speaker on the last day of a closed debate and get the opportunity to be heard.
I pity the backbenchers in the future. I regret they have not aroused themselves in large numbers on this occasion, and have not seen that the executive is grasping more
2262	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures power. They have not seen that the backbencher is being relegated to an even more inferior position than he has occupied in the past. He is now being asked to put the Shackles on himself, to fasten the ball and chain on his own foot so that his activities in this Chamber will be reduced.
Much of what we are seeking would have been achieved by extending the hours of sitting from 25J to 33 hours per week. This would have made the necessary provision for shortening a session, as some desire, and giving more Members the opportunity to speak. But we have gone further than that because the Government insists on the closure rule and backbenchers are being asked to confer this great power on the executive.
With a limit on this debate, with the guillotine not quite as sharp as it was yesterday, its edge a bit blunted, but with it ready to fall at five o'clock this evening, I now relinquish the floor to the backbenchers of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all enjoyed the delightful touches of irony with which the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre has regaled us with during the speech he has just terminated under his own voluntary guillotine.
The hon. Member has rightly pointed out that the report of the special committee consisting of nine Members of the House was agreed to on division. I rise, as a member of the committee who supported the report, to support the motion for its adoption, and like the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre I shall try to keep my remarks brief. However,
I feel one fundamental point should be emphasized once more.
In the main the business of the House of Commons consists of two things. We must have the chance to speak, the right to discuss all the matters that are brought before us; and second, we must have the right to reach decisions. The whole problem in parliamentary procedure is to find a balance between these two propositions.
This is not the first time Parliament has attempted to find that balance. When limitations were put on the length of time a Member could speak, that was part of the attempt. In 1955 when certain debates, such as on the Address, the Budget and supply motions, were limited, that was another attempt to achieve that balance. What we are now proposing is that that step be carried a

DEBATES	June 11, 1965
bit further, that there be arrangements Whereby the House itself can come to agreement that certain other debates be given a time limit so that certain items can be concluded and the House can get on to other matters.
I think the House generally believes this is the wise and responsible thing to do. I believe the people of Canada support us in our contention that we should organize our parliamentary year, which includes planning the use of our parliamentary time. Therefore I am not disturbed by the manner in which the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre tries to suggest, as he has done so often, that we are extending the principle of closure. That is not an accurate description of the rule we are now discussing. All he is doing is arguing by assertion.
The one thing the country has the right to expect us to do is to organize our work better, and it is on that basis that we support the principle of the allocation of time. Indeed, we have been urging for some considerable time that this be adopted. You, M!r. Deputy Speaker, will recall serving with others and with me as members of a subcommittee on procedure last session when we worked on this problem and came up with draft orders along this very line, which in fact had wide support.
When this matter was discussed earlier in the House arguments arose over the wording of the proposal for an allocation of time order. As a result the matter was referred to a special committee of nine Members of the House, and it is the report of that committee which we now have before us.
The hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre referred briefly to the one change of substance that our committee has recommended, and I should like to refer to it also, but I do so as a supporter of the proposed change. May I point out that the rule as sent to the committee provided for certain conditions under which allocation limits could be set. It established a certain set of minimum provisions under which, if a Minister was moving a time allocation order without the support of the business committee, the least he could ask for would be two days on second reading, two days in Committee of the Whole, and one day on third reading. Some people thought this would be the pattern in all cases, but that does not follow at all. The Business Committee itself may recommend shorter or
June 11, 1965

longer periods, and even a Minister may recommend longer periods.
In the case of a money bill, the minimum time possible is six days; for in addition to those five days on the bill itself there is the one day already provided for discussion of the resolution preceding the bill, and when a Minister moves a time allocation order there can be an additional day's debate on that motion.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
We must also face the fact that even though some of us are opposed to the provision to extend the hours by sitting from six to eight, nevertheless that provision has been passed. The result is that each day will be longer, so the possibility of six full days of debate on a money measure adds up to quite a few more hours than would have been the case in six days of debate under the former rules. Having in mind the amount of time taken in a parliament such as Westminster, I maintain we are not being unreasonable in giving our support to the principle of time allocation translated into these specific terms.
Let me come now to the one substantial change which the committee of nine has proposed. I wish there had been an opportunity to print these recommendations as an appendix to Hansard, in order that all hon. Members might have before them the substance of the proposal. That, however, is a matter for the Minister rather than for me. What we have proposed is that when third reading of a bill takes place under a time allocation, whether it is the one day minimum or whether it is any length of time that the business committee may have recommended, at ten o'clock on the last day of the time allocated for third reading it shall be possible for the debate to be extended. We have made this recommendation because we feel the appeals made by backbenchers are legitimate. We are not trying to protect the right of filibuster, the right to prevent a decision from being reached. We are saying there are occasions when Members representing constituencies rightfully feel they should have a chance to speak come what may. So we have recommended that on this final day Mr. Speaker shall have the authority to extend the time available up to an additional four hours. We have recommended that during this four hour period speeches shall be limited to 20 minutes and that speakers shall be drawn from among those who have notified Mr. Speaker that they wish to get on his list and who have given their notice at least one hour before the normal adjournment time. If 22620-145
House of Commons Procedures the House were under an allocation of time order on third reading, at eight o'clock on the last day Members who wanted to speak would notify Mr. Speaker. If the number was small enough to enable all of them to "get on" by ten o'clock, that would be fine. But if there should be too many, Mr. Speaker has the right to continue the sitting for a further four hours and he will choose the speakers from among those who have notified him of their wish to speak.
We have also provided that during this four hour period there shall be no further amendments or subamendments. In other words we are providing for the genuine case of the backbencher who feels he must get his word into the debate, despite the fact that he has not managed to do so. We have also provided that if during the extended period, say between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m., there is a call for a vote the vote shall not be taken at that time, providing five members so request, but that it be postponed until the next sitting day when it will, of necessity, be taken as the first item under Government orders, without further debate.
I can see that we might have done better. We might have made the period longer. We might have set no final limit. But I suggest this represents a distinct improvement compared with the proposed standing order as we first took it under consideration in the committee of nine. I put it to the House that we have done a bit more toward achieving a balance between the right of Members to speak and the right of Parliament to reach a point at which a decision is made.
I believe it was a good idea for this proposed standing order to be referred to the special committee. I believe the special committee has come back with a good report. I am sorry it is not unanimous, but it is the report of the committee and I hope Members generally will acknowledge that it should be supported and that it should become an order of the House, as provided in the report itself, for the balance of this session and for the next session of this Parliament, subject to whatever decision the House may make at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in supporting the motion for the adoption of this report.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I, too, would like to support the report which has come back from the special committee of nine in connection with the second paragraph of the resolution before us.
I find it strange that an argument can be advanced that this in some way is likely to
2264	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures infringe on the rights and privileges of backbenchers. I say it seems strange, having in mind the fact that I have not heard anyone complaining in this House that the arrangements made for the debate on the Budget and the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, each limited in extent, constitute an infringement of the rights and privileges of backbenchers.
We know that even if all the provisions contained in the new standing order 15 were used it would be impossible for a Government to limit a debate to less than one day on the resolution, in the case of a bill, two days for second reading, two days in committee after second reading and one day plus an overtime period of four hours on third reading. I would also draw to the attention of the House the fact that in addition to these six days there is also a one day debate which can be demanded on the motion to impose these rules. Therefore, every time this Standing Order 15A is used, provision will be made for an amount of time to be spent on one single piece of legislation at least equal to that which is available for discussion of the Speech from the Throne, a discussion which is, I suggest, of far greater magnitude inasmuch as it embraces the whole of the Government's legislative program for the session.
Indeed, even more time will be allowed taking into account the extra hours which will be available each day. At present the debate on the Budget is limited to six sitting days of about five hours each day. In other words it is limited to about 30 hours. This debate on the Budget involves the whole of the Government's fiscal policy for the year. Yet even should the Minister use every one of the provisions of this standing order he cannot provide for less time on a single piece of legislation than is now available to backbenchers to deal with the Government's whole fiscal policy for the year.
I cannot, therefore, accept the argument that this proposed standing order is in any way an infringement or a curtailment of the right of backbenchers to participate in debates. What it does is this. It provides that we shall move on from one piece of legislation to another within reasonable time limits. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the most effective form of closure we have witnessed in this House is the abuse of these open-ended debates which prevents us moving from one piece of legislation to another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	June 11, 1965


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: During the last year or so we have seen effective use made of this method of closure so as to prevent any discussion by the House of such subjects as regional air policy which are most important to some Members. Tactics such as I have described have closed out the possibility of our dealing with major amendments to the Railway Act. They have for two years closed out a most important measure dealing with the revision of the Bank Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not right.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Despite this, we encounter the argument that this proposal will in some way curtail the rights of backbenchers in this House.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us factual reports, not that stuff.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think it is a fact that this is the second year an extension of the bank charters has been required because all the time available, on a continuing basis for 16 months, has been used up in debates on other subjects.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Blame the Government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We ought to blame the House and the rules under which we are operating.


An hon. Member:: They did not work before.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They have worked before, and they worked until Members on all sides of the House, and more so Members in particular parts of the House, developed the technique of abusing the rules. This sort of thing having gone on to the degree we have witnessed in this House during the past 15 to 16 months, in the interests simply of getting through the essential business it is necessary to make some kind of modifications.
A number of changes were made by the committee of nine, and generally we support all of them. I should like to say there will probably be other modifications which will be necessary, based on the experience of the balance of this session plus one more full session. I am not suggesting that what is now in the report should be made hard and fast and unchangeable because we usually find, no matter how well we try to anticipate all the difficulties or contingencies which may arise, that there is nothing better than some practical experience upon which to judge or test the effectiveness of changes so we can bring them into line with that experience.
So, Mr. Speaker, we in this party support this kind of modification of our rules. We do
June 11, 1965

not accept the argument that it is a more severe restriction than some of the restrictions under which we already operate. For example, I think it could be argued, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre said, that even when we reduce the time an individual Member may speak to 40 minutes when the Speaker is in the Chair, and to 30 minutes in committee, this by itself was a restriction of the right of Members to express themselves. Yet it was necessary so that other Members could speak. I think one of the essentials of freedom of speech and action is that you are also willing to allow your colleagues the same right. If there are no restrictions whatever on the length of speeches or the number of days for consideration of the throne speech or the budget, and so on, then you effectively shut out those who would follow you if you take too much time.
So I just say that I think the provisions made in Government Order 15 which will allow backbenchers unlimited time to examine and discuss each Department in a standing committee and the other provisions in this resolution, taken with the other resolution which has been passed, considering the whole package on balance, will enhance the position of the backbencher rather than take something away from him.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks before this report is adopted.
During the proceedings I realized that the deeper we delve into the Standing Orders, the more we impede the progress of the business of the house. I think we should put an end to this debate and that the time for action has now come. The procedure must absolutely be changed so the house may accomplish some progress. If a businessman handled his affairs the way the House of Commons handles its business, I believe he soon would be bankrupt.
The debate dealt mostly with paragraph 7 of section 15A of resolution No. 15 concerning the limitation of debates. I pointed out to the Committee that a definite period of time was allocated in regard to the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the budget debate, and that I never saw a member rise in this house to claim that he was being gagged or guillotined. I am surprised to find that such words as "guillotine" and "closure" have been used in connection with amending the standing orders in order to expedite the business of the house.
22620-145J
House of Commons Procedures
As far as I am concerned, you can be sure that our party is in favour of a major change in the rules and that we will support the report of the committee. Moreover, the sooner it is adopted the better it will be for the house.
According to paragraph 7, two days w;!l be allowed for debate prior to second reading,, two days for discussion in committee and one day for debate on third reading and, in addition, a period of four hours if a member did not have the opportunity of speaking during the debate. Therefore, in my opinion, this fully meets the requirements of the members. During a debate when the member of a party speaks for 40 minutes to voice his opinion on the principle of a bill while the Speaker is in the chair and another member of his party speaks for 40 minutes it offers constructive criticism, I think then the members have done their duties; it would therefore serva no useful purpose to extend the debate for hours, days or weeks for the simple reason of gaining public favour.
We are in favour of the standing orders as presented in this report and we will gladly vote along those lines.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, as one backbencher I just wanted to thank the frontbenchers who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre for the crocodile tears shed on our behalf. However, it seemed to me that he had missed the point. I think most of us who are backbenchers are really quite happy with what has been done in this report by the committee of frontbenchers. Indeed, my impression is that the degree of unanimity which has been reached-and I ana sorry it is not complete-shows very clearly that the frontbenchers in the last week or two have been giving a good deal of thought to the very kind of problems which most bother us on the back benches. Their thought has been given expression in some of the recommendations made, not only the ones made today but some of the changes made earlier in the previous resolution, Government Order 14.
Indeed, when I think back over the last two or three weeks and recall the various suggestions which different members in all parties have made to our House Leaders and others on the front benches, I personally am very comforted to realize how many of our ideas and suggestions have been accepted and embodied in changes. Some suggested, for example, a change in the number of days spent on supply. Others suggested, perhaps
June II, 1965

House of Commons Procedures quietly, certain changes in the committee structure in relation to matters which were not desirable and which the Government conceded. Others suggested changes with respect to the length of speeches, that the Business Committee should consider how long speeches should last. That kind of suggestion came from many of us on the back benches. The suggestion that we now have the opportunity of an extra four hours on the last day on third reading is one which I think has been pushed most strongly by the so-called backbenchers.
Perhaps on behalf of some others here I may say that I think the work which the Special Committee have done in the last day or so, as well as the concessions which have been made and the friendly co-operation which has been given by all frontbenchers in the last two or three weeks, has produced changes which from our point of view, certainly from my point of view, are going to be very helpful to all of us in this House. I myself would have preferred this extra four hours to have come on second reading. I think it is a little artificial to have the extra four hours on third reading rather than on second reading, because on third reading the bill is pretty well cut and dried and all settled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I advanced that argument but they would not accept it. I am glad you support it.


Pauline Jewett: So that is one you made on our behalf. I am sorry you did not get it through.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are getting pretty friendly.


Pauline Jewett: I think it might have been a little more logical to have it on second reading, when one still has some hope of influencing the vote on the principle of the bill. However, Mr. Speaker, unless others feel strongly about that perhaps there is no need to push it now. I would hope, finally, that as a result of these past several weeks discussing the procedures of the House, since today is probably going to be the last day on which we will be discussing these changes and they are going into effect, if they go through today, for the remainder of this session and next session-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the last day we will have lunch, too.


Pauline Jewett: Yes. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that those Members

who sit on the Business Committee will keep one thing particularly in mind as they are arranging time allocations, and that is the desirability of speeches being of variable length depending upon the bill being considered. Surely one of the most progressive concepts that has developed in some legislatures is the realization that a straight 20 minutes or 30 minutes rule for all speeches on all bills is rather artificial; that there should be perhaps a ten minute rule on some bills, certainly at committee stage and possibly even occasionally on second reading. There are some legislatures, of course, which have a three minute rule, although I do not suppose we could bring ourselves to that, nor perhaps should we. But I do hope the Business Committee will seriously consider the variability of the length of speeches depending on the bill and the stage it has reached, and will seriously consider a ten minute rule for certain kinds of bills and at certain stages.


Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the front benchers have told me to shut up but I am not going to do so. I think I should have a chance to speak in other than the Throne Speech debate and the Budget debate. I am only going to speak for five minutes.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, under the proposed Standing Order 15A it is possible for the Business Committee to fix the length of time for debate before they have even seen the bill. Also, it is possible for a Minister to introduce a resolution limiting time without the Members of this House having seen the bill. I am afraid that some complicated piece of legislation might be brought before this House and in certain circumstances rammed through without adequate consideration being given to them.
My suggestion to the Government was that the allocation of time with regard to committee stage and third reading should not apply unless the subject matter of the bill had been referred to a special or standing committee of the House and that committee had reported back. Then at least we would be assured that adequate consideration had been given to the subject matter of the bill and we would also accomplish a saving of the time of the House.
In view of the fact that none of these suggestions are contained in Standing Order 15A as proposed, Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to vote against it. I think this is a vicious measure.
June XI, 1965


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate I suggested
that possibly some principle could be established whereby the time could be extended to make sure that private Members who felt they should speak on a particular measure might be able to do so. I suggested that if necessary the debate should continue all evening. To some extent this latest amendment adopts that idea. However, there are so many limitations placed upon it that one of the main reasons for my suggestion no longer has a great deal of force.
The reason I made this suggestion was that I felt the possibility of a debate being extended all through the evening would be so unpleasant to Members on the front benches, and other Members in the House, that a real incentive would be provided to recognize the rights of private Members. It would retain, in other words, a negotiating position for the private Member. The limitations which have been placed upon the extension of debate are such as to completely destroy that particular reason for my suggestion. In other words the private Member's negotiating position has been destroyed completely, and the amendment really does not improve his negotiating position at all.
The first of the three limitations to which I refer is that the extension of four hours only applies on third reading. This is, of course, after the principle of the bill has been approved. Second reading is the time when the principle of the bill should be debated; so if there is any merit at all in giving the private Member a right to be heard, surely it should be on second reading and not on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: Under this system he is required to get up and vote on the principle of the bill on second reading and does not have an opportunity of expressing any reservations he may have until third reading. It does seem to me this puts a private Member in a very difficult position; indeed, it is an almost illogical and irrational position.
The other two limitations are matters upon which I would be interested in hearing from those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this amendment. I would ask them to give reasons why they should be included. The first limitation is that there should be no amendments during this four hour extension period, and the second limitation is that any five Members can move that the vote be postponed until the next sitting day.
House of Commons Procedures
I realize that arguments can be put forward in favour of these particular limitations, but I suggest the real reason for them is to dispense with the necessity of anyone being here during the extended debate. At least, Mr. Speaker, this is one possible effect of these two limitations, because I must not impute motives. They will make it unnecessary for members of the front bench or, indeed, for Members in all parts of the House, to be present while the private Members try to make their points. The effect is to completely destroy the negotiating position which I hoped the backbencher would retain with an extended debate.
It has been pointed out that this measure will be applied on a trial basis. I think it is a very good thing that it is on a trial basis. But since it is on this basis I would have thought that those who introduced it could have afforded to be generous in protecting the rights of backbenchers rather than restricting them. If they had been generous and had given more protection to the rights of backbenchers, perhaps it would have been found after the trial period that legislation was not being filibustered after all. It seems to me rather pessimistic on their part to assume that they must limit the rights of backbenchers to the extent that they have, in order to make certain there shall be no unduly extended debate.
I think most of us are very happy with many of the amendments that have been made; we think they will improve the procedure of the House. However, Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that since this particular rule is being adopted on a trial basis, more generous measures should have been taken to make sure that the negotiating position of the private, back bench Member was retained.
I would ask the House Leader, the President of the Privy Council, when he speaks to tell us what will happen, for example, to the rights of the backbencher in view of these limitations if there is no quorum in the House. Will the right of the backbencher be completely destroyed? I made a number of suggestions when I spoke a few days ago in this debate. I believe that any one of them could have been adopted and they would have preserved the rights of the backbencher while at the same time permitting the Government to get its legislation through without undue delay. I suggest that even at this late date some improvements could be made in this particular rule.


Some hon. Members:: Question.

June 11. 1965

House of Commons Procedures
Kon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Presidenl of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I have very few remarks to make-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


George James McIlraith: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you call for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Mr. Wahn.l


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We want the Liberal backbenchers to vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Pennell:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted tor the motion.


Mr. Groos:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Granger:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Harley:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now call order no. 15.



AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 10, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair:
That the following amendments be made to Standing Orders:
1.	That Standing Order 6 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Standing Order 6
6. (1) At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless provided otherwise in these Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day.
(2)	A motion that the House continue to sit after the hour specified in Section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried. No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting. An extended sitting under the
House of Commons Procedures
provisions of this Section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
(3)	If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1:00 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m. or between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise, the taking of the vote shall be postponed until after 2:30 o'clock p.m. or until after 8:00 o'clock p.m. as the case may be.
(4)	When it is provided in any Standing Order
or in any order of the House that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until the specified proceedings be completed.
2.	That Section (1) of Standing Order 12 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 12, Section (1)
12. (1) Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.
3.	That Sections (3) and (4) of Standing Order 15 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 15, Sections (3) and (4)
15. (3) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business for the consideration of the House, day-by-day, after the daily routine shall be as follows:
(Monday)
Questions.
Government orders.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of Motions.
(Tuesday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Private bills.
Public bills.
(Wednesday)
Questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers. Government orders.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of motions.
Public bills.
(Thursday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
A. On the first and each alternate Thursday thereafter :
Notices of motions (papers).
Private bills.
Public bills.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Monteith
Moore
Muir (Lisgar)
Nielsen
Pascoe
Peters
Rapp
Simpson
Southam
Starr
Thomas
Vincent
Wadds, Mrs.
Webb
Winkler
Woolliams-33.
June 11, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures B. On the second and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Private bills.
Notices of motions (papers).
Public bills.
(Friday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
Private bills.
(4) When a debate on a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock pan. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for Private Members' Business on that day shall be suspended.
4.	That Section (2) of Standing Order 31 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 31, Section (2)
31. (2) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time.
5.	That Section (5) of Standing Order 39 be enacted to read as follows:
Standing Order 39, Section (5)
39. (5) Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper, provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed thirty minutes.
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the question period before the Orders of the Day, must be given in writing to Mr. Speaker not later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. the same day.
6.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 41-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 41-A
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
7.	That Standing Order 43 be amended by adding thereto a new Section (2), to read as follows:
Standing Order 43, Section (2)
43. (2) When debate on any motion made under Standing Order 15 (2) is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under Government Orders.
8.	That Standing Order 44 be amended to read as follows:

Standing Order 44
44. When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to extend the sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
9.	That Section (4) of Standing Order 59 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 59, Section (4)
59. (4) The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to Mr. Speaker; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof. No debate shall be permitted on any decision.
10.	That Standing Order 65 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 65
65 (1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
(a)	on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development, to consist of 45 members;
(b)	on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of 22 members;
(c)	on Crown Corporations, to consist of 22 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(/) on Fisheries, to consist of 22 members;
(gr) on Health and Welfare, to consist of 22 members;
(h)	on Housing, Urban Development and Public
Works, to consist of 22 members;
(i)	on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 22 members;
(}) on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 22 members;
(k)	on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(l)	on Labour and Employment, to consist of 22 members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 22 members;
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of 22 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 22 members;
(p)	on Northern Affairs and National Resources, to
consist of 22 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 22 members;
(r)	on Public Accounts, to consist of 24 members;
(s)	on Standing Orders, to consist of 22 members;
(t)	on Transport and Communications, to consist of 22 members; and
(u)	on Veterans Affairs, to consist of 22 members.
(2)	The Special Committee shall also prepare
and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees: on Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses, on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
on the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 21 members;
June 11, 1965	COMMONS
provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
Provided that, in the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.
(4)	The Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; and to print, from day-to-day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and Standing Order 66 shall not apply in relation thereto.
(5)	Any member of the House of Commons who is not a member of a standing committee, may unless the House or the standing committee otherwise orders, take part in the deliberations of the standing committee, but shall not vote or move any motion or any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
11.	That Standing Order 99 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 99
99. No Bill for the incorporation of a railway or canal company, or for authorizing the construction of branch lines or extensions of existing lines of railways or of canals, or for changing the route of the railway or of the canal of any company already incorporated, shall be considered by the Committee on Transport and Communications, until there has been filed with the committee, at least one week before the consideration of the bill, a map or plan drawn upon a scale of not less than half an inch to the mile, showing the location upon which it is intended to construct the proposed work, and showing also the lines of existing or authorized works of a similar character within, or in any way affecting the district, or any part thereof, which the proposed work is intended to serve; and such map or plan shall be signed by the engineer or other person making the same.
12.	That Standing Order 105 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 105
105. Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the Committee on Transport and Communications; the bills not coming under these classes, to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.-
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House again in Committee of the Whole on a certain pro-
DEBATES	2271
House of Commons Procedures posed resolution to amend the Standing Orders. Last evening when the Committee rose we were discussing paragraph 6.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, last evening when ten o'clock rolled around I was commenting on section 6 of the resolution regarding the rules and procedures of the House.
I was pointing out that while I had not intended to comment on this recommendation of the Government, I felt impelled to rise in view of some comments which had been made by the hon. Member for Prince Albert last Tuesday when he was speaking on the rules and procedures, and at which time direct reference was made to myself. You may remember that I recalled that on May 28 I had asked the Minister of Justice a question about whether his Department or the Cabinet had ever given consideration to making it illegal for mass communication media to mention names of accused before they are convicted. As reported at page 1769 1 remarked:
Personally, I do not believe they should be mentioned by name until a conviction has been registered-
Yesterday I indicated that the Minister had given a straightforward answer. His reply was:
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this...is one of the questions which I have under very serious consideration...
But there is also such a thing as respect for the freedom of the individual and in the case of juveniles the regulation already exists in the Criminal Code that their names must not be disclosed in the papers. Surely this is not an interference with the freedom of the press.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I commented last night that a straightforward question on a simple point of practice in the mass communication field had been blown out of all proportion, by people with financial interests in the mass communication field, into an interpretation that this is an attack on the freedom of the press. I have never seen such exaggeration in such a short period of time. I rise to point out that this question is not dead and it will not be killed. The hon. Member for Prince Albert in speaking last Tuesday made the statement:
-it was only as a result of publicity that this announcement found its way into the limbo of forgotten things.
When he refers to the announcement he means the remarks passed by the Minister of Justice in reply to my question. I can assure you here and now that this matter has not found its way into the limbo of forgotten
June 11. 1965

House of Commons Procedures things. It is quite interesting to me that the hon. Member for Lafontaine, who sits to my left, on numerous occasions in the past has introduced private bills on this very point, and right now in your binder for private bills, Mr. Chairman, you will find Bill No. C-90 in which the hon. Member for Lafontaine is seeking to amend the Criminal Code so that there will be a restriction of publication of proceedings. He does not say the elimination of the publication of proceedings; he talks about the restriction of publication of proceedings; and in the explanatory notes it is stated that the purpose of the proposed amendments are:
(2) to eliminate the unfortunate results of judicial errors.
Included in that is the case of people being accused of offences of which they are later acquitted or found not guilty, and to prevent their names being dragged all over the universe because they have been falsely accused in the first place. I commend the integrity of the Member for Lafontaine in getting behind this bill of his, which he has been urging in season and out of season for some time.
Further down on this side of the House we find the hon. Member for Norfolk. He has on the order paper private Member's notice of motion No. 15, introduced in this House on April 6, long before I asked the question on May 28. The hon. Member for Norfolk under private Members' notices of motions moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Criminal Code so that an accused person who is eventually found not guilty-
In other words, so as to provide that a person who has been unjustly kept in custody and is afterwards acquitted may be paid his costs, expenses and compensation. I bring forward these examples to show you that the thinking of the nation is along the lines that accused people who are subsequently found not guilty are not being treated fairly in this country of ours today, despite all the uproar in the press about freedom of the press.
The hon. Member for Norfolk is not in the Chamber, but I will take the liberty of saying to you that he is interested in this question because of comments that have been made to him over the years by a Judge in western Ontario who has commented on more than one occasion privately on the injustice to accused persons who are later found not guilty, having their names dragged all over the front pages of the newspapers, blasted over the radio waves and exposed on television screens when they have done no wrong.

The Judge gives a certain example of a man who was held for two years in a county jail and was later acquitted of the charge. No compensation was given to the man, and his name was broadcast all over the countryside simply because an accusation had been made against him.
Last Saturday an article appeared in the Montreal Star following the comments that had been made in this House by the Minister of Justice and the right hon. Prime Minister, both of whom I commend for their statements and attitude on this question. The article, by one Leslie Roberts, in the centre contains this phrase:
The disjointed discussion of press freedom in the House may be a tempest in a teapot.
First of all, I wish Mr. Roberts would get this matter straight. There has been no disjointed discussion of press freedom in this House. There may have been a disjointed discussion of the freedom of the individuals in this House, but there has been no discussion of press freedom. The same writer refers to the Prime Minister's remarks of June 1 as being "an odd intervention". I personally wish to commend the Prime Minister for having answered the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue, who on June 1 directed a question to the Minister of Justice.
I have already stated that the Minister of Justice gave a straightforward answer on May 28, one that any man of compassion and religious convictions will support wholeheartedly, when he said that the right of the individual, the freedom of the individual, takes priority over freedom of the press. On June 1 the Prime Minister stands up-


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We have a very short day today. I like the views, sometimes, of the hon. Member for York-Humber, but surely we are entitled to get to the point, which is the acceptance of the two resolutions before us. The Justice estimates are coming before the committee some time, and we can discuss the ramifications of the hon. Member's problem then.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Royal is well taken, and I would have to ask the hon. Member for York-Humber to confine his remarks as closely as possible to paragraph 6 of the resolution before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am confining my remarks as closely to paragraph 6 as the hon. Member for Prince Albert confined his remarks to
June 11. 1965	COMMONS
the resolution under discussion on June 1. This has been the first opportunity 1 have had to comment on the remarks then made.
I prefaced my remarks last night by pointing out that the Prime Minister had commented on the fact that the ambit of the discussion was such that he could bring up some matters in a general way, and I stated that I am speaking on a question of privilege, because in paragraph 6 it is said:
That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 41-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 41-A
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings-
And so on. I said last night before ten o'clock that I took my cue from the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert, who yesterday rose and asked a question because, he said, of the short time we are going to be allowed for questions in the future. I believe that paragraph 6 deals with this question, because I am raising the matter of a question of privilege and perhaps in the future I will not have the same opportunity that I have now under the present rule. I am discussing paragraph 6, Mr. Chairman. Paragraph 6 refers to questions of privilege; and I was mentioned deliberately by the speaker the other day, June 8, and am replying under the same umbrella terms as those he was making his remarks under. I stated that the Prime Minister had rejected himself into the question period when the hon. Member for Pon-tiac-Temiscamingue addressed remarks to the Minister of Justice, and Right Hon. L. B. Pearson-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have very affectionate feelings for the hon. Member for York-Humber and I know he is trying to get under an umbrella. But that umbrella is getting so big that he will not be able to hold it up. Standing Order 41 only amends the rule with regard to a question of privilege in that a Member who wishes to raise a question of privilege prior to the Orders of the Day must give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House. That certainly does not give the hon. Member an opportunity, at this point in the debate, to raise matters of questions of privilege at all. I appreciate that he would like to have the same opportunity that was afforded at the beginning of both these resolutions to the right hon. Prime Minister and the
DEBATES	2273
House of Commons Procedures right hon. Leader of the Opposition and others. But that was a discussion in general terms before we began considering these resolutions paragraph by paragraph. We are now discussing them paragraph by paragraph, and I think the discussion should be confined entirely to the subject matter dealt with in the paragraph.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would allow me to quote from Hansard of June 8, page 2106:


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No. The suggestion came from the hon. Member for York-Humber-
That happens to be myself; that happens to be a direct reference in this discussion of the rules and procedure. I believe that on the other side of the fence I have the right to answer when direct references are made to myself.


Michael Starr: Not at this point.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I was quoting the Prime Minister-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must remind the committee that we are on paragraph 6, which deals with the method of raising a question of privilege other than one which comes up in the usual course of debate. The question before the Committee is the manner of proceeding in order to raise a question of privilege. It has nothing to do with any actual question of privilege. Again I would have to ask the hon. Member for York-Humber to remain within the terms and limits of paragraph 6, particularly since the Committee has already agreed to discuss this resolution paragraph by paragraph.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, would you allow me the indulgence of referring to the hon. Member for Ontario who remarked a moment or two ago that he and I were disposed to be friendly to each other. I have had some association with the press but I believe it is not generally known that the first time I ever met the hon. Member for Ontario was when we were both fellow employees of the Oshawa Daily Reformer. It was the Reformer in those days, not the Times. I regret very much that it changed its name, but on the other hand it changed its name when it changed its purpose in life because under the Mundy estate which employed the two of us it was a real reform paper. Today, under a Conservative owner whom I will not name at the moment, it has changed its purpose. The Times is a much better name for it as it
June 11, 1965

House of Commons Procedures does not express itself as freely and as forcibly as it did when the hon. Member for Ontario and I had a little influence in the organization.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to confine myself to this question of privilege but I am speaking now under the present rules of the House. I want to see Standing Order 41A amended and section 6 adopted. I said so last night. But I also want to point out the unfairness of remarks made here in a discussion of rules and procedures on June
8.	I intend to persist in that objective unless I am ordered down, because I am speaking on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: You have been ordered down twice.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I might state that the Prime Minister said he was looking into the question of securing the rights of individuals when false charges were made against them. He went on to say, as found on page 1825 of Hansard for June 1:
The House can be assured that there is no possibility of any Government or any Government Department interfering with the important principle of the freedom of the press to report the news in accordance with the law.
This is a straightforward statement of the privileges of individuals in this country, and I am proud to be associated with men of the stature of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister in the stand they have taken on that score. But what do we find in this article in the Montreal Star of last Saturday, June 5?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This is completely unfair to the House.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must remind the hon. Member again that the question before the House is not one of privilege either for Members of the House or for Canadians in general. We are dealing with the manner in which a question of privilege can be raised in the House, and that is the only item before the Committee at the moment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I would point out, as I said before, that this is not a discussion of freedom of the press but a discussion of freedom of the individual, and when I have been specifically mentioned on June 8 I believe I should have the opportunity 
to make some comments in reply to the speech made at that time.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the business of the House I wonder whether the hon. Member for York-Humber would yield his place to the President of the Privy Council, the Government House Leader, in order that he may move some very important amendments before the time for this debate comes to an end?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: At the request of the President of the Privy Council, yes, but not at the request of the present Acting Leader of the Opposition.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, without my asking for leave I wonder whether the hon. Member would do that? I want to thank him for his courtesy. Is it agreeable to him?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet yielded to the request of the President of the Privy Council-


