1965-06-10

FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to make a statement this week concerning the Government's policy regarding the Municipal Development and Loan Act.
This legislation was passed in the summer of 1963 as one item in a broad program to increase employment. It authorized a total of $400 million in loans to municipalities up until the end of March, 1966. This sum was allotted by the statute among the provinces in proportion to their population. It offered an inducement for the acceleration of work on municipal construction projects by providing for forgiveness of 25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan in respect of all loans on projects which were completed by the end of March, 1966, or in respect of the amount of the loan that had been advanced up to that time for projects not completed by that date.
I am pleased to report that this legislation has been a great success. During the course of the last two years over 1,500 loans have been approved to nearly 1,000 municipalities. Municipal works projects have been accelerated in accordance with the purpose of the legislation, and employment on municipal construction projects has thereby been increased. Each loan has been made after certification by the appropriate municipal and provincial authorities that it would give rise to additional works projects that would not have been undertaken without such assistance. This test of "additionality" was one of the most important and difficult features of the legislation. I am glad to acknowledge the co-operation of the municipalities and the provinces in the administration of the plan.
The report of the Municipal Development and Loan Board for the fiscal year ended 31 March, 1965 will be tabled in the House shortly, and will contain details of the loans made.
One of the problems we have run into in the administration of the Act is the precise effect 22620-140
of the termination date in limiting the amount of the loan which can be forgiven. There is no problem in respect of projects completed before 31 March 1966. However, it has been found in practice that it takes time to check on the progress of work done on projects and make advances in respect of them. Moreover, the agreements with the provinces under Section 7 of the Act provide for certain procedures which also result in some time interval before the advances can be made equivalent to the value of the work done up to any particular date.
To meet this problem I am submitting in the supplementary estimates an item to provide for the forgiveness of that portion of the principal amount of the loan that is advanced after the 31st day of March, 1966, with respect to the costs incurred on the project up to that date. I think this will meet the chief problem that has been of concern to the provinces, the municipalities and the Board in the administration of the statute.
Some projects for which loans have been made or will be made under this legislation will not be completed before next spring. This was contemplated in the legislation and specific provisions made for it, as indicated by the arrangements I have just mentioned in respect of uncompleted projects. It seems probable that the major part of the 100 million of potential forgiveness will be earned by the municipalities.
The Government has given careful consideration to whether this legislation should now be enlarged or extended. There is no doubt that it has been a success in increasing employment on municipal projects, which was the purpose for which it was introduced. The economic situation since the time the program was introduced has improved markedly. The results of other Government measures are improving and sustaining the level of employment and the rate of economic growth. The rate of unemployment declined from 5.8 per cent, seasonally adjusted, in the first quarter of 1963 to 4.0 per cent in the first quarter of 1965. In many parts of the country it is now at considerably lower levels than the average for the country as a whole. Efforts to stimulate employment in the construction industry particularly by further measures
2192	COMMONS DEBATES	June 10, 1965
Termination of Municipal Loan Legislation applicable in these areas would be inappropriate.
Furthermore, it would be quite impractical to endeavour to continue indefinitely to apply the "additionality" test in respect of municipal projects, and this is the key feature of this legislation. Such a test, though difficult, can be applied in respect of a temporary program covering a short period such as this was meant to be. It cannot be applied on a permanent basis.
I should remind hon. Members that this legislation was never intended to be a permanent source of loan finance for municipalities. It has of course been a most helpful source of finance for them during this period when acceleration of their programs was desirable.
The effects of the Canada and Quebec pension plans will be to build up funds available to the provinces. In the future these funds may be used to assist very substantially in the financing of capital projects both of the provinces themselves and, directly or indirectly, of the municipalities. These funds will be available at interest rates comparable with those provided for under this legislation. Consequently we see no need to continue this in a modified form simply as a source of loanable funds for municipal purposes.
Some suggestions have been made that the period during which forgiveness on the loans could be earned should be extended to enable some municipalities which did not take advantage of the loans at an earlier date to secure the benefit of this. The Government has considered this proposal and has come to the conclusion that to adopt it would not be fair to those municipalities which made great efforts to expedite their work in accordance with the essential purpose of the legislation. Moreover, we must recognize that if we introduce proposals such as this, intended to expedite projects at a time when additional work is desirable, and then modify them to make the benefits available over longer periods, we tend to undermine the effectiveness of any such action in the future.
If at some future time a change in economic circumstances should make it appropriate or necessary for the Federal Government to offer inducements to expedite capital projects generally or those in any particular field such as municipal projects, the Government will be quite prepared to consider them and to consult with the Provincial Governments concerning them. Should the result