Michael Starr: Who is yielding what?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -but before I resume my seat, in order to co-operate in passing this forward looking legislation introduced by the Liberal party, which we will adopt before five o'clock, may I say that the question I raised with the Minister of Justice had nothing to do with freedom of the press but rather freedom of the individual. I am glad to know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice agree with me on this score. It is because we are men of that belief that we are Liberals together, and I am willing to yield the floor to the President of the Privy Council.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. Member for York-Humber, so that it will be on record. I move:
That Section 2 of the proposed Standing Order 43 he amended to read as follows:
"When the debate on any motion under Standing Order 15, section 2, is adjourned or interrupted the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered as the first Order under Government orders."
That section 2 of Standing Order 18 be amended
to read as follows:
"Except as provided in Standing Orders 43 and 55, Government Orders may be called in such sequence as the Government may see fit".
That Section 1 of the proposed Standing Order 65 be amended by striking out the words "with all convenient speed", and substituting therefor the words "within ten sitting days after its appointment", and by striking out the number "22" where it appears therein and substituting therefor the number "24".
June 11. 1965	COMMONS
That a new Standing Order 68A reading as follows,
"In any standing or special committee of the House questions of order shall be decided by the Chairman, subject only to an appeal to the committee", be added.
That the amendments to Standing Orders made by this Resolution be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session unless this House otherwise orders.
Hon. Members will have noticed that this is exactly in accordance with the statement I made last night as it appears on page 2244 of Hansard. I am moving this one motion in order to get the amendments before the Committee in total at this stage. If there is any question about different parts of the amendment, I might answer them as the clauses are called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion. Briefly, I suggest that the Committee might agree at this moment to pass this omnibus amendment. The reason I suggest this will be obvious. If other Members have amendments to move to any other paragraphs, we will get into all kinds of procedural difficulties should they have to move subamendments. On the other hand, each of the items in the omnibus amendment that the President of the Privy Council has now moved is the result of negotiations and I think all of them are universally acceptable.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Committee has heard the amendment moved by the President of the Privy Council. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one brief point in connection with section 6. It has been a tradition in this House that on certain occasions Members rise on questions of privilege and introduce complimentary remarks. For example, I remember that one Member had a constituent who had won a highland fling dancing competition in Scotland. I can remember we have had long, complimentary and very poetic expressions of appreciation for Taras Shevchenko, the great Ukrainian poet, for the Trail Smoke-eaters and a whole parade of people. I would assume one of the consequences of this particular motion would be the understanding that points of privilege in that connection are just really an excuse to open up some kind of complimentary remarks about some
DEBATES	2275
House of Commons Procedures individual, some organization or some particular ethnic group will come to an end. I just wanted to make this point and bring it to the attention of my fellow Members.
It has always seemed to me that this kind of honorific cause opened up by a point of privilege has tended to drag out our proceedings on occasion, and it is almost impossible for any individual Member of Parliament to object to it. I can remember the tributes to Taras Shevchenko went on interminably one morning a few years ago, but none of the Members was brave enough to stand up and suggest that, with all due consideration to that great Ukrainian poet, it was a little bit much when we were getting 20 minute tributes to him at the very time when we were busy. I just wanted to make that particular point.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You had better except the Canadian mother of the year.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. Member raises a good point. We have had recognition of the Canadian mother of the year, and I think, once, some Canadian newsboy. I am still waiting for the time when we will get Miss Canada or some other bathing beauty or figure skater into the gallery, as we have in past years, and some recognition for all these sports figures.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude discussion on Clause 6? Is Clause 7 agreed to? Is Clause 8 agreed to? Is Clause 9 agreed to? Is Clause 10 agreed to?


Mr. Baldwin:: This is the clause, I assume, that actually sets up the new nomenclature of the committees. I have an amendment to propose and in order to relate my remarks to this amendment I may say it will simply be to add after paragraph (u) an additional one, to be called paragraph (v), on Delegated Authority. In support of this amendment I want to refer to the first statement made by the Prime Minister when he was speaking in the House on March 18 of this year on this question of the Committees system. He used these words as they appear at page 12544 of Hansard, after having dealt with the increasing strength of the Executive and the weakness of the legislative branch of our Government:
This is a situation which has occupied the attention of all students of democratic parliamentary institutions in recent years, because with the executive you have not only the cabinet but you have behind the cabinet, a growing body of expert
June 11, 1965

House of Commons Procedures officialdom which is inevitably becoming more and more important as government becomes increasingly complex.
Later, he said:
Could we strengthen the legislature by deepening and broadening the committee structure? There are some recommendations in this report which, X believe, when implemented may well have this effect. I hope so.
The right hon. gentleman was referring to the 18th report, I believe, of the committee on procedure. However, when the right hon. gentleman was speaking on the debate which initiated this particular discussion, he did not go as far as he had previously. He then said, in response to a question, that he did not believe a Standing Committee on Delegated Authority was necessary, and he stated two reasons. In the first instance, he said, there is consideration being given to setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into the necessity for an ombudsman. Second, he thought the committees, as constructed and set up by this particular section we are discussing, would provide an opportunity to examine into the very dangerous situation which prompted me to move this amendment. I refer to the very increasing extent to which Government, particularly the Executive Branch of the Government, is operating with the aid of Orders in Council. I cannot accept this statement by the Prime Minister.
In the first place, if a Royal Commission does recommend the establishment of an ombudsman, and if in its infinite wisdom Parliament does decide such an officer is required, it is my submission, as a result of evidence given by the New Zealand ombudsman and as a result of discussions that have taken place in committee with an ombudsman, that without a Parliamentary Committee to which he can bring his recommendations and the grievances which are brought to his attention, he is in a very invidious position. I am not going to add any more because it is not pertinent, but I have quoted these observations to stress the importance of this question, in answer to the Prime Minister's objection to setting up a Committee on Delegated Authority. The experience in connection with ombudsmen has been that they are unable to obtain action in respect of grievances brought to their attention unless there is a committee of this nature to deal with them. I submit this is an ample answer to the Prime Minister.
Then, so far as the committees which we have now are concerned, it is my submission that these committees will concern themselves almost exclusively with the question of esti-

mates and legislation which will come before them. These will be the primary functions. There is no question about it. I submit that a committee which would have the opportunity to deal with the issue of delegated authority, particularly the effect of Orders in Council and improper action taken under Orders in Council, is a very essential part of the parliamentary system at this time.
I am not going to say anything more than that, because time is short and there are a lot of other matters to be dealt with. I urge the Government to give most serious consideration to this particular issue. I think this is one of the most important parts of the rule changes, the establishment of a new form of these committees. If we fail to carryout the ancillary step of having a Committee on Delegated Authority, we are not meeting out responsibilities at this time.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I want to support the hon. Member for Peace River. This recommendation had its foundation, in so far as this Parliament is concerned, in the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization. I suppose it is one reason that the Government did not see fit to establish it. We unanimously accepted this proposal and a Member of the Government, the Minister of Labour, was a part of that committee. We were quite disappointed when the resolution before us omitted this unanimous recommendation.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This is the very problem I tried to outline in a widely reported speech which I made the other night. It was so widely reported that I will repeat a paragraph taken from an essay in the London Observer of May 2, 1965, by Bernard Crick:
-far too little time is spent in scrutiny and investigation. Both the Front Benches are content to keep M.P.'s busy with niggling detail: for what rightly interests the public however much it may embarrass the party leaders, is general debate about future policy or about the competence of the administration.
More use should be made of specialized committees of scrutiny and investigation.
Then, because I am seeking the support of the N.D.P. for this proposal, I would like to cite the Socialist Commentary of July 1964 -"Three dozen parliamentary reforms by one dozen parliamentary Socialists." I say to the N.D.P. that the Socialists in Britain made this proposal.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Are you addressing the N.D.P. or the Chair?
June 11, 1965	COMMONS


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is that a question from the hon. Member for York-Humbug?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am asking whether you should not be addressing the Chairman instead of one special party in this Chamber?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have already said that this recommendation received the unanimous support of the Special Committee on Organization and Procedure, of which the Minister of Labour was a member, and when the recommendations for parliamentary reform came to Parliament I was somewhat surprised to see that this fundamental part of the committee set-up was left out. It is surely a strange commentary on a Liberal administration that boasts so much about parliamentary reform.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps I should put the amendment put by the hon. Member for Peace River. The amendment as moved by the hon. Member was slightly incorrect as to form and, with his permission, I will read it duly corrected:
That subclause 1 of proposed Standing Order 65 be amended by adding after (u) the following:
" (v) on Delegated Authority."
There is a question in my mind as to whether this amendment is correct because it does not give the number of Members, which would appear to be inconsistent with the conventions whereby this type of committee always has a specific number of Members in the order setting it up. On the other hand, if no formal objection is made to the amendment, it will be accepted by the Chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: I had assumed the Government would have rushed forward immediately to accept the amendment, adopt it as its own, and establish the number of Members. With unanimous consent I would add the words, "to consist of 24 members," and if the committee does not give me unanimous consent, then I am sure my hon. friend and learned colleague from Royal would be glad to propose a subamendment.


George James McIlraith: I think there would be unanimous consent to read it as if the words "to consist of 24 members" were included.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then it will read "on delegated authority, to consist of 24 members."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. Not only had this the unanimous support of the Members on the Procedure Committee, but in the Subcommittee on Committee Structure it had the vociferous support of the Liberal participants in that committee.
DEBATES	2277
House of Commons Procedures


Pauline Jewett: We still support it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Fine. Like my colleague, I was very surprised that this suggested committee had not been included in the Government's proposals. The purpose of such a committee is self-evident.
No committee on estimates has the powers to take a ministry through its delegated legislation. It has no power to go through the Orders in Council passed by the Privy Council, to see that powers have not been exceeded in cases where, for example, the Governor in Council has been granted powers to make regulations. The committee should have power to see that those regulations are not back-dated prior to the legislation granting the powers, and that no regulatory body is empowered to incur expenses which it has no right to incur.
The pattern of Government in this country, as in others, has grown bigger and bigger and become much more complicated. I cannot agree with the proposition of the Prime Minister that a Royal Commission may be set up-mark you, may be set up-to look into the establishment of an ombudsman. I do not think an ombudsman can put his nose into everything on a voluntary basis. He may act on a complaint, but he is not a general review officer of Government activity.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. Member not agree that the Prime Minister, in dealing with this subject and explaining why the committee was not proposed, went further in dealing with the subject of an ombudsman and went on to discuss the whole question of administrative tribunals?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be so, but I am not taken with this argument about an ombudsman, because I do not think such an official would accomplish anything of this nature. What Parliament is concerned with is that the carte blanche powers it has granted to the Governor in Council, or to some board, are not exceeded. This is a fundamental feature of the examination of the activities of the Government, that Parliament, through an all-party committee, may review the regulations and pertinent Orders in Council that have been passed. At the moment we are not in a position to do so.
For that reason I think such a committee would benefit the Government because, if the Government comes through such an examination cleanly, it can be satisfied its administration is good. It would remove any suggestion that there has been some excess, and from the point of view of the Opposition
June 11, 1965

House of Commons Procedures there is always the chance that peradventure some excess has been committed.
I am sorry the Government did not see fit to be as reform minded and as drastic as the Committee on Procedure in this regard. I know it will be a big job to staff the committee structure, but on the other hand I do not think a Committee on Delegated Legislation would need to sit year around. Perhaps for the first year it might; but after that it would probably operate for relatively short periods of time.
The President of the Privy Council mentioned administrative tribunals. These have to deal with the relationship between the public and the Government. A Committee on Delegated Legislation would look into the relationship between Parliament and the Government, and the powers granted to Government by Parliament.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The two things are entirely different and therefore, with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, let me say I do not think his arguments were pertinent to the question. I therefore solicit the support of Members on all sides of the House. This was put forward in the committee in the true spirit of non-partisanship. It was one of the strongest recommendations made, and I heartily commend it to all hon. Members and invite their acceptance of it.


George James McIlraith: I am interested in the amendment put forward this afternoon and more specifically in the terms in which it is put forward. I say this because when the committee on procedure made its report- and I regret I do not have that report here with me at the moment-the language used in dealing with this subject was perhaps not as clear as that which has been used today. The report itself raises a much broader subject than the particular one of delegated authority. I note that in discussing this question today the two hon. gentlemen concerned confined themselves to the question of an examination of the use of authority delegated by legislation. They did this very specifically and very clearly, if I may say so. There is undoubtedly a problem developing in this field as it concerns modern legislative bodies. This arises from the very nature of the increase in Government regulatory legislation of one sort or another; there is increasing delegation of authority and an increasing need for vigilance to ensure that an administrative body does not exceed its authority.

Regrettably, as I say-and I believe that if hon. Members would look at this report they would agree with me-the language used by the committee in this case did not express the proposal clearly. I have spent a great deal of time upon the report. I wish I had it here, because it dealt, in essence, with a much broader subject, and, if I may say so without offending anybody-especially as this is sometimes one of my own shortcomings-the recommendation is not as precise in its language as it might have been. I hope the author will not take offence at that remarks; I do think a review of it, now, would illustrate the point I have in mind.
As to the remarks made in the reference by the Prime Minister to this subject of an ombudsman, it is certainly not my view, nor I believe his view, that it is the function of an ombudsman to check on the improper use of delegated authority. It is not any part of his function, although he may, by the nature of his work, be called upon to deal with the point incidentally. If the ombudsman were to point out an abuse or excessive use of delegated authority, it would be incidental to his work rather than a direct part of his responsibility.
But where the possibility of abuse of delegated authority lies is largely with administrative tribunals, and this was the point of the Prime Minister's remarks. A Commission to enquire into administrative tribunals is being set up, and this is the root of the explanation why a Standing Committee was not provided for.
It will be reoalled that the question of administrative tribunals was not dealt with in the Glasseo Commission report. Work on this was started and then discontinued. There is, as I believe hon. Members will agree, a real need for an examination of this subject generally. I think lawyers in all the law associations I know of across this country have agreed on such a need. It seems to me it would be wrong on the one hand to have a standing committee of the House of Commons dealing with the subject of delegated authority at the same time as a commission was dealing with administrative tribunals. The commission will presumably be asked to make recommendations as to what should be done by way of safeguards in this field. Suppose the two bodies were sitting concurrently-the commission and the committee-one can imagine the difficulties which would arise if the commission were to recommend that the Parliamentary committee be discontinued as ineffec-
June 11. 1965	COMMONS
tive. It would surely not be a good idea to have the two bodies sitting at the same time.
There is one other consideration which entered into the decision not to include this committee-
I see the hon. Member for Edmonton West has a question he wants to ask.


Mr. Lamberl:: I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would not agree there is a fundamental distinction between the functions of a committee and the functions of an administrative tribunal which does not take the annual volume of regulations, and so on, and review them and declare them on a hypothetical basis to be ultra vires, for instance. An administrative tribunal will deal with those matters brought before it on appeal by citizens or as a result of certain legal steps which might be taken by municipal or Government bodies. Those are administrative tribunals. No administrative tribunal exists, I suggest, which would take note of all the delegated legislation and the regulations made under it and review them. And this is the purpose of the committee.


George James McIlraith: I quite agree as to the difference between a committee and a commission, but I want to point out that one of the large areas in which there may be abuse, if there is abuse, is likely to be abuse of delegated authority by administrative tribunals. It seems unrealistic when investigating this matter through a commission to have a committee investigating this and other aspects of delegated authority at the same time. That is my point.
The other important factor which entered into the decision not to include this new standing committee is this: It will be seen from the old Standing Order No. 65 that there were some 14 standing committees. In this present revision of House procedures we have proposed 21 standing committees. Hon. Members who examine the list will notice the reference to forestry and rural development for the first time. They will see there is a new Standing Committee on Broadcasting and Films, an important new field. There is a Committee on Crown Corporations. Over the past 10 or 15 years there has been a constant demand for a Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for reasons which I need not elaborate here, except perhaps to say that if they do not get a direct vote in the estimates there is really no way in which their operations can be examined by the House. This new
DEBATES	2279
House of Commons Procedures committee was added. A Standing Committee on Housing and Urban Development was established to deal with this most important field of activity.


Norman Platt Lambert: Just the Public Works Committee.