of such consideration and consultation lead to the conclusion that action along these lines would be desirable, we will not hesitate to place proposals before Parliament designed to attain this end. It would be best, however, if such proposals were specifically tailored to the situation then prevailing, taking into account the experience we have had with the Municipal Development and Loan Act as well as with other measures that have been introduced in the past two years and in earlier periods.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago when the Minister of Finance announced the Municipal Development and Loan Act he did so with the aid of a tremendous propaganda machine which inflated the plan all out of proportion in the minds of the people and gave the impression that something was going to be done together with the provinces to provide employment in Canada. The plan was actually inflated beyond its real worth, because only two years later the Minister is now telling us he is going to drop it.
Only 1,000 out of some 4,500 municipalities in Canada have participated in the plan and the reason they did so was that they were able to get at a lower rate of interest the same loans they would have obtained in any event, and in addition there was a 25 per cent forgiveness clause. Even so, only 1,000 out of some 4,500 municipalities took advantage of the plan. This in itself shows that the plan has been a complete failure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: -because no work was undertaken under the plan that would not have been undertaken ordinarily, since municipalities do not obtain loans or undertake projects they do not need. These projects would have been undertaken in any event, and the benefit the municipalities derived was in the fact that they were able to get a low interest rate and forgiveness of 25 per cent of the cost of the project if completed by March 31, 1963.
I do not see the reason for dropping this plan at this moment, because I feel that those who would like to participate in it should have been given an opportunity to do so, even though the plan has not been a success in any manner or form, nor has it lived up to the propaganda the Minister attached to it.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, there will be widespread disappointment at the announcement which has just been made by the Minister of Finance to
June 10, 1965

the effect that the Government does not intend to continue and expand the municipal development and loan legislation. Municipalities which have had applications before their respective Provincial Governments for some time, only to find that the funds allocated to those particular Provinces have been depleted, will now be rejected completely for no other reason than that they happened to be at the bottom of the list and their applications were not processed before the funds ran out. It seems to me most unfair that those municipalities whose applications were late in being dealt with, through no fault of their own, are not to have the benefit of this legislation.
The reason given by the Minister for not asking Parliament to increase the funds available under this legislation is that the unemployment situation is now satisfactory. This will be news to the people across Canada when the unemployment figure is still much higher than in most of the countries of Western Europe. If the Government are going to discontinue this plan on the ground that unemployment is not a serious problem, then at least they ought to continue the plan in those areas where the unemployment figure is above the national average. To wipe it out all across Canada on the ground that the Minister of Finance, sitting in his ivory tower, thinks that unemployment has disappeared will arouse a great deal of resentment in Canada.
The impression this Government gave, both prior to the election and at the time this legislation was introduced, was that the Municipal Development and Loan Act was a response to the requests of Provincial Governments and the conference of mayors and municipalities for a municipal loan bank or a permanent municipal fund upon which municipalities could call for assistance. This has certainly been the impression which the Liberal Party has sought to create in Canada. Now the Minister tells the municipalities this was only a temporary measure, that the funds have been exhausted and he does not intend to continue the program.
This will cause a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction. The Government is now passing up a golden opportunity to participate in the improvement of municipal services in Canada. We in this party have been claiming throughout the years that Canada has starved its municipal and social services, and the fact that municipalities now will not be able to get the benefits of this legislation means that many municipal projects which otherwise 22620-140J
Termination of Municipal Loan Legislation would have been proceeded with will have to be forgotten.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the municipalities will be extremely disappointed, and I am certain the Minister has not heard the end of this matter.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, it seems regrettable that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) should announce that the loans to municipalities will be discontinued, in view of the number of such loans which were granted during the short period that the act was in force. In fact, 1,500 loans were granted to 1,000 municipalities. This shows that municipalities must borrow in order to carry out their plans for beautifying and improving their communities. Henceforth, they will be prevented from taking advantage of loans at reasonable interest rates.
On the other hand, we are aware of all the loans which are contracted through investment brokers. Naturally, a very small amount of money was borrowed through this act, because hundreds of millions were loaned through stock brokers. But to date, Mr. Speaker, the act has not gone far enough. We should have set up a municipal credit bank as advocated by us in this house. I think this would be the right time to set up such a bank in order to lower municipal taxes and provide for certain developments as suggested by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) in the wonderful speech he made yesterday or a few days ago, when he urged municipalities to make all kinds of developments and improvements in connection with the confederation centennial. Only a municipal credit bank could make such loans at the administrative rate to enable municipalities to carry out those projects.
Someone suggested a while ago that such a loan system should be maintained in underdeveloped areas. Of course, it is a very interesting suggestion, because underdeveloped areas need loan facilities at reduced rates more than others.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge the Minister of Finance to reconsider his decision and to take into consideration the setting up of a municipal credit bank which would assist our municipalities by lending them money at the administrative rate.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) tell us