George James McIlraith: Well, there was no Public Works Committee under the former Standing Orders. I think this is new. Then there is a Standing Committee on Industrial Research and Energy Development. With the tremendous breakthrough in the whole field of research activity and energy development I think Members will agree it is desirable for this new activity to be examined by a standing committee of the House.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Perhaps the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre would agree with me, in referring to the activities of the Government in the field of research and energy development, that it is highly desirable that we have a standing committee on this subject. I might say I have had the privilege and opportunity of serving with him in some fairly active roles in connection with some areas of research and energy development.
Then there is the new Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Perhaps the Committee on Transport and Communications is more a change in description than a new committee.
It will be seen that if the new activities and the new provisions for these standing committess are to be fully met a tremendous addition to the work of the committees is involved. There is a 50 per cent increase in the number of standing committees, and if examined in terms of work envisaged then there will be a like increase in the area of consideration, if I can use that term, upon which the committees will be engaged. But at the same time as we have enlarged the activities of the standing committees-and here is the essential point-we have arranged to refer the estimates of the House of Commons to the committeee so that Members will have an opportunity to examine the administration and expenditures of the various departments.
For that reason, as well as the earlier reason which I gave, we came to the view that it was both premature and unrealistic to add the Committee on Delegated Authority at this time. However, there was no rejection of the idea that the subject matter of delegated authority in any responsible parliament does
2280	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures require better techniques for examination in the years ahead. In other words, there was no repudiation of the idea, but after a good deal of consideration and discussion there was what I might say a rejection of the suggestion that such a standing committee should be provided at time when we are making a rather substantial breakthrough in the whole treatment and structure of committees, with the consequent provision of a tremendous increase in the work to be assigned to them.
I would hope that in light of that explanation the amendment will not be pressed at this time until the Commission on Administrative Tribunals has had an opportunity to report.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise briefly to say that I support the amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member for Peace River. It seems that the President of the Privy Council is agreeing to it; at least he certainly agreed with the principle that there was a need for the kind of function which this committee would perform.
When the President of the Privy Council began his remarks he said he did not have the committee report before him, but that their report was substantially different from the account given by the hon. Member for Peace River and the hon. Member for Edmonton West. I have in front of me the report and would like to read one short paragraph from it. I think this point was gone over very carefully by the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, which came to the unanimous decision that this committee should have been included. The report says of the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
The function of this committee would be to act as a "watchdog" over the executive in its use of the powers conferred by statute, with the duty of reporting to Parliament any tendency on the part of the executive to exceed its authority. The committee's terms of reference should exclude it from considering the merits of or the policy behind delegated legislation, but it would be expected to draw the attention of Parliament to any regulations or instruments which impose a charge on public revenues, which confer immunity from challenge in the courts, which have an unauthorized retroactive effect, which reveal unusual or unexpected use of a statutory power, or which otherwise exceed the authority delegated by the parent statute.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. Member permit a question. Could he give me the reference to the committee report in Votes and Proceedings'?

DEBATES	June 11, 1965


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What I have before me, Mr. Chairman, is the mimeographed copy of the report which was filed on December 14, so I suppose it appears in Votes and Proceedings at about that time.


George James McIlraith: What is the number of the report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is the fifteenth report.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I disagree that the function of a Committee on Delegated Authority would be the same as that of an ombudsman. This committee would have no authority whatever to delve into the reason behind policy, as the committee stated in its report. Its purpose would be to see that the authority delegated by Parliament to the Executive or any boards or tribunals or branches of any of the departments is not exceeded by way of regulation, and interpretation of such regulation, beyond that authority granted by the parent statute.
We know, Mr. Chairman, there are certain statutes and amendments to statutes which pass through parliament, to which regulations are later attached. Sometimes the practical application and administration of these statutes is not in accordance with what was intended when they passed through this House. Therefore this committee would have the power to take a very close look at the practical application of the authority, to make sure that it was in accordance with the written word in the statute itself. As far as I can see, that is all there is involved in setting up this committee. It would not consider all the statutes in any one year. It would not even delve into all the statutes of one department in any one year. But it would have the opportunity and power, if you want to call it that, to take certain laws and make sure they were being administered according to the terms of those laws.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Executive should confine itself to the authority granted by this Parliament. But that would not be the only function of this Committee on Delegated Authority-namely, the function of being a watchdog over the Executive-because in many cases there is a far greater problem in some body examining what the bureaucracy does with power that is conferred on it by Parliament, which grants it to the Executive and through the Executive to Members in the Civil Service, or to what have been referred to as tribunals. So I think this committee would have quite a different function
June 11. 1965	COMMONS
from the normal investigation into the activities of departmental spending by the standing committees that will look at the estimates, and so on.
Therefore I suggest there is really quite a different kind of function proposed for this committee, and I think the Government should give careful consideration to including it, so there can be a piecemeal, or a statute at a time, if I may put it that way, or a statute by statute examination to make sure that the actual, practical application is in line with that which was intended by Parliament when they passed the statute.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that in supporting the amendment that has been moved I feel that perhaps one of the best arguments in favour of its adoption was advanced by the President of the Privy Council in the latter part of the remarks he made a few minutes ago, in which he spelled out at some length the additional committees that it is already being proposed to establish under the amendment that is before us.
It seems to me that he made a very good case for the argument with which I think most of us agree, namely that we should get away from the old, large, unwieldy, unspecialized committee to which Members were assigned, and attended only in a nominal capacity, in favour of a flexible system of smaller working committees, the membership of which will be made up of Members who have a particular interest in following through that particular aspect of parliamentary work. In pointing out the direction in which we are moving it seems to me that the President of the Privy Council was advancing a very strong argument in favour of the amendment of the hon. Member for Peace River.
The only other thing I wish to say, in view of the reference the President of the Privy Council made to the possibility of our having a parliamentary ombudsman, is that I agree this committee, if set up, would have a very different function from that of the ombudsman. But it does seem to me that if we did establish that office and this committee, the committee might from time to time wish to call before it the ombudsman, in very much the same way that the Public Accounts Committee calls before it the Auditor General, in order to take advantage of the special knowledge in certain aspects of the administration of government which he would have
DEBATES	2281
House of Commons Procedures acquired during the course of carrying on his functions. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me, particularly in the light of what was said by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat, that the President of the Privy Council has in effect advanced very good reasons why this additional committee should be established at this time, without any need for delay in its adoption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a very brief word, if I may, on this point. It seems to me that what we are seeking to do here is revise the rules, and not to import a new institution, however desirable that might be. While I am not raising any technical arguments, I think there are a great many of us who would have a great deal of sympathy for the general idea that is behind this amendment. As I understand it, in the British Parliament they have had for many years a committee which looks at regulations to see whether they go beyond the power conferred by statute. That is one thing. That is a very proper function of Members of Parliament, it seems to me, namely to satisfy ourselves that the Executive is not trying to legislate by Order in Council, but is only doing those things by Order in Council which Parliament empowers it to do. That is all the Executive should ever be allowed to do, except in exercising those few minor relics of the prerogative that still exist-and they are very minor nowadays.
But, Mr. Chairman, looking very hastily at the report from which the hon. Member for Medicine Hat just quoted it seems to envisage doing something quite different from that. It seems to envisage examining the way in which some body that was probably perfectly legally and regularly constituted is performing its function. I think a great many of us would want to think quite a while about whether that was the most appropriate way for Parliament to exercise its supervision over the Executive; because under our British system of parliamentary Government and of responsible Government it is the Executive who are responsible for every act of the Executive and for every body set up under the Executive functions, and it is the Ministers who are responsible to this whole House. I have always felt that the greatest merit of our system-and I know that the hon. Member for Port Arthur, who is a great exponent of the American system, will not agree with me; but I hope most hon. Members will-is that
2282	COMMONS DEBATES	June 11. 1965
House of Commons Procedures there is always one person on whom you can pin the blame for anything.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have to find out who, first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what our duty is as Members of Parliament. I would be very much afraid that in performing this kind of function a committee which would be composed normally of a slight majority of supporters of the Government over the number who oppose the Government-otherwise the Government would not stay in office very long-would have a kind of political content instead of our having what we ought to have, a method of placing the responsibility where it really belongs.
I am not advancing this as a necessary objection to the idea at all; I am just saying it is something that I think some of us old-fashioned types might think was going a little far all at once. I agree with the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. As we get older I agree with him more frequently than I used to in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that almost entirely for the benefit of the hon. Member for Port Arthur and the hon. Member for Kootenay West, those two flaming radicals. I do think that this very interesting suggestion, like that made the other day by the hon. Member for Edmonton West-who is now over on this side of the House, I am happy to see- and the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is the kind of reform that is in a different category from the mere revision of the rules. It is a substantive thing, and I think we ought to deal with it in a different way from mixing it with the reform of the rules. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, though I see quite a lot of merit in the general idea, I do not think at this time I would be prepared to support the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in agreement with the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Transport. It is a most unusual occurrence and I just want to record it in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: A red letter day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think I detected in the speeches made by Members of the former Committee on Rules and Procedure a note of irritation that the House had not accepted all their findings almost immediately.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: 
Gordon Minto Churchill: This was particularly noticeable in the remarks of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat who has been speaking on almost every section of the report. But the House does not always accept everything that is brought before it and I think these Members might learn a useful lesson, just as the Minister of Transport admits he has learned as the years have gone by. The fact is that you advance ideas in the House which are not accepted but you gracefully bow to the will of the House and continue to work on the proposition with the result that you may find it accepted in a year or two.
But I agree with the Minister of Transport that while the subject of delegated authority requires investigation and although this proposal has merit there is no necessity for a major change along that line at this particular stage of our proceedings. Furthermore, I think we have set up a sufficient number of committees now to keep everybody very usefully employed, and if we multiply the number of our committees we are going to run into difficulty because they will not function efficiently. We have heard so much talk about increasing the efficiency of this institution, so let us not go too far too fast.
If we find next year, let us say, that it is essential that a committee on delegated authority be set up, by that time the Minister of Transport will have had a chance to think about the matter and confer with the President of the Privy Council and we may reach the point where we will set up such a committee. But right now, with all these committees and quite a bit of work to do, I think we should leave this matter in abeyance and simply thank the mover of the amendment and the Members of the former committee for the great thought they have given to the matter and for advancing the idea in the House. Let us then get on with the rest of what we have to do because we have only 65 minutes left. The guillotine with its sharp edge will fall at five o'clock and I want to be here to hear the sound.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two brief observations. I think most of us have thick enough skins that we can bear the impact of the guillotine without too much difficulty. In reply to what has been said by the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Transport, I would point out that a close examination of the new committees indicates that there have been some completely new innovations. For example, we are to have
June 11, 1965	COMMONS
a Committee on Human Rights and a Committee on Crown Corporations. Certainly these were at no time included within the phraseology of committees which were capable of being established under the previous Standing Order.
Something has been said to the effect that we should be patient and wait for the years to go by. It may be because of my great age, Mr. Chairman, but from my experience in the seven or so years I have been here it seems to me that the period of gestation between the time someone gets a gleam in his eye and the 10 or 15 or 20 years it apparently takes to implement the idea in the form of legislation is just too many years for me to have to wait, and I hope there are other Members of the Committee who feel the same way.
I recall that when I came back from war service I tried to rehabilitate myself in a knowledge of the law. In the City of Edmonton I went through the library and looked at the federal and provincial statutes. Then the librarian showed me row after row of volumes with page after page of Orders in Council passed during the course of the war. It would have taken many men studying day and night for years to absorb the knowledge and authority contained in those Orders in Council.
Two or three years ago I had the privilege of serving as Chairman of a small committee which inquired into the Emergency Measures Organization and the War Measures legislation. At that time the Minister of National Health and Welfare was a member of the committee. She asked the Clerk of the Privy Council, I believe, to bring before the Committee some of the Orders in Council dealing with this particular phase and we were told that it would take a truck to bring them all to the committee room.
This is the danger that we face at this time. It is like the old Roman emperor who, in order to comply with custom which compelled him to publish the laws, had them engraved on tablets of stone and then hung so high that no one could read them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question? Surely he does not want to imply that all or even most of the Orders in Council have any legislative effect whatever? I am sure the hon. gentleman knows that all Orders in Council having legislative effect are published regularly in the consolidation of the Statutory Orders and Regulations and that this reform arose out of the efforts of, among others-I do not
DEBATES	2283
House of Commons Procedures often pay tribute to him-the present Leader of the Opposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not making the point that they are not published, but I am making the point that there are so many that in effect knowledge of them is denied to most of the people of the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are not very many.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is my very definite view that the time has come and in fact is long past when there should be a committee which, on behalf of the people of this country, would examine with the most scrupulous and anxious care Orders in Council and similar authorizing procedures to see, first, if they lie within the competence of the statute which sets out to permit them to be passed and, second, even if they are legally passed, whether there have not been infractions from time to time by civil servants in the carrying out of the functions assigned.
Anyone who examines any one of many statutes passed is bound to have his attention drawn to the fact that so many of them contain the power to pass regulations by Order in Council and, as I said before, I think we fall short of our duty if we do not take this step at this time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, after the comment of the ex-Minister from Winnipeg South Centre I felt I had to put on the record a sentence from the text that was referred to by the hon. Member for Royal and which is entitled "Three Dozen Parliamentary Reforms By One Dozen Parliamentary Socialists". With reference to new committees for this purpose it has this to say:
Their advantages can be considerable. They enable Members to develop and use their personal expertise in the fields of government which interest them and they can, as other countries have already found, prove an excellent training ground for future ministers, and winter grazing ground for ex-ministers.
I would commend this idea to the exMinister from Winnipeg South Centre and to the Minister of Transport, for there is no one I would look forward with more delight to seeing classified as an ex-Minister.


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Peace River, let us suppose that such a committee was established to deal with the constitutional legality of the actions of an administrative body and whether or not it has exceeded its delegated authority. I think the hon. Member for Royal will recognize that such points now take years to decide in
June 11, 19S5

House of Commons Procedures the courts and I can imagine what would happen if such points were raised in this committee. I am afraid the committee would be nothing more than a small constitutional study group that would not achieve much by way of results.


Mr. Winkler:: We may need that too these days.


Mr.   Olio@: I am glad to see the formation of these committees is not in accord with the recommendation made by the Procedural Committee, and I say that for this reason. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the main reason for reform of the rules and procedures is to give Members of Parliament more responsibility and more worth-while work to do in Parliament.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am glad to see that in this clause most of the committees are closely associated with the department, whereas previously there was never much communication between committees and Minister or departments involved. As a result, we went on re-examining and reviewing legislation already passed, but any suggestion made in those committees never reached a department or any of the Ministers. I should like, therefore, to make this one suggestion to the whips, possibly, or the Members who form these committees. I strongly urge that the Chairmen of these committees be the Parliamentary Secretaries of the various departments. Let me tell you why I make that recommendation. If the Parliamentary Secretary is the Chairman, he will have to be there, at each committee sitting. Any ideas that come forward from the Members of that committee, any good ideas, will be passed on to the Minister.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He will throw them out anyway.


Mr. Otto:: As a result, if a Minister is a good Minister he will accept the good ideas and we, as Members of Parliament, will actually have more responsibility in initiating legislation rather than merely in the examination and review of legislation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You are putting forward a hypothetical idea with which we have agreed for a long time.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have only a word or two to say. It is rumoured that the Minister of Transport and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre are going to the Senate in any event, so they will liven up proceedings there. It has been indicated that this is

not the time to do this, but I am not one who thinks that manana is always better. It strikes me that this is not the case at all when we have been referring constantly to ourselves as the champions of the relationship between the legislative and the executive. Here we are talking about the examination function. As has been pointed out, the new schedule of committees represents a greater degree of realism at the present time in connection with the meaningful function of carrying on an examination process. As has been well pointed out by several Members, the whole field of delegated authority and delegated legislation is one in which there is great need for this very thing. Surely, Lord Hewart's strictures have not been forgotten and they are applicable here in Canada. I would hope that the champions of the status quo would unbend and accept this practical suggestion.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 43.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I want to enter a caveat about what could be an interesting Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I think the principle has been enunciated here on several occasions, perhaps at no time more eloquently than by the late and beloved Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, concerning the relationship of the Secretary of State with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I hope that statement, which has been endorsed I know by the present Secretary of State, will be carried through and that the Committee on Broadcasting, et cetera, will not set itself up as a censor for the films and so on which are to be shown. I know, and I say this with diffidence, I have no competence to judge the content of a C.B.C. program or what picture may hang in a gallery downtown, or what film the National Film Board should produce.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or world fair symbols?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes, I thank the Minister of Transport for reminding me. This was one of the sorry times when Parliament tried to exercise its doubtful taste about a symbol that has now been adopted for Expo '67. Strangely enough, each time I go into my church and see, back of the Priest at the altar, the extended hands, symbolizing I presume the same symbol as has been used for this exposition, I think how silly we were. I hope this type of attitude will not permeate
June 11, 1965

this committee because if it does we will make nonsense of the committee and will be invading an area with which this Parliament has no competence to deal.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Canada Council, through a process that is not supported by anything statutory, has appeared annually with its report before the Public Accounts Committee. Now, is it the intention of the Government to change this practice and bring it before the committee to which reference has just been made?


George James McIlraith: It will have to be considered, but frankly I had not thought of it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to make sure, because we do not want to lose that privilege which some of us have appreciated, of being able to interview and question the Members of the Council before the Public Accounts Committee. It makes sense to put it in the other committee; but in the limbo that may be ahead, because the President of the Privy Council has not thought about this, I hope no one will lose sight of the fact we need it in one or the other.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps as the senior Minister here, I may say that I remember well Mr. St. Laurent's assurance when the Canada Council was first set up, and I can assure the hon. Member this Government intends to carry it out in one way or another in every year; so Parliament will have an opportunity to review this matter.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A former minister of national health and welfare, who became chairman of the Canada Council, expressed grave doubts as to whether Parliament had any competence. I am not mentioning that as an argument against what the Minister has said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not precisely on the same point. We make an unconditional grant to the Canada Council. The moneys they spend are no longer under the control of Parliament, as Mr. St. Laurent made clear at that time; nevertheless he felt there should be some process by which Parliament could make a review of this matter. This compromise was reached and seems to have worked fairly well so far.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It was the successor to Mr. St. Laurent who offered the technique that was used, and I think we should give him credit for this.
House of Commons Procedures


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to do that. I gave him credit a few minutes ago.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Following the sermon on the exercise of patience by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; it was the Minister of Transport; he is the patient man.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have in mind the remarks made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre about not being too concerned if the ideas we introduce do not find immediate acceptance among Members of the House.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was speaking from my own experience, because a lot of my ideas are never accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Praise God from whom all blessings flow.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I may not have acquired as much patience as the hon. Member, as he has been longer in the House than I. However, to come to the point, I wish to move an amendment and without embarking on a lengthy discussion I move:
That the proposed standing order 65 be amended by adding to section (1) thereof the following as
a new subsection (v):
(v) on Indian Affairs, to consist of 24 members.
Few Members will quarrel with the fact that what parliament does in the field of Indian Affairs is of growing interest and importance, not least because of the interest of the Indian people themselves in it. From time to time special committees have been established, but I think a regular standing committee on Indian Affairs should be set up. I appreciate that under the Government proposal provision may have been made to refer this matter-


George James McIlraith: Does the hon. Member not think this is covered by subparagraph (i), the Committee on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration? It was intended that it should be included in that, and if there is any uncertainty there would be no objection to adding Indian Affairs to the title of that committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am aware that it was proposed that estimates of the Indian Affairs branch be considered by this committee, but the subject matter is of sufficient importance to be dealt with by a separate committee, not one which will be dealing with a hodgepodge of other matters.
June 11>
1965

House of Commons Procedures
There is to be a Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which could just as logically be referred to the Committee on Human Rights. I think that long after we cease to deal with veterans affairs, because no veterans are left in Canada, we will still have to deal with the Indian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be an inconvenience from an administrative standpoint to have two committees to which one department was being referred. I hope the Indian Affairs branch will always be part of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as citizenship should always be stressed in relation to Indian Affairs. As mentioned by the President of the Privy Council, there would be no objection to enlarging the title of the Committee on Human Rights.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The argument about dividing the estimates of a department is rather academic. What does the Minister think about the proposal presently before the House for the setting up of a Court of Indian Claims? Is not this an argument in favour of a separate committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot conceive that one committee would be considering the estimates of Indian Affairs while at the same time another committee would be considering the estimates of the Immigration Branch. That would divide the energies of the deputy minister. Nothing would be lost by having them considered in the same committee, and they would receive more thorough attention from the department and the officials if that were done.
As has been mentioned, we are setting up quite a number of committees, and now another one is suggested. I see a very real advantage in changing the title of the Committee on Human Rights so that the Indian people will not feel they are overlooked.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggest that in due course we allow the members of the committee to decide by a majority whether they wish to accept my suggestion or that of the Minister.


David Orlikow: I should like to support the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni. I think there is a good deal more to this than the adding of the word "Indian" to the title. Surely it is time the people of Canada realized that here we face what is undoubtedly the greatest unsolved social problem in Canada. The Indian-Eskimo Association which is probably doing more in
[Mr. BamettJ
its field than any other voluntary association, recently made representations to the Government that a separate department be established to deal with Indian questions and that the whole of this work be separated from the Department of Immigration. The Government has gone some distance in this direction; the department now has two separate branches, each under a deputy minister.
A week or so ago I had a question on the order paper asking what had been spent by the Federal Government on services to Indians in the fields of health, education, welfare and economic development. The answer was interesting. During the fiscal year 1963-64 the Federal Government spent $13 J million on welfare, $3J million on education, $22-Jr million on health services and just $3J million on economic development. Contained in these figures is a good indication, in capsule form, of where we have gone wrong. Surely the only way of reaching a situation where the Indian citizens of Canada can play their part and live their lives with the same possibilities open to them as there are to others, is to make sure they have an economic basis permitting them to pay for the services they require, like the rest of the people of Canada. These figures give us a picture of what has gone wrong in the years gone by. We have been prepared to give the Indians sufficient food and shelter to ensure they will not die from exposure or lack of food- very often-but not enough to permit them to develop to the point at which they can make their own way.
I cannot think of anything better than to set up a committee of parliament which would take the time to meet together with officials of the department and the Minister, and deal in great detail with the problems of the Indians. The Province of Manitoba from which I come, the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and, more recently, the Province of Ontario have all begun to spend a great deal more money and effort on trying to improve both the immediate and the long range conditions of the Indians. We have for the first time an opportunity in the next generation to solve this problem, provided we are prepared to do some new and bold thinking. I wish to join my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni in suggesting that one way of doing this would be to set up a separate committee. Here in the Committee of the Whole when we discuss estimates we spend so much time discussing the immigration
June 11. 1965

problem that we never have more than a couple of hours in which to discuss the serious question of the Indian population. I do not say this critically; the immigration estimates have rightly come in for lengthy examination during the last 50 years. But I do hope the Government will agree with the proposal now before the committee, and that we can have a committee of this House which will spend the necessary time on this subject and reach the basic solutions which are required.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks about the proposed amendment requesting the addition of a 24-member committee to study Indian affairs.
I may say that the Minister of Transport was quite agreeable when he consented to add "Indian Affairs" to paragraph (i) "on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration".
I would think that the effect of the amendment would be to duplicate a committee- in this case, the committee on Human Rights, Citizenship and Immigration, which has 22 members. This amendment provides for setting up another 24-member committee. It seems to me that the aggregate of suggested committees would be sufficient and I fully support the Minister when he suggests to the member moving this amendment to add "Indian Affairs" to the heading.
We all agree in this house that the Indians should have our special attention. We are all convinced that their problems must be considered and dealt with in the light of facts and I do not believe, as the hon. member who spoke before me just said, that by being included in the human rights and citizenship and immigration committee the Indians will be dealt with more harshly. On the contrary, we would have all the latitude required, to discuss Indian problems in the human rights citizenship and immigration committee.
Mr. Chairman, since the government is ready to add Indian affairs to the human rights committee, we shall support the proposal of the Minister of Transport and vote, if there is a vote, against the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Barnett) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 42.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the
amendment lost.
House of Commons Procedures


Mr. MacNaughi:: I move:
That the proposed standing order No. 65 be amended by adding after the word "on" in subparagraph (i) the words "Indian Affairs".
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Peters:: On division.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, now that the committee is in a mood to make amendments to paragraph 10 may I try one. The arguments for this have been made several times so I need not repeat them. We are in a position to do a job on the rules right now, because we had a committee working on this matter for a couple of years. Many of us think that this is a matter which should be kept under constant study and supervision. Therefore, I move:
That section 1 of the proposed Standing Order 65 be amended by inserting therein immediately after subparagraph (q) a new subparagraph (r) as follows:
"(r) on Procedure and Organization, to consist of 24 members";
and by relettering the succeeding subparagraphs.
There is a slight difference in form between my amendment and those which have recently been moved; instead of making another (v), I am putting it in its proper alphabetical place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 44.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a number of amendments to paragraph 10 in relation to Standing Order 65 by deleting parts of the section and substituting amendments. I do so because I think this is a very important section of the rule changes, one which, in my opinion, can either make them successful or not. I do not want to take up much time by presenting them but I do point out that on a number of things the Government has made certain concessions.
It has been stated that the Government is prepared to have committees established within a ten day period. I should like to move an amendment which provides that after the third day from the commencement of the
June 11. 1965

House of Commons Procedures session a special committee, to consist of seven members, will be automatically established; that within five sitting days after its appointment the committee prepare and lay before the House a list of Members composing the Standing Committees of the House. I would include in the list of committees a subparagraph (b)-I am not opposed to the other recommendations which have been made- a Committee on Accommodation and Facilities, and the Establishment and Organization of the Internal Economy of the House, to consist of 22 Members.
I do not know whether the Government has overlooked this matter, but I think that one of these days we will have to face the problem of the operation of the House itself. I think the way we do it at the moment is pretty archaic. We have a number of treasury members of the Government who, with Mr. Speaker, make decisions as to the operation and establishment of the staff, the facilities, and other matters involving the House. I think any Member who has taken the time to examine the situation will agree that this leaves a great deal to be desired. I think this matter should be considered, and in my opinion will have to be considered, before long.
In the British Parliament, from which many of the recommendations which we have debated over the last few days have been taken, they have established a committee of peers to assist in this matter. The treasury officers and Members of the treasury benches still sit on that committee because obviously an expenditure of money is involved, but it does seem that in Great Britain something can be gained by bringing in other Members of the House to discuss problems affecting the operation of all Members of Parliament and the facilities and establishment of the House of Commons. Therefore I suggest this new committee.
I realize that this will not pass, Mr. Chairman, because Government Members, several of whom are in the House at the present time, are on the presently existing committee. They have had it all their own way for a long time, and without any doubt it is a political committee. So I do not expect support for my amendment.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to put them out of a job?


William Arnold Peters: Someone raises the question whether they will be put out of a job. That is obviously not my intention. My intention is only to introduce other Members of the

House to the committee who might be able to make suggestions and solve some of the problems facing us.
I would amend the next part of this paragraph to read:
The following Joint Standing Committees of both Houses are hereby established:
on Printing-
And so on, to consist of 23 Members; on the Library of Parliament to consist of 21 Members, and I add:
(c) on the Parliamentary Restaurant and the Precincts of Parliament, to consist of 21 Members.
This amendment, of course, will not be approved either. Nevertheless, some Members may be aware of the fact that the Restaurant Committee, under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Winnipeg South, did take a very active look at some of the problems which affected the restaurant and made a number of suggestions. Some hon. Members may be unaware of what some of these suggestions were. They involved such things as having three senior officers, through the offices of the Speaker, allowed to go to a very well known restaurant complex in Montreal to take training in their own particular field.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think it is also true that there was in this training an evaluation of the capabilities of certain members of the staff, and the Restaurant Committee decided that one of the staff had to be replaced. This recommendation was made by the committee and was not acted on by the Speaker. It is interesting to note that when the Speaker returned to the committee at a subsequent meeting and was asked about this matter, he had the legal interpretation of the Restaurant Committee of the day, which indicated that there really was no such thing as a Restaurant Committee of the House of Commons. It is true that there was representation legally from the Senate side of the joint committee, but that part of the committee representing the House of Commons really had no function. I think that Members who use the facilities of the restaurant will congratulate the Chairman on the work she undertook on their behalf, and the fact is that things have improved in the restaurant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I think it is a disgrace if we allow the Speaker to use this legal interpretation, that there is no representation from the House of Commons in connection
June 11. 1S65

with the Parliamentary Restaurant, to be carried over to the joint committees which have already performed such useful work, and leaving out the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Restaurant. I have added to this, Mr. Chairman, "the precincts of Parliament" only because I know parliament one of these days is going to have to make a decision on what are the physical boundaries of parliament.
This may involve something hon. Members have not thought about, but really in the precedents of parliament the West Block is not part of the complex of parliament, and those Members who are in the West Block are in a kind of limbo, as far as concerns some of the privileges that might affect Members of this House. I think we are just burying our heads in the sand if we say we are not going to look at this problem, and allow this sort of technicality to affect our work. A very effective and efficient Chairman made recommendations with regard to the Parliamentary Restaurant which were not agreed to by certain Members of the Internal Economy Committee. I do not expect this rule to be changed. This is a Parliament of sheep, everybody is scared of an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Nobody wants to stand up, on either side of the house, no matter how they feel.


An hon. Member:: Brave man.


William Arnold Peters: You can holler all you like, but that does not really make any difference. You do the hollering, but you really do not put any action behind it. Therefore there is no other conclusion to which I can come. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would change paragraph (4) to (5) and include in it the words:
-to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to adjourn from place to place-
All this really means is that the House will be able to do what was done so successfully by the Pension Committee, when the House adjourned and that committee was allowed to continue to sit. I have also added:
-to appoint subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; and to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before subcommittees and reported by them to the committee.
I believe there is no argument that if this change were made the staff we have at this moment would not be able to cope with the work. Mention was made of the Committees 22620-1461
House of Commons Procedures on Immigration and Citizenship, Indian Affairs and Human Rights. I think no one will disagree that each of these fields is very large, and if a small committee was set up as a subcommittee, under the authority of the original committee, to report back to the original committee and obtain the minutes and all the benefits that would accrue to the main committee, this would probably be the answer to the problem of the diversity of subjects that will be referred to specific committees.
Then I add as paragraph (6):
Three shall be the quorum of every such subcommittee and every such subcommittee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit nothwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place.
I include (5) as a new No. 7 and add at the end the matter of a timetable in this form:
That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken not later than the 10th of March by Standing Committees-each Standing Committee to report how, if at all, the policy in those estimates by it examined may be carried out more economically and, if the Standing Committee think fit, to consider the principal variations between those estimates and those relating to the previous financial year, and the form in which those estimates are presented to the House; and that not more than 36 days (two Wednesday or Friday sittings to be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day)-
-as has been done in England:
-of the time of the House, being days before the 30th of September, be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates from the Standing Committees. That a and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year;-
This means, of course, that we are setting a timetable that really would be operative in regard to the financial section of the business of the House of Commons, namely between March 10 and September 30 of each year. Then:
-and the consideration of reports from the Committee on Public Accounts and of reports on estimates from the Standing Committees. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of 22 Members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the Opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
I move these changes, Mr. Chairman, by removing paragraph 10 of Resolution 15 and having what I have read substituted therefor.
June 11, 1965

House of Commons Procedures


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I have read the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Timiskaming. While I feel that a part of this amendment, particularly that part which deals with the organization and internal economy of the House, tends to amend the House of Commons Act and perhaps is not quite in order, I would leave it to the Committee to decide what they would like to do with it. I would ask the assistance of any Members who would like to make any comments.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, there are some other grounds for arguing that this amendment is out of order; but rather than assert them perhaps it would be more satisfactory, in view of the fact that we are near the expiry of time for today, to have the amendment voted on. It seems to me that two or three things in the amendment are contrary to the rules in that it seeks to put a charge on the treasury by way of a motion not moved by a Minister of the Crown. It amends the House of Commons Act without proper steps being taken by a single resolution and on that count and on others it seems to me it is out of order. However, in view of the few minutes remaining I will not press the point but simply note it so that the allowing of the amendment to be voted on cannot be used as a precedent.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the Committee
ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 63.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does this complete the discussion of paragraph 10?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Paragraph 11. Is
paragraph 11 carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Paragraph 12. Is
paragraph 12 carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I report the resolution?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before you report the resolution may I make a request of the President of the Privy Council, although it is something he would have to deal with when the Speaker is in the Chair?

Would it not be desirable to have made as an appendix to today's Hansard a statement of all of the actual changes that have been made in the rules during the discussions of these last few weeks? For example, order paper item No. 14 was passed in part on Tuesday and the remainder of order No. 14 was passed through the adoption of the report of our committee of nine this morning, and now we have completed order No. 15. I am not suggesting that the appendix should contain a list of all the amendments that were proposed and all the voting that took place, but rather that it should be a statement of what actually will be our rules from now on. Could that be made an appendix to today's Hansard? Then we will all have it readily available. I realize this will have to be done with Mr. Speaker in the Chair but the opportunity to do it might not present itself if I did not mention it now.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think the idea is an excellent one. I wonder whether it should be in Votes and Proceedings or in Hansard. I should like to hear suggestions from hon. Members as to which they would prefer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize this is a bit unusual but why not put it in both? This is a matter that concerns all of us and there has been a lot of debate about something the terms of which readers of Hansard will not be able to follow if it is not made an appendix to Hansard. It seems to me it should be compiled and certainly included in Hansard, but I would have no objection to its being put in both.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I agree it might well be put in both with the new closure rule in heavy black type.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there is one point I should like to make. I think it is desirable that a consolidation of all the changes in the rules should be printed separately so they can be found easily, but let us consider for a moment the physical requirement of someone doing this by the time Hansard goes to press tonight. It seems to me it is a rather large task to take all of this out of the debate and compile it in such a way as to meet the request of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, I think it would be desirable to include it as an appendix to Monday's Hansard which would mean there would be at least a reasonable time to do the work.
June 11. 1965	COMMONS


Mr.   Mc@: I understood the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted simply the three orders that have been passed, namely the one last Tuesday dealing with supply, the one earlier today involving concurrence in the committee report and now Government Order No. 15 as amended. I take it he wants those three items to be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard and Votes and Proceedings.
With regard to the other matter of the consolidation of the rules, the fact is that there are other temporary rules in effect and this task will have to be undertaken separately. I should think the consolidation would be published in a separate pamphlet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister has interpreted my request correctly. I was not asking for something that would involve a lot of work after we rise. I am simply asking that what was done on Tuesday and what was done this morning, these texts being already available, together with what we have now finished, be made an appendix to today's Hansard and today's Votes and Proceedings.