June 10, 1985
House of Commons
about the success of the Municipal Development and Loan Act.
In fact, the Minister has announced that almost 1,500 loans were made to some 1,000 Canadian municipalities and have proven themselves to be an efficient weapon against unemployment, that the municipalities which have borrowed at a reasonable interest rate have enjoyed advantages unknown to them previously.
That leads me to say to the Minister of Finance that as a result of our numerous suggestions since he has taken over his department, he is not so dumb; when we ask him to provide the provinces with the necessary funds for their development enabling them to help the municipalities and the school boards with interest-free credit created by the Bank of Canada, he knows that such legislation makes sense and could be passed by the house.
Should he do so, I am convinced he would be highly satisfied to have been of service not only to a section of the people but to every Canadian and he would realize what a tremendous success it would be to finance without interest the whole Canadian public administration so that the taxpayers would not have to pay two or three times for the services available to them. Is there a municipality today which does not need improvement or economic development?
Instead of informing us that this scheme will be discontinued on March 31, 1966, the Minister of Finance should inform us that as of now he will follow a new policy, making the services of the Bank of Canada available to the provinces, the municipalities and school boards of our country.



TWENTY FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF DEATH OF HON. NORMAN MCLEOD ROGERS

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to permit me to refer to the tragedy of 25 years ago today, when a former Minister of National Defence was killed in an airplane crash.
The late Norman Rogers was honoured on June 12, 1940, by burial from the Houses of Parliament. Born at Amherst, Nova Scotia, in 1894, Norman Rogers served Canada in many capacities. He was Minister of Labour in the Mackenzie King government from 1935 to 1939, and from 1939 until his death was Minister of National Defence. An extract from

the diary of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King reads:
As long as Canadian history continues to be recorded, Rogers' name will have its association with the Houses of Parliament as the first person to be honoured by burial from its Hall of Fame. This truly is as it ought to be.
I know that all hon. Members of the House will wish to join in paying tribute to the memory of this great Canadian, the late Hon. Norman McLeod Rogers.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, time flies and these events sometimes are effaced in memory. I remember that day very well. I asked Hon. Norman Rogers the last question that he was asked before he left on that fateful trip. Norman Rogers was a man who had a wide variety of avocations; an outstanding student, a fine parliamentarian, soldier of distinction in the First World War. Parliament and Canada were poorer when he passed away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I associate the members of this group with the remarks that have been made on the twenty fifth anniversary of the death of Hon. Norman Rogers. I had the privilege of sitting in the House with him and I know of the great public service he gave to Canada. I also remember the great shock that was felt throughout this House when the news came of his untimely death. I think the Minister has done well to remind Parliament and the Canadian people, on the anniversary of his death, of the fine service which he rendered to his country.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege nor that of anyone in our party to have known Hon. Norman Rogers personally, but certainly on many, many occasions I have heard him spoken of very highly, and we recognize the service that he gave to his country. I too remember the day very well, from outside this House, when that unfortunate accident took place. We join the Minister of National Defence and on this twenty fifth anniversary add our own words of remembrance of the service of this distinguished Canadian to his nation.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if you would pardon a personal note, when I was a very young man I had the honour and privilege of rooming with Norman Rogers during
June 10, 1965

the period when he was a student at Dal-housie Law School. There was not a day that I was with him that I did not benefit from that association. I would like to add my personal tribute to those of the Minister and the others who have spoken.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion we of this party would like to underline with the Minister of National Defence this twenty fifth anniversary of the death of the late Minister of National Defence. We think of all the good this man did, not only for his country but for mankind. It also makes us think that we should try to build more men of that calibre, not that they might have such fatal accidents as a result of which the late Minister died, but so they can be a guiding light to men of this country in the future. I believe the Minister has done a very good thing today in reminding us of this twenty fifth anniversary.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-114, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this Bill today I am reminded of statements that have been made in a number of provincial parliaments, including the recent one by Andy Thompson, the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, who has indicated that a vehicle must be provided for improving the divorce legislation of our country.
The Federal Government, of course, must pass the substantive legislation. I have suggested in this Bill provisions that some of our sister Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand and Australia have recently brought into their legislation, in adding to adultery, which is now the only ground for divorce in the majority of the Provinces of Canada, the grounds of desertion over a period of three years, cruelty and incurable insanity.
I put forward this measure only as a vehicle for the Government so they may provide a vehicle to the Provinces which are now crying out for this type of legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Inquiries of the Ministry BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT



EXTENSION OF CHARTERS TO DECEMBER 31.

Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the House go into Committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act to extend to December 31, 1965, the authority to carry on business for the banks to which these Acts apply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following the extraordinary announcement made by the Minister of Finance today I am wondering whether he is giving consideration to other action to be taken before we adjourn, namely action for the reduction of taxation as demanded by such business leaders as the president and retiring president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, all of this in view of the further decline today in the stock markets in Canada and the United States. What has the Government in mind to meet a situation so paradoxical as is occurring at the moment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, if my right hon. friend will have patience until the beginning of next week, I hope to move the resolution that was forecast in the budget proposing a reduction in personal income taxes of 10 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -the greatest reduction in 12 years.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: You mean you got the biggest raise.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman spoke with enthusiasm on that because he benefits to the extent of $600. I had nothing to do with bringing it in, but the hon. gentleman did. I would ask the hon. gentleman this question. In view of the fact that he and many of those associated with him today on the Government benches voted in favour of interest free loans from the Bank of Canada

June 10, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry in November 1962, and supported the principles of Social Credit, does he not think that if he was sincere at that time this would be one time when he should fall in line with the views that he voted for?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow that question. It seems to me the right hon. gentleman was emulating the style of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Michael Starr: Wait till he hears that.


Mr. Bell:: You would not say that if he was there.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I am right in thinking the right hon. gentleman was asking me whether the Government favoured the policies put forward by the Social Credit party, the answer is no.


Michael Starr: Then why did you vote for them?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, so there is no mistake, has the hon. gentleman changed his views since he voted in favour of this, something which we voted against but which he and his associates supported?


An hon. Member:: Yes or no?



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND-USE OF UNALLOTTED AMOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can get the Minister of Finance to shed his veil of silence by asking him a question with respect to the municipal development and loan fund legislation regarding which he made an announcement this afternoon. Could the Minister tell the House whether all the funds which were voted by Parliament are likely to be used up? If they are not completely depleted in all the provinces, is there any possibility that whatever is left could be allocated to the provinces which have already reached their maximum allocation but still have applications on hand?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say categorically that the funds allocated to every province will be used up to the extent of the full 100 per cent, because it is too soon; this program has another nine months to run. Therefore, as I cannot forecast this particular matter, I think it would be inappropriate for me to indulge in speculation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Could I ask the Minister whether the Gov-

ernment would give consideration at least to processing the applications which provincial governments have on hand? This may require additional funds but would not need a great amount in addition, and would also not penalize the municipalities whose applications were late in being dealt with.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend and all other hon. Members of the House who recall the passage of this legislation, which I was glad to hear others agree has been a great success, know that the administration and allocation of the funds as among municipalities was left, and properly so, to the provinces concerned. In some cases, I think in most cases, the provinces felt that only they were in a position to determine whether it was wise for a particular municipality to be granted a loan for a particular purpose. To suggest that the Federal Government should interfere in this arrangement which has worked very satisfactorily would not, I think, be a wise suggestion to accept.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Surely the Minister is aware that I did not suggest interference. I asked the Minister whether the Government was prepared to consider providing additional funds to cover applications which were already on hand to be processed in those provinces where the funds which were allocated have been depleted.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I apologize if I misunderstood my hon. friend's question. The processing of these applications is a matter for the provinces. They have held some of them up, presumably intentionally. They knew how much money was available for the municipalities in their provinces and they proceeded to allocate it as they thought best. I think it would not be the intention of the Government in any way to interfere in that process.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The Minister of Finance just said that all those loans to municipalities are usually approved by the provinces. Did the federal government ever make a loan directly to a municipality?
If the municipality must apply to the provincial authorities in the first place, and if the latter then apply to the federal government in order to obtain the required funds, can the Minister of Finance tell us if the
June 10, 1965