Lucien Lamoureux: This order will have to be made with the Speaker in the Chair. Shall I report the resolution?


An hon. Member:: As amended.


Lucien Lamoureux: No, a resolution is not reported as amended, as the hon. Member will see if he will consult Beauchesne, citation 262.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The resolution is the resolution as amended.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister rising to make the request I suggested a moment ago?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have two other requests I should like to deal with. In the French version of the committee report on the proposed new Standing Order 15A the first four words in paragraph 1 of that report are "II doit etre forme". I am advised by the Committee Clerk, and the translator also agrees, that it should read "Est etabli".
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have that correction made so that the report will read correctly.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that an order of the House will issue to make the consolidation of the resolutions as amended an appendix to Hansard and also to Votes and Proceedings?
DEBATES	2291
Special Committee on Supply


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of orders adopted see appendix "B".]



STANDING ORDERS


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in the order passed on Tuesday provision was made for a committee to deal with the supply resolution and I should like to move a formal motion to establish that committee, although I do not have the names of its members. I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
That, pursuant to resolution adopted June 8, 1965, a Special Committee on Supply Procedures, to consist of 24 Members to be designated later by the House, is hereby appointed and instructed to prepare and submit forthwith such changes in the Standing Orders or procedures of this House as will provide
(a)	That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	Ways and means for giving to the Opposition an opportunity to select the order in which departmental estimates will be discussed.
That the said Committee be empowered to report from time to time, and that the Committee be authorized to sit while the House is sitting; and that in relation thereto the provision of Section (1) of Standing Order 67 be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, If
I might ask the indulgence of the House for the purpose of thanking hon. Members for the way in which they dealt with the first resolution in the House and the second resolution in Committee of the Whole, and for their patience in dealing with this subject. It took a rather lengthy period of time, but I think all will agree it was a most important subject affecting the whole procedure of the House. On behalf of the Government, Mr. Chairman, I want to record this expression of thanks to all hon. Members for their patience.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can get back to normal very soon so that I will
June 11. 1985

Special Committee on Supply not have to vote in committee with the Government. I should like to express our thanks to the President of the Privy Council for the way in which he has handled a very difficult task. I appreciate some of his troubles, particularly with the Members to my far left. We tried to be as co-operative as possible. We are prepared now, if the hon. Minister will announce the business for Monday, to release him from the House. We rejoice that he escaped serious injury this morning and we ask him to drive carefully on the way home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the Minister announces the business for Monday, may we join in the sentiments that have been expressed? It was kind of the Minister to say what he did to the House, in view of the difficulty under which he has been working today. We are glad that the trouble he experienced this morning was not more serious. We would be pleased to let him go for a rest, and we are glad also that the House has succeeded in doing this very important piece of work.


Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to join in expressing our appreciation of the way in which this very important work which has just been completed has been expedited. Certainly, this rare showing of good will is something that should make us all very happy. I drove by the House Leader's new ear as it was parked outside last night, and today I hear that it was battered in a traffic accident. We extend our personal sympathy and trust the accident was not too serious. We thank him also for the progress that has been made. I hope the days ahead are going to be such that we will find we have accomplished one of the most important pieces of work that has been accomplished in a long time.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that a bill or a resolution is adopted in such a gay mood.
We are also very happy that this debate is over, and we hope that next week we will gird ourselves for action.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. Members for their remarks. The business of the House for Monday will be the second reading of the Bank Act legislation and the Quebec Savings Bank legislation;
(Mr. Churchill.]
the bill to extend the Bank Act, and then Budget resolutions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; it being five o'clock the House will now proceed to private Members' business as listed on today's order paper.



DESIGNATION OF LACROSSE AS CANADA'S NATIONAL GAME

Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: second reading of Bill No. C-3, respecting the national game of Canada (lacrosse).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it may seem from the explanatory notes that this Bill, particularly the portion which reads-
The purpose of this Bill is to rectify what was probably an oversight on the part of the Fathers of Confederation-
-is not seriously intended. This view was probably increased at the time I presented a similar bill last October when there were stories on the sports pages to the effect the Indians might be waiting outside the House to scalp Members who did not support the bill. In spite of remarks of this type, I assure hon. Members the bill is seriously intended.
I think it is fitting at this time when we are considering national flags, national anthems and other national symbols, that this particular matter should be settled now. A few months ago no one thought such a bill was necessary. I am sure they would have assumed that lacrosse was our national game. Reference is made to this in a great many publications. I was looking at one book entitled, "Great Days in Canadian Sport" by Henry Roxborough-I hope you will notice the name of the author-published in 1957. On page 21 this sentence appears:
The game spread so rapidly that in 1867 one of the first Acts approved by the Confederation Parliament was to confirm that Lacrosse was Canada's national game-
There is a book in the Library of Parliament entitled, "Lacrosse and How to Play It", by W. K. McNaught, and reference is made there to Lacrosse as the national game of Canada. I have searched through the Parliamentary Library and in a publication called "The Canadian Magazine" of 1902 there is the following reference:
-on the day on which the different provinces of Canada were united into one grand Dominion- July 1st, 1867-the game Lacrosse was established as the national game of the new Dominion.
June 11, 1965

However, what was assumed was not so. We found that the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) caused some research to be done, and this research revealed there could be no record found of any legislative or executive action taken to declare lacrosse to be the national game of Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to correct that oversight. I would base my claim for recognition of lacrosse as our official game on two main points. It was played by the Indians a very long time ago. We Canadians have not done too much for the people whose land we took. The least that we can do is to recognize their game as the national game of the country.
The second point we should take into account is the historical fact that lacrosse has long been considered as the national game of Canada. It can probably be proven that more people play hockey and baseball in Canada than lacrosse, but the case for lacrosse should be based upon other considerations. The game is very popular at the moment. It was popular in the past; it suffered a decline, but now there is a revival in its popularity.
The president of the Canadian Lacrosse Association, Mr. Carl Madgett, informs me that there are in excess of 25,000 players in Ontario, 5,000 in Quebec and about 4,500 in B.C. Some lacrosse is played in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, at the University of New Brunswick, and at Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick.
As I have said, there is a considerable revival of interest in the game. It is flourishing in B.C. where there are numerous leagues including teams from Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Richmond. There are two senior leagues in the Province of Quebec, and the cities of Cornwall and Hull play in the Quebec league.
The National Film Board has just completed a film on lacrosse, which has been released in English and French and is being widely shown throughout the country. Just this past week the Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare issued a booklet called "Lacrosse" in one of its "How To" series.
We have only to look at the list of the teams which have won the various championships in Canada in past years to see how many parts of the country in which the game is played. The Mann Cup, which is emblematic of the Canadian senior lacrosse championship, was won in recent years by Vancouver, New West-
Lacrosse
minster, Victoria and Nanaimo in B.C. and in Ontario by Port Credit, Peterborough, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Mimico, Brampton, Ottawa, Orillia, and several times by the City of Toronto. The City of Oshawa won the Canadian junior lacrosse championship last year, and the main point I want to get across is that there is great interest in the game at the present time.
In addition to being played widely in this country it is also played in other countries. It is very popular in many parts of the United States, and I understand is the official state game of the State of Maryland. It is also played in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. The Canadian Lacrosse Association hopes to arrange a series of international contests to be played in Canada in 1967, and hopes to invite teams from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
It is of particular interest that the only lacrosse equipment factory in the world is situated in Cornwall in the riding which you represent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Chisholm Lacrosse Manufacturing Company on the St. Regis reserve near Cornwall.
I expect to get the wide support of the House for this bill. I am sure all Liberal Members will support it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the honorary president of the Canadian Lacrosse Association, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) expressed an interest in the game when he was asked about this by the Canadian Lacrosse Association.
I know a great many Members are interested and will want to speak on the subject, so perhaps my last words on it should be ones which have come from two native Indians. I refer first to a remark made by Mr. Wilfred Pelletier, executive director of the National Indian Council, reported in the Toronto Telegram of November 6, 1964:
Any contribution made by Indians in the past has not received credit, but lacrosse is something we are very proud of, and we of the National Indian Council back the lacrosse associations solidly.
This Parliament can do something to recognize the contribution of Indians by declaring lacrosse our national game.
Another Indian by the name of Duke Red-bird, of Thunderbird Magazine, had this to say:
I can't recall the Russians ever beating a Canadian lacrosse team, or even challenging one.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there was some humour attached to this when I first intro-

June 11, 1965
Lacrosse
duced the bill, and the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) introduced a bill dealing with hockey, but so far as I am concerned this bill is quite seriously intended and I should like to see the House take action today to establish this Canadian game as the official game of the country.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on Bill No. C-3 to make lacrosse Canada's national game. All the more so because I am honorary president of the Club national de Valleyfield in the Quebec lacrosse league, and I am happy to hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) say a little earlier that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was himself honorary vice president of the Canadian Lacrosse Association.
Mr. Speaker, lacrosse is a game which was very popular at one time in Valleyfield where I live and I am happy to see that this year a group of sportsmen is giving us the opportunity to install new life in this game which is infact traditionally and historically Canadian.
I would feel very remiss indeed if I did not congratulate those who took this happy initiative, among others, people whom you may not know, Mr. Speaker. Mr. J. Gerard Villeneuve and Mr. Bernard "Coco" Blanchard, two very well known sportsmen among our people. And I should not forget either those who will bend every effort throughout the season.
I wish the Valleyfield team good luck. Up to now everything has been going pretty well, and I hope the people will give it all the support required.
To come back to the bill itself, I want to inform the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, if he has not understood the meaning of my remarks, that I support his proposal, and I suggest that all members do the same.
The sponsor of the bill said a while ago that many did not take this suggestion too seriously. As far as I am concerned, I am in earnest. We speak about protecting, even maintaining a sport which originated in Canada, a sport which is becoming more and more popular. In fact, here in the Hull-Ot-tawa area, the newspapers give us each evening the results of various lacrosse games.
Mr. Speaker, I understand very well the reaction of some hon. members who wonder why we insist on having as a national game one which, in the last few years, has been

pushed aside by other games, hockey in particular.
It is also quite understandable that the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh), who was active in amateur hockey for 15 years or so, is not very enthusiastic about this bill, but I hope he will be open minded enough to admit that lacrosse has some claims to being Canada's national game.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-3 is certainly not trying to discredit other sports practiced in Canada today and I am the first to admit that one does not exclude the others. However, one fact remains; lacrosse is of Canadian origin, it is a game older than confederation itself and it was played a long time before the first settlers landed.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to embarrass you, but since lacrosse sticks are manufactured solely in your riding, that is on St. Regis island, I am sure you are in favour of this bill which would be quite normal in my opinion. Besides a great many people know that for many years you have been an avid supporter of lacrosse. That industry in the Cornwall area exports lacrosse sticks tc many countries, mainly to Australia, New Zealand. England and, of course, the United States. Therefore, this sport is renowned internationally; it started in Canada, the sticks are made in Canada and the world's greatest players of lacrosse have always been Canadians. This is significant just the same and I think those are sufficient arguments to make us consider such a sport at a time when we are thinking of adopting a national sport for our country.
If we refer to any encyclopedia, we find at the word lacrosse, that it is "the oldest game played in America" and also "that it is of Canadian origin". The white people started to take an interest in that game around 1840, but the native Indians had played it long before the arrival of the discoverers. It was then called "baggataway", and the teams included between 75 to 200 players. There was no limitation as far as the size of the grounds was concerned, which would extend, in some cases, to five or even ten miles.
Quite obviously, the rules prevailing at that time were completely different from what they are today and the first French settlers were most impressed, both by the game itself and the shape of the stick. Indeed, it is for that very reason that it has been called
June 11. 1965

"lacrosse", on account of the curve at one end, resembling a bishop's staff. The contests were then preceded by elaborate celebrations and religious ceremonies and followed afterwards by a tremendous celebration. The women attending the matches ran along the lines, striking their tribesmen with twigs so as to spur on their players in order to render the action more furious and more thrilling. As for the witch doctors, they acted as referees and marked the limits of the game area but, in some cases, this area could extend further and further as the game went on, since the dividing lines were extended whenever a player went beyond the limits.
On June 4, 1763, a "baggataway" match was used as a means of perpetrating the greatest massacre in Canadian history. According to Mr. J. B. Patterson, the author of "The Black Sparrow-hawk's biography", the Chippewas, a tribe that lived near fort Michillimaekinac, organized a "baggataway" match against the "Sacs" Tribe, in honour of the anniversary of King George III of England, which was celebrated on June 4. The Chief of the Chippewas informed the commander of the fort, Captain Etherington, that a match was being organized in honour of the King's birthday, between his tribe and the "Sacs" tribe. Soldiers and fort visitors were invited to watch the game but the captain was suspicious and refused to let his men leave the precincts. Then, the Indians decided to play the game near the fortress, so that the people inside could watch the game anyway. The game went on for several hours and many soldiers and trappers finally decided to get out of the precincts to come near the ground and watch the competition from closer range. No one had paid too much attention to the fact that the Indian women, contrary to their habit, were sitting on the sideline and were covered with heavy blankets, although it was an extremely hot day. Because of constant coming and going of the fort people, the doors finally remained wide open and suddenly, as the play got nearer and nearer, the signal was given by the Indian chiefs. They all threw away their sticks and hastily picked their tomahawks from under the blankets covering their women. History tells us that only three white men survived that adventure which stands out in our history as one of the worst massacres.
In 1840, when white men began to get interested in the game, they amended the rules and also the stick. Gradually, numerous revisions brought the game to what it 22620-147
Lacrosse
is today. More and more, it is being played indoors with six player teams and although the game may still seem a little rough, we are far from the massacres of 200 years ago. Even if lacrosse can be tough, it is essentially a team sport, a sport of contact, where skill comes first and where little is left to luck. The ball must keep moving at all times and the fact that there are very few offsides makes the game most interesting.
Among the references I found, some say that lacrosse was selected as the national sport of Canada in 1867, but after checking I found that nothing in the statutes of our country indicates that parliament ever took such a decision. Therefore I consider that the bill introduced today by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond is more than justified, because it will enable us to recognize and preserve a sport which could not be more Canadian and which we could easily develop and make popular.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. members to support Bill No. C-3 and to recognize in lacrosse a sport which was marked by Canadian destiny and must remain with us, not like any other sport, but rather as the national sport of Canada.

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


Arnold Alexander Webster: I wish to speak briefly in support of the bill sponsored by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Richmond, an area in British Columbia which has a long tradition of lacrosse.
We have heard a great deal in recent years about the need to develop in Canada a Canadian identity as we approach our centennial year. With this in mind we have become increasingly aware of our achievements as a nation in various fields of activity such as resource development, scientific research, the creative arts and international affairs. Last year for the first time in our history we adopted a distinctive Canadian flag. Very soon we shall have an official anthem. Surely the time is ripe for us to recognize our national game of lacrosse.
I suggest there are three reasons why we should make this decision. First, lacrosse was developed many years ago by native people on the northern part of this continent. By accepting lacrosse as Canada's national game we would be paying tribute to the men and women who occupied this land before the coming of the white man. Second, early in this century, lacrosse was considered Canada's

June 11, 1965
Lacrosse
No. 1 game, with widespread interest in both professional and amateur leagues. One of my first boyhood heroes was Newsy Lalonde -a great French athlete who played professional lacrosse for Vancouver and hockey for Montreal. The third reason is that lacrosse is a good game for Canadian youth. It requires skill, stamina and sportsmanship of a high order. We should give it official recognition.
In conclusion, I wish to quote an editorial from the Ottawa Journal of May 15, entitled "Lively Lacrosse". It reads as follows:
Occasional claims that lacrosse Is Canada's national sport have not met wide public acceptance in recent years. Most people know that the game has a colourful Canadian history dating back to days when Indians ruled the land. In those times, it was played by 75 to 200 braves using a curved webbed stick that eventually was to give lacrosse its name-the stick reminded French settlers of a bishop's crozier, hence "La crosse."
Great changes occurred in the game after white men took a fancy to it...fewer players and smaller playing areas were introduced, until today it can be played in a hockey arena. The Mann Cup is the prize for national supremacy in the sport, which resembles hockey in its strategy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Ottawa has harboured many avid lacrosse players over the years and both this city and Hull have entries in the Quebec League this year. The Ottawa-Montreal-Comwall area appears to be a growing centre for the sport, which offers rugged action and high scores to please spectators.
Whether lacrosse, or any other sport, should be declared the national game is a matter of controversy. But lacrosse certainly deserves a better fate than the all-too-common one of being airily dismissed by people who have never seen the game played!