federal government has made a direct loan to a municipality in Canada? In other words, must the municipalities go through the provinces in order to obtain a loan?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In almost all cases, Mr. Speaker, it is the province that decides, as my hon. friend has suggested. But under the Act there is provision for the Federal Government to act directly if the province concerned wishes it to do so, and I think this was the case with one or two provinces.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It might be the case that the $400 million appropriated by Parliament would not be used up at the end of the program. Would the Minister consider giving a further allocation to the provinces which have exhausted their funds, on the understanding that any applications outstanding would be financed only if any money was left over from the $400 million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have made this reasonably clear. I have pointed out to my hon. friend that this particular measure was designed to spur employment opportunities quickly, and it succeeded in doing that. It was not intended as a permanent source of finance for the municipalities. Parliament in its wisdom decided that the program should terminate on March 31, 1966. That is provided for in the Act. Unless the Act is changed that is what will take place, and I have been saying that we are not proposing to change the act.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has become a coiner of words as well as a minter of money, will he take steps to suppress that horror which he used twice today-"additionality"?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have already had a note of protest about this particular word from the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. When I came to the word some hon. Members may have noticed that I paused-I paused or choked-because I did not like it. It is a form of jargon which I deplore. However, it has been widely used, and I did not think it was up to me at this late date to choose another word.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PARTICIPATION BY ARMED FORCES IN LOCAL EVENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the basis for my question is the military parade which will take place on Saturday, which I think most of us agree is a very good thing. However, it is apparently contradictory to the policy of the Government in refusing requests for participation in local parades, air shows and local fairs across the nation. I am referring specifically to the refusal of a request for the traditional fly-past at the opening of the exhibition in my home city, an event which has been carried on for 25 years, and the air show on the Pacific coast, which has recently been rejected-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Is the Minister considering reversing this policy so that our permanent military forces can take part in these local fairs and air shows across the nation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The policy which has been in effect for a number of years does make provision for participation in the celebration of armed forces days across the country and at the international air show in Toronto, the Calgary air show and so on. With respect to participation by planes in local activities, this question is under study to determine whether the regulations can be relaxed. As soon as a decision has been taken I will be glad to inform the hon. Member.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: Can the Minister of National Defence tell us the approximate cost of the super-spectacle on Saturday?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Associate Minister has taken this question as notice and I think he will be answering it in a day or two.



WATER LEVELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister tell us whether he has received today a letter from the Weather Engineering Service, and can he also tell us

June 10. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he has acknowledged the order issued by Mr. Rene Levesque, the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, for good weather and sunshine over the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Sir. I have received a letter from Mr. Power, and it is not exactly the kind of letter I expected to receive from him. I have also read certain observations about this gentleman made by Mr. Rene Levesque, and this is one occasion upon which I am inclined to agree with Mr. Levesque.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the Minister prepared to make any announcement with regard to temporary parking for the buses which bring tourists and school children to this House? A large percentage of them are obliged to travel around the city for lack of temporary parking facilities. Is there a possibility of using the site formerly occupied by Laurentian Terrace, on Sussex Street, for this purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the importance of this question, and I believe the matter has been under consideration for some time. However, it seems to me the question is one which should be put on the order paper.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was waiting to see whether the Minister was listening. I understand the Minister is reviewing a decision whether to concentrate federal forestry research at Sault Ste. Marie or at Richmond Hill-Maple. In view of information reaching me that preparations are under way for a move to Sault Ste. Marie, has the Minister any further information to give the House?
[Mr. Gregoire.l