Mr. Jean-Louis  Frenelle@Portneuf: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to this debate will not be very significant; besides, I speak with a certain apprehension, especially after hearing the favourable remarks made by some members and colleagues.
I wish at first to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) who introduced bill No. C-3 to have lacrosse declared our national game, not for having chosen this one but to have had the idea of having a game recognized as our national sport, a thing we should do as soon as possible. He gave us also a very interesting historical background about this sport which was played by our native Indian people, our predecessors, or shall I say, the first Canadians. He gave us also an historical account of what has happened since the adoption of the game by Canadians.

I have no resentment against the Indians, Mr. Speaker, but I remember very well- I still have the marks on my body-the first time I played lacrosse as a student at the Oka school. I then had the opportunity of playing against the Indians of Caughna-waga. It was a worthwhile personal experience but it nevertheless left me with a few scars which will show for some time yet.
I agree, as I mentioned earlier, that Canada should adopt a national sport, but I wonder if lacrosse should be the one to be so designated. I readily understand that lacrosse has been played from time immemorial and that it is also very popular here in Canada and elsewhere. On the other hand, I do not think lacrosse should be recognized as our national sport because I feel that a national sport should be practiced by most sportsmen. I also feel that it should promote national interest in times of national competition. Lacrosse does not qualify in this respect, no matter how it is compared to hockey.
Hockey is played by hundreds of thousands of people in Canada; it is governed by a national organization and millions of fans follow it. I feel that hockey qualifies much better as our national sport than lacrosse. Furthermore, national radio and television networks spend a great deal of money to broadcast hockey games and there is organized hockey in every Canadian community, be it a large city or a humble village.
Therefore, in my opinion, if we must recognize a national sport-and in this I share the opinion of the Member for Burnaby-Richmond-hockey wins by a long stretch over lacrosse, against which I hold no grudge. On the contrary, it is a game which requires a certain robust training, which develops the team spirit, which has great merit and demands considerable effort. However, I do not think it has the necessary qualifications to be designated as our national sport.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond for his interest in the selection or designation of a national sport for Canada, and I also congratulate the hon. member for Beauhamois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) for making a worthy contribution to the debate, for doing his best to present all the advantages of the game of lacrosse. However, we are still a long way from adopting that game as our national sport.
Once more, I have no regret in not sharing the opinion of my colleague from Burnaby-Richmond. A referendum to determine which
June 11, 1965

is our most popular sport, what sport mostly attracts players, sportsmen and the general public, will reveal that hockey is our national sport.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a lew words in support of the bill which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). In other words, I should like to support lacrosse as Canada's national game.
Lacrosse has several things to recommend it. First, historically it comes ahead of ice hockey. It was played in this country generations before ice hockey was invented. Second, it is a tough game. It is a game which calls for a great deal of stamina and skill. Any of you who have seen lacrosse played in recent years will realize that this is indeed a fine game. It is very fast. The ball, for example, never goes out of bounds. The shots on goal are much faster than the shots in ice hockey. The plays are much more intricate. They call for a great deal of skill in respect to stick handling and they are well worth watching, drawing large crowds where the sport has been played continuously over the years. My advocacy of lacrosse, in other words, is based firstly on historical reasons, and secondly on the nature of the game itself.
In respect to historical reasons I would refer very briefly to the Encyclopedia Canadiana, which says that lacrosse is the oldest organized sport in America. It is Canadian in origin. A form of lacrosse, called battagaway, was played by Indian teams of from 75 to 200 men before white men arrived in Canada. As many as 48 tribes or groups, separated by distances up to 3,000 miles-in other words, right across the breadth of this continent, across what is now known as Canada-participated in these events. The game received its present name from early French settlers who likened the curved webbed stick used by the Indians to the bishop's crozier-hence "la crosse".
As early as 1840 white men became interested in lacrosse. It became popular around the middle of the last century. The rules were drawn up with some finality in 1867; in other words, in the year of Canada's birth as a nation. In the 1870's, 1880's and 1890's lacrosse was played by many more Canadians than played ice hockey. In the 1920's, and more particularly in the 1930's, the game was al-
Lacrosse
tered in several important ways. It became necessary, in order to have large attendances, to play on smaller courts. The summer use of ice hockey arenas was one obvious way not only of seating large crowds but of having a facility which could be lighted at night. Wire mesh was strung around the ice hockey arena to keep the ball in bounds. The same area was used as was normally covered by ice. The size of the team was reduced from 12 to 7, in the 1930's. Within the last few years it has been reduced to six. The players, playing in rotation, are substituted much as they are in ice hockey. It therefore is not only a fast game in spots, but it is played continuously at a very high rate of speed with much the same drive and purpose as ice hockey.
Today we have teams right across Canada. Lacrosse is more popular in Ontario than in other parts of the country; but it is certainly played in Quebec and it is played extensively out in British Columbia. This is witnessed by the fact that several Members from British Columbia have spoken today. Also the New Westminster Salmonbellies and the North Shore Indians teams are among the best teams that the nation has ever had. I mention the North Shore partly because the Squamish Indians, who made up the membership of some of our strongest west coast teams, are among the finest players that the Canadian game of lacrosse has ever known. These teams, the Salmonbellies from New Westminster and the North Shore Indians from Coast-Capilano won the Canadian senior men's championship a number of times.
By contrast ice hockey has a relatively recent history. Also its history, according again to several encyclopedias, began in western Europe. It was played in various forms and under various names through the Middle Ages on the canals in Holland, the frozen ponds in Denmark and the British Isles. It was popularly known as the game of "Shinny" for some time. It really was not played in Canada to any great extent until after 1867; hence it post-dates lacrosse by a considerable period of time. It has, however, become much more popular in recent years. This is partly because of the fact that there is a considerable commercial interest in ice hockey, an interest which has spread beyond the Canadian borders into the United States and elsewhere, and many young players are encouraged to improve themselves in this game. Many facilities have become available for the training and development of ice hockey players. I am

June 11, 1965
Lacrosse
personally convinced that in time the improved equipment that is available now to young boys, teen-agers, in respect of ice hockey will also become available in respect of lacrosse. I think many of the new facilities which have been developed for ice hockey will also eventually be used for lacrosse in the late spring, summer and fall months. I believe that with these improved facilities lacrosse may revive, and indeed I believe should revive because it is a fine participators sport and a fine spectator sport.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to the breakdown of the grants which have been made available to national organizations by the federal department through the good offices of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am referring more particularly to the fiscal year 1963-64. There lacrosse is well down the list. Ice hockey, as represented by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, is at the top of the list. No. 2 is the Canadian Amateur Ski Association. No. 3, I notice, is the Canadian Lawn Tennis Association, and No. 4 is the Canadian Association of Amateur Oarsmen. No doubt some of these expenditures reflect the fact that our athletes have excelled themselves in recent years in certain fields. Certainly out in British Columbia we have excelled ourselves in respect of rowing, and hence the amateur oarsmen have moved well up the list. But I suggest that for the Lacrosse Association to receive a mere $5,000 over a two-year period, in contrast to the literally hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in support of other athletic activities, is not doing justice to our national game. I trust that this situation will be rectified and that in view of the growth potential as well as the historical importance of this game it will receive more support from the Canadian Government in the years ahead.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, representing one of the most sports-minded constituencies in Canada, I feel that I am obliged, indeed that I have a moral obligation to participate in this debate.
Before designating a sport as national,
1 suggest we should consider the criteria on which such a decision should be based. To my mind, there are four possible criteria.
First, the historic origin of the sport. From this standpoint, previous speakers convinced me that lacrosse was older still than

hockey and, therefore, I am ready to concede this first point.
Second, there is the criterion of the value of a sport. I think we should not indulge in a debate in this regard, since each of us will find in his favorite sports a value, a beauty that others will deny. Therefore, the second criterion, in my opinion, does not apply.
There is a third criterion. The popularity of the sport. From that point of view, I think everybody will agree that, at least for the time being, hockey is the most popular sport in Canada and it is more generally practised than the game of lacrosse. In fact, one has only to read the newspapers to find that out.
The game of lacrosse, at least in the province of Quebec, has declined for quite a long time. I admit that recently there was a revival and that it is played more and more. In Drummondville, a city which I have the honour to represent, the game of lacrosse is really spreading and the public is showing greater interest.
There is a fourth criterion which I think is interesting and important, namely the reputation enjoyed by the sport abroad. In that regard, all those who have travelled outside Canada know very well that the game of lacrosse is not considered by the rest of the world as a distinctively Canadian sport. Whether we like it or not, hockey is considered in all countries of the world as Canada's national sport. And that is precisely one of the reasons why we feel so humiliated when the teams representing us in international competitions or at the Olympics are defeated by other countries, precisely because, for the rest of the world, hockey is the first Canadian sport.
There is another aspect to this problem which, I believe, is worth pointing out. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) himself, in the second paragraph of his notes, mentioned a very special aspect of this problem, that is its constitutional aspect. I quote the second paragraph:
The purpose of this bill is to rectify what was probably an oversight on the part of the Fathers of Confederation who were so preoccupied with drafting Sections 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act that the question of declaring a national game escaped their attention.
Actually, I am wondering whether or not the Fathers of Confederation did not study this problem very seriously. I admit that history does not report any such discussion, at least to my knowledge, but I feel that the Fathers of Confederation must have consid-
June 11, 1S65

ered this question and, precisely while considering sections 91 and 92, they certainly wondered in which category of problems, federal or provincial, this question of a national game should be included. I suppose some of them referred to section 91(f) as dealing with the defence of the country and I presume it was said that muskets were likely more useful than the lacrosse sticks and, consequently, the possibility was eliminated. Others may have argued this question came under paragraph 22 of section 91 concerning letters patent; others may have said that it pertained to paragraph 23 of section 91 concerning copyrights. Others may have stated that paragraph 24 of section 91 was applicable since the matter came under the jurisdiction of the federal government concerning Indian affairs. But I suppose that the supporters of the federal jurisdiction were themselves a little shaken by the arguments put forward by their opponents.
I suppose that in 1867 some of the Fathers of Confederation said that this decision concerning the national game should, on the contrary, come under the provisions of section 92, and that someone argued that that was provided for in paragraph 13 of section 92 dealing with property and civil rights. I also imagine that some people said this matter came under section 92(7) relating to local matters and consequently is under the provincial jurisdiction.
I can very well imagine that one of the Fathers of Confederation pointed out that weather conditions varied considerably across Canada and that mentalities and temperaments varied also. Furthermore, some must have thought it preferable not to designate any national sport, precisely because one sport could be very popular in one part of the country but less in another.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think there must have been one Father of the Confederation to suggest, finally, that the problem should be examined in the light of section 91 concerning peace and order and the good administration of the country.
One of them must have said: "That is the type of thing which will cause such serious problems between Canadians that it is much better not to raise it at this time. Since some Fathers of Confederation were, in 1867, already concerned about urgency, I imagine that there were some who said that it was not urgent to decide one way or another.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the debate which has just taken place proves that
Lacrosse
even today, almost a century after 1867, we do not agree on what is the national sport of Canada. And I imagine that in the interest of order, peace and good administration, it would be better not to take a decision on this matter today.


John Cooney Mullally: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) who introduced the bill has certainly caused a very interesting discussion on something about which I have heard very little before. Even if he is not successful in having lacrosse established as Canada's national game, he has acquired at least one new fan for that sport.
From what we have heard today, I do not think any of us can dispute the historical significance of the game of lacrosse. The promoter of the bill and the hon. Member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), and others who have spoken, have established beyond any reasonable doubt that lacrosse has been played in this country for a great many years. In fact, as the bill indicates, it has been played in Canada for an unknown period of time, having originated with the native Indian people. On the basis of what has been said by other hon. Members who have spoken I would also agree that lacrosse is certainly an excellent game, one in which stamina, skill, team spirit and active participation are required.
However, in order to establish any sport as the national game I think there are certain other factors that must be taken into consideration in addition to historical background and the fact that lacrosse has many excellent features. I believe that one of the most important factors is that the people of the country would have to accept and recognize lacrosse as the national game, and in my opinion the vast majority of our people would be very reluctant to affirm that this is so.
I know that in my part of the country and probably throughout the whole of the Maritime Provinces the game is not played at all, or at least to a very limited extent at some of the universities. I have never seen an actual game of lacrosse and I think many of my hon. friends from that part of Canada are probably in the same boat. Therefore I would say that by an Act of Parliament we cannot impose on the people of Canada as their national game a game in which very few of them participate, a game which is known to a very small number of Canadians.

June 11. 1965
Lacrosse


Robert William Prittie: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


John Cooney Mullally: Certainly.


Robert William Prittie: Did we not impose upon the people of Canada by Act of Parliament a flag of our choosing?


John Cooney Mullally: Certainly we did. I am glad the hon. Member has raised that point. That was an emblem that a large majority of the people of Canada wanted and have accepted. I submit this is an entirely different situation. I do not think we can adopt lacrosse as our national game, for the very reason that the people of Canada do not look upon it as the national game of this country. I think this is borne out by the fact that a relatively small number of people participate in the sport and very little is known about it by Canadians generally. In saying this I do not wish to minimize in any way the excellence of the game or the excellence of lacrosse as a participants sport.
The other argument I would raise against the suggestion that lacrosse be designated Canada's national game has to do with the fact that in other countries of the world we are not known as a nation in which lacrosse is played, but in practically every country of the world the game of hockey is synonymous with Canada. Canadian athletes participate in international hockey competition, and when hockey is mentioned Canada is automatically allied with it. I think this was very ably demonstrated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very difficult for any legislative body to impose a national game on the people without at least having some idea that they approve.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private Members business has expired.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
June 11, 1965



APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;