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: There is no change in the announcement made on February 18.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the Minister may be spending so much time reforming the Liberal Party in Quebec that he has not got around to making a decision.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether a date has yet been set for this year's meeting regarding the North Pacific Fisheries Treaty, which I understand is to take place in Washington. In the light of the importance of the matters to be discussed at this meeting I think it is desirable we should know when it is to be held.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: No specific date has been set. As the hon. Member knows, I have already stated in the House that the United States will be the host country for this meeting. It is proposed to hold it some time this fall, but no specific date has been set.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the others of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soufham (Moose Mountain):: wish to rise at this time on a question of privilege. It has to do with a question that I placed on the order paper on May 18 and the answer I received yesterday. The question was answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; I am sorry he is not here today to listen to this.
In order to place my question of privilege clearly before Members of the House I should like to refer to Hansard of June 9, page 2153, and read the question with the answers I received. The question is listed as No. 496, and it is in my name. It has to do with control of expenditures in connection with Expo '67. We are all aware that this is a subject which is exercising the minds of the public at the present time; they would like to have further information regarding this exhibition. This is the question I asked:
1. What controls are exercised by the Federal Government to prevent wasteful and improvident expenditures being made by the Director of Expo '67?
June 10. 1965

2. In. how many instances, with the amounts thereof in each case, to date have expenditures been (a) disallowed, and in what amounts (b) reduced, because of objections thereto taken by representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce?
This is the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1. The control of expenditures exercised by the management of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation is based on the requirements set forth in the incorporating Act and involves:
(a) the approval of the Governor in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the over-all plan for the Exhibition, setting forth the various undertakings and projects proposed by the Corporation in connection with the planning, organizing, holding and administering of the Exhibition, the estimated cost of each such undertaking or project and an estimate of the total capital costs and operating costs of the Corporation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could tell us the nature of the question of privilege before he reads at length from Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to suggest to the hon. Member that if he would state his question of privilege we could probably dispense with a little of the preamble.


Richard Russell Southam: I am almost finished. I will read the balance of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member was requested by the Chair to skip the extraneous part of the preamble. The material is on record in Hansard already. Perhaps he would come directly to his question of privilege in order to save the time of the House.


Richard Russell Southam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is this, and I think it will be evident to every hon. Member who will read the answer I received. This answer is completely evasive and I think is entirely misleading to Members of the House. I intend to reintroduce part of this question which was on the order paper in the hope that I may receive a complete answer.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Does the government intend to adopt a shipbuilding subsidy policy in order to promote the development of a genuine Canadian merchant marine and, at the same time, help reduce unemployment in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was good enough to send me the press clipping upon which he based his question. It raises broad matters of policy which cannot possibly be answered in response to a question asked on orders of the day.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Notice has already been sent to him. My question is of an urgent nature because the affirmation or reconsideration of the decision which is involved requires immediate attention.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he is in receipt of a telegram from the painter's union in Vancouver protesting the intended use of penitentiary inmates to do the painting work on the new-and I repeat the word "new"-multimillion dollar Federal Drug Institution being constructed in British Columbia. If so, what consideration is being given to the request of the union that on new construction-and again I emphasize the word "new"-penitentiary labour should not be used?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisler of Public Works):: I have received the telegram to which the hon. Member refers. It is true that inmates are to be used for the interior painting of a penitentiary. Whether the penitentiary is new or whether the work is to be done in connection with maintenance does not change the principle.
I must say I am a little surprised at the attitude of the union in this matter, because I think all hon. Members know that under the Department of Justice rehabilitation is an increasingly important objective of our penal institutions. In that regard this type of work and other work comprise part of the inmate training program which has been quite successful in rehabilitating inmates.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since inmates of the penitentiary are being used

June 10. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry to do work that would ordinarily be done by others at regular rates of pay, will the Department together with the Department of Justice give consideration to paying the inmates regular wages which would be held and given to them on their release? That would really help to rehabilitate them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to discuss this matter with the Minister of Justice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning a decision that has just been made by the members of the U.C.C. of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, namely that they will march on Ottawa.
Is the Minister of Agriculture aware that such a decision has been taken unanimously by the farmers of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, and is he getting ready to receive them, to listen to their point of view, in order to find a solution to their problem?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are willing, of course, to listen to any group of farmers who may come to Ottawa. As hon. Members know, the responsibility for providing relief for crop disasters is that of the Provincial Government. The Federal Government does, however, have a crop insurance scheme under which it will contribute to provincial programs 20 per cent of the total premiums and 50 per cent of the operation costs.
In so far as assisting agriculture is concerned, I should like to point out that during 1964, for example, Federal grants and subsidies paid to agriculture in the Province of Quebec amounted