[Stage Direction]
11 June, 1965.
Statement by the Minister of Finance on the Canada Student Loans Plan
When I reported on the Canada Student Loans Plan to the House last November, about 29,000 students had then been assisted by means of Canada Student Loans in the first two months of the new program. Total loans authorized at that time amounted to about $20 million. Since then, students have continued to make good use of this Plan and according to the latest figures available, as of April 1, 1965, over 41,000 students had been issued Certificates of Eligibility by the provincial authorities for a total amount of some $26 million. This means that the actual utilization of allocations by participating provinces during the current loan year will be quite close to the total provided for in the Act.
In my last statement I explained that, after the Plan had been in operation for a few months, it became apparent that a number of administrative problems encountered by the participating provinces were the result of varying practices in handling student aid, and that a concerted effort was being made to seek a greater degree of harmony in these practices. To this end, provincial officials and officials of the Department of Finance have met on several occasions during recent months to work out a common approach to these administrative problems.
The problems fall into three categories: the principles and criteria which the provincial authorities should apply in determining the size of loan (if any) which the student needs; the standard residence rules to be used in determining the province to which students should apply for Certificates of Eligibility; and, finally, questions relating to the designation by the provinces of educational institutions and related matters.
The federal-provincial representatives have prepared reports on each of the three areas I have mentioned. These reports have been accepted recently by a full federal-provincial meeting, at which representatives of all participating provinces and the federal government were present.
Because of the responsibilities which the provinces have assumed in the implementation of the Plan, these reports deal primarily with aspects of the student loan program which fall within the jurisdiction of the Provincial administrators. Indeed, the understandings reached in each of these reports reflect the experience and expertise of provincial authorities in the field of student assistance. I would like to express my appreciation to the representatives of all the provinces and territories for their efforts. The application of these reports will, I feel sure, make a major contribution to the effectiveness of this student aid program, and I can affirm that the reports carry the full support of the federal government.
The first report deals with the difficult question of how best to administer the provision of the Act which requires that the Certificate of Eligibility issued to a student should indicate that "the student is considered to be in need of a student loan for the academic year ... in order to pursue a course of studies." We have learned from experience this year that a reasonably standard approach to this question is highly desirable, if not essential. It is in the general interests of the Plan to ensure that the available funds are utilized to assist only those students who genuinely need assistance. This means that the provincial administrators need guidelines to ensure that student needs will be measured in much the same way in all participating provinces. Also, a standard approach is needed to provide more concrete guidance to students in submitting their loan applications.
In considering the question of the financial needs of students, it is assumed that responsibility for the costs of post-secondary education of the individual student remains primarily with the parent or family of dependant students, or with the student himself where he is not a dependant. It is also recognized, however, that governments at all levels are interested in supplementing their available resources in order to ensure that all qualified students have the opportunity to reach their educational potential. These premises are set out in detail in the report.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1965
It follows from these premises that, as a general rule, the parents' income should be taken into account in assessing a student's need for a loan. The report therefore spells out in some detail how a student's need is to be determined, taking into account both the costs of continuing his education and the financial resources that are available to him. However, the report also provides for an appeal procedure where an applicant feels that this assessment is inadequate or where the circumstances have changed since the application was first made. The applicant may, in these circumstances, re-apply or appeal his case, in accordance with the policies of the provinces concerned. I think that this is a very important feature and I am confident that, as a result, a loan will be made to any student who really needs a loan, and who meets the other requirements.
Provincial officials and representatives of the Department of Finance will be meeting again next week with the objective of ensuring the implementation of these criteria as uniformly as possible in all participating provinces.
The second report on questions of residence establishes the principles to be used in determining which province is the appropriate one to handle a student's application. Participating provinces are, as a matter of policy, issuing Certificates only to their own residents. However, with a mobile population- and an even more mobile student body-the question of residence can be complicated and controversial. Initially, provinces did not apply the same definition of residence, so that some students experienced difficulty in having their application considered by what they thought was the appropriate province. The report establishes agreement among the participating provinces on full reciprocity in the application of the same residence definitions. In addition, it has been agreed that the ultimate goal is to have complete reciprocity on
the question of residence with the Province of Quebec, which does not participate in the federal Plan.
I am glad to mention that the student-aid authorities in Quebec participated fully in working out the common guidelines, and their experience in operating their own program of student aid was of considerable help to the other members of these committees.
The third report deals with a number of miscellaneous but nevertheless important subjects such as the criteria for designation of educational institutions, definitions of what is meant by "post-secondary" school level, "Satisfactory scholastic standard" and "academic year". The understandings that have been reached will serve to assure equitable and standard rules in all the provinces.
This report does not deal with the question of what type or types of private schools, if any, should be eligible for designation by a province as a "specified educational institution" within the meaning of the Act. This is a difficult subject and is still under active consideration. As soon as agreement has been reached, it will be announced.
The principles and procedures reflected in these three reports should come into effect starting with the new loan year which begins in July. As I have said earlier, they can be expected to contribute significantly in making the operation of the Plan more effective and equitable, and should help to ensure that all Canadian students who genuinely need assistance to finance their education will obtain it.
The high degree of success which this Plan has enjoyed is due to a large extent to the constructive spirit of cooperation of the provinces and territories, and the lending agencies. The Plan was initiated shortly before the beginning of the academic year last Fall. It is to the credit of the provincial authorities administering the Plan that it was possible to implement it so quickly and so effectively.
June 11, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Canada Student Loans Plan Report on Certificates of Eligibility Issued as of April 1, 1965
Provincial allocation	Total amount of loans authorized by certificates issued	Number of Students assistedNewfoundland Prince Edward Island	$ 1,176,000 232,000 60,000*	$ 456,512	732Nova Scotia	292,000 1,736,000 170,000*	288,609	431New Brunswick Ontario	1.906.000 1.416.000 12,440,000 3,000,000*	1,729,008 1,347,188	2,450 2,008Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Yukon Northwest Territories	15,440,000 1.968.000 1.908.000 2.852.000 3.236.000 24.000 48.000	14,004,565 1,371,520 1,867,420 2,083,488 3,100,031 8,600 9,000	21,287 2,259 2,965 4,481 4,650 12 927,036,000 3,230,000*	Total	30,266,000	26,265,941	41,284* A special increase for 1964-65 loan year.

[Stage Direction]
Approved Report of the Federal-Provincial Standing Committee on Concept of Students' Need
1. The premises on which the concepts of need are based include the following:-
(a)	The responsibility for the costs of postsecondary education to the individual student remains primarily with the parent (guardian or immediate family) where the student is a dependant or with the student where he is not a dependant.
(b)	Governments at all levels are interested in supplementing family/student resources and resources available through educational institutions, where needed to ensure that all qualified students have the opportunity to reach their educational potential.
(c)	It is desirable that the concepts and criteria used by governments and institutions in determining the need for loans, bursaries and other forms of assistance to students should be co-ordinated within a province by a provincial authority.
(d)	It is possible to co-ordinate among the provinces the concepts and criteria of need applied in administering federal assistance in this field.
2. Both the costs of education and resources available to the student should be taken into account in developing the concepts of need.
The following criteria should be employed:
A.	Costs of Education The following costs should be taken into account in determining need:
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1965
(1)	Fees-All compulsory fees of the educational institution.
(2)	Prescribed Books and Instruments.
(3)	Board and Lodging During the Academic Year Single Students.
(i)	Institutional Residence-as charged by the institution.
(ii)	Board and lodging away from home, based on average costs in the region concerned.
(iii)	Students living at home will be given an allowance against student resources.
Married Students: Board and lodging allowance in accordance with the rate for a single student established as above may be allowed for each married student attending an institution. (A reasonable amount will be deductible from the financial resources of a married student (B below) to reflect the additional costs of maintaining a household.)
(4)	A Reasonable Allowance for Clothing, Laundry, Dry-Cleaning and Recreational Costs.
(5)	Transportation: (a) From permanent residence in Canada to institution in Canada: One return trip a year, the cost not to exceed the equivalent of the cost of the most economical means based on costs of public transportation.
(b)	From permanent residence in Canada to institution outside of Canada: An allowance which will equal the lesser of one return trip a year by the most economical transportation, or a maximum amount established by the provinces.
(c)	A reasonable allowance for Local Transportation.
(6)	Premiums for Hospital and Medical Prepayment Plans.
B.	Student Financial Resources
(1)	Resources of Parents/Guardian: Parents' personal taxable income including income on assets are factors to be taken into account, and will be shown in application forms unless the student is married or can establish that he is completely independent financially from his parents/guardian.
(2)	Students' Own Resources: (a) Summer Earnings; (b) Assets.
(i)	Car (state value); (ii) Other Assets.
(c)	Earnings During the Academic Year;
(d)	Scholarships, Bursaries and Tuition Grants.
(3)	Spouse's Gross Income
3.	General Recommendations: (1) Where an applicant feels that the award is inadequate or circumstances have changed since
the award was made, the applicant may reapply or appeal his case in accordance with the policy of the province concerned. In all participating provinces, except Ontario, such re-application or appeal is to be made to the provincial authority; in Ontario, it is to be made to the institution attended if located within the province, or to the Provincial Authority for Ontario residents studying outside Ontario.
(2)	A declaration shall be made by the student in his application of the same force and effect as if made under oath by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, and where applicable by the parent/guardian.
(3)	These premises and criteria are acceptable to provincial and federal governments, and the federal and all provincial authorities will co-operate in giving full publicity to them.
4.	Continuing attention will be given to developing a common application form for use in the provinces.
The above report was accepted on March 29, 1965, by a full federal-provincial meeting, including representatives of all participating provinces and the federal government.
R. W. Dalton, Chairman,
Assistant Deputy Minister (Education), Department of Education,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
C.	L. Read, Secretary,
Director, Government Finance Division, Department of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
March 29, 1965.
Approved Report of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Residence
(I)	Criteria for Determination of Issuing Province for students from Participating Provinces (Except as in (II) Below)
A distinction is made between
Group A: Unmarried students who receive financial support from parents, guardians or foster parents; and
Group B: Students who are married or who can establish to the satisfaction of the Appropriate Authority or its agent that they are completely independent financially.

In the case of Group A, a student's Issuing Province is:
(a)	the province where his parents, guardians or foster parents reside; or
June 11, 1965
[Stage Direction]
(b)	the province where his family's home is being maintained, even if one of his parents works in another province; or
(c)	if parents are separated or divorced, the province where that parent (father or mother) resides with whom the student normally lives or from whom he receives his principal financial support if he lives with neither; or
(d)	if parents, guardians or foster parents live abroad (e.g., armed services), the province where they last lived before going abroad.
Where the persons whose residence determines a student's Issuing Province move to another province, the province to which they have moved becomes the student's new Issuing Province as of the date of the move.

In the case of Group B, a student establishes residence in his own right. For Group B students, however, there will be a time lag of not less than 12 consecutive months before residence is established in a new province. A participating province continues to be the Issuing Province of a student in Group B who leaves that province, until the student has spent 12 consecutive months in another participating province which latter province then becomes the Issuing Province.

A landed immigrant who has been in Canada for one year or more, but who does not qualify for residence in a participating province as outlined above, may be considered to be a resident in the participating province in which he lives when applying for a Certificate.
If a student's application for a Certificate is refused on the grounds that he is not a resident of the province to which he applied, his application will be redirected to his province of origin.
(II) Pro Tern Criteria for the Determination of Issuing Province for Students in the Case of Moves in Either Direction Between a Participating Province and a Non-Participating Province
The objective as regards residence criteria is complete reciprocity between participating and non-participating provinces. Pending further consultation between Quebec and the participating provinces, the latter are prepared to proceed on the following basis:
(i)	If the parents, guardians or foster parents of an unmarried student receiving financial support from them, or if students who are married or who have established that they are
completely independent financially, move from a participating province to the Province of Quebec, the Province of Issue prior to the move remains the Province of Issue of these students until they qualify for student assistance from the Province of Quebec under that province's residence rules.
(ii) In the case of a student moving from Quebec to a participating province, that participating province will apply the same residence criteria as if the student came from a participating province.

The above report was accepted on March 29, 1965, by a full federal-provincial meeting, including representatives of all participating provinces and the federal government.
S.	E. Espley, Chairman, Comptroller of Expenditure, Department of Education, Victoria, British Columbia.
A. R. Hollbach, Secretary, Government Finance Division, Department of Finance,
Ottawa, Ontario.
March 29, 1965.

[Stage Direction]
Approved Report of Federal-Provincial Committee on Designation of Educational Institutions and Related Definitions
1.	Criteria for Designation of Educational Institutions.
The Act provides that student loans are intended for students taking courses at a postsecondary school level. Accordingly, it is agreed that post-secondary educational institutions, including such institutions outside Canada, be designated by the individual provinces on the basis of academic entrance requirements and course content.
It is further agreed that no course or institution be designated if the requirements for entrance to the course or institution are below the level generally accepted in the designating province as complete high school.
2.	Private Educational Institutions.
[An agreed text to be incorporated later.]
3.	Post-Secondary School Level of Course or Courses.
This means a course of study provided by specified educational institutions for which the generally accepted entrance requirements
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1965
include the successful completion of high school in the designating province.
4.	Satisfactory Scholastic Standard.
A student who is accepted for enrolment by a designated institution in an approved course may be considered by a provincial authority to have achieved a "satisfactory scholastic standard".
5.	Definition of Academic Year (Trimester and Semester).
Where an academic year overlaps two loan years the student, on the initial application, may be granted only that amount of loan required to finance the portion of the course which will be completed during the first loan year and instructed to re-apply for the amount required to finance the portion of the academic year which occurs during the second loan year. It is understood that the combined loans in a single academic year will not exceed $1,000.
The present legislation does not take into account the additional needs of students who
attend institutions operating on the trimester system, since such students are limited to loans of $1,000 per academic year, even though the course of studies takes approximately one year less than a similar course taken at another institution. It is suggested that this question be re-considered when the Act is being reviewed.
The above report was accepted on March 29, 1965, by a full federal-provincial meeting, including representatives of all participating provinces and the federal government.
D.	R. Simmons, Chairman. Administrative Officer, Department of Education, Regina, Saskatchewan.
J. F. Parkinson, Secretary. Economic Adviser, Department of Finance, Ottawa, Ontario.
March 29, 1965.
June 11, 1965


[Stage Direction]
Ordered
1.	(a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House consisting of twenty-four members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these orders, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, and the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this Order, be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Ordered-Standing Order
6.(1) At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless provided otherwise in these Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day.
(2)	A motion that the House continue to sit after the hour specified in Section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects, or if
fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried. No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting during an extended sitting as provided under the provisions of this section, no Order shall be called for consideration unless such order was under consideration prior to the normal hour of adjournment. An extended sitting under the provisions of this Section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
(3)	If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1:00 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m. or between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise, the taking of the vote shall be postponed. At 2:30 o'clock p.m. or at 8:00 o'clock p.m., as the case may be, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then before the House and shall put, or shall cause to be put, the question on any postponed vote. The House shall be deemed to have reverted to private members' business for such time as is necessary for the taking of any vote postponed from the time provided for private members' business.
(4)	When it is provided in any Standing Order or in any order of the House that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until the specified proceedings be completed.
Standing Order 12
12. (1) Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1965
Standing Order 15
15. (3) Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order ol business for the consideration of the House, day-by-day, after the daily routine shall be as follows:
(Monday)
Questions.
Government orders.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
(Tuesday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Private bills.
Public bills.
(Wednesday)
Questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers.
Government orders.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Notices of Motions.
Public bills.
(Thursday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
A.	On the first and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Notices of motions (papers).
Private bills.
Public bills.
B.	On the second and each alternate Thursday thereafter:
Private bills.
Notices of motions (papers).
Public bills.
(Friday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From five to six o'clock p.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
Private bills.
Notices of Motions.
(4)	When a debate on a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for Private Members' Business on that day shall be suspended.
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may propose that the question of allocation of time for any item of business, unless otherwise provided for, be referred to the Business Committee, and upon such proposal being made that question shall stand referred to the Committee.
. (3) The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such reference.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the Committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and, if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 41, may give notice of motion that at the next sitting of the House, provided that day is not a Wednesday, he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting, interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time less than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for
June 11, 1965
[Stage Direction]
one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
(9)	The term "allocation of time", wherever used in this Standing Order, may include the allotting of time to any item of business, to any stage thereof, or to any part thereof, and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches.
Standing Order 18
18(2) Except as provided in Standing Orders 43 and 56, Government Orders may be called in such sequence as the Government may think fit.
Standing Order 31
31. (2) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time.
Standing Order 39
39. (5) Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper, provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed thirty minutes, except on Mondays when the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of Orders of the Day shall not exceed one hour.
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the question period before the Orders of the Day, must be given in writing
to Mr. Speaker not later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. the same day.
Standing Order 41
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
Standing Order 43
43.	(2) When the debate on any motion made under Standing Order 15 (2) is adjourned or interrupted the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered as the first Order under Government Orders.
Standing Order 44
44.	When a question is under debate no
motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to extend the sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
Standing Order 59
59. (4) The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to Mr. Speaker; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving, a report thereof. No debate shall be permitted on any decision.
Standing Order 65
65. (1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, within ten sitting days, after its appointment, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
(a)	on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development, to consist of 45 members;
(b)	on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of 24 members;
(c)	on Crown Corporations, to consist of 24 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 24 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 24 members;
(/) on Fisheries, to consist of 24 members;
(g)	on Health and Welfare, to consist of 24 members;
[Stage Direction]
June 11. 1965
<h) on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, to consist of 24 members;
(i)	on Indian Affairs, Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 24 members;
(j)	on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 24 members;
(k)	on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 24 members;
(l)	on Labour and Employment, to consist of 24 members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 24 members;
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of 24 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 24 members;
(p)	on Northern Affairs and National Resources, to consist of 24 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 24 members;
[Stage Direction]
(r)
[Stage Direction]
on Public Accounts, to members;
[Stage Direction]
consist
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
24
[Stage Direction]
(s)
[Stage Direction]
on Standing members;
[Stage Direction]
Orders, to
[Stage Direction]
consist
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
24
[Stage Direction]
(t)
[Stage Direction]
on Transport consist of 24
[Stage Direction]
and Communications, members; and
[Stage Direction]
to
[Stage Direction]
(u)
[Stage Direction]
on Veterans members.
[Stage Direction]
Affairs to
[Stage Direction]
consist
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
24
[Stage Direction]
(2)
[Stage Direction]
The Special Committee shall also prepare and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees:
[Stage Direction]
On Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
On the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 21 members;
Provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
Provided that, in the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.
(4)	The Standing Committee shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; and to print, from day-to-day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and Standing Order 66 shall not apply in relation thereto.
(5)	Any member of the House of Commons who is not a member of a standing committee, may, unless the House or the standing committee otherwise orders, take part in the deliberations of the standing committee, but shall not vote or move any motion or any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
Standing Order 68
68-A In any standing or special committee of the House questions of order shall be decided by the chairman, subject only to an appeal to the committee.
Standing Order 99
99. No Bill for the incorporation of a railway or canal company, or for authorizing the construction of branch lines or extensions of existing lines of railways or of canals, or for changing the route of the railway or of the canal of any company already incorporated, shall be considered by the Committee on Transport and Communications, until there has been filed with the committee, at least one week before the consideration of the bill, a map or plan drawn upon a scale of not less than half an inch to the mile, showing the location upon which it is intended to construct the proposed work, and showing also the lines of existing or authorized works of a similar character within, or in any way affecting the district, or any part thereof, which the proposed work is intended to serve; and such map or plan shall be signed by the engineer or other person making the same.
Standing Order 105
105. Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce and to trust and loan companies, to the Committee on
June 11. 1965
[Stage Direction]
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the Committee on Transport and Communications; the bills not coming under these classes, to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.
That the said amendments to the Standing Orders be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session unless this House otherwise orders.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 14, 1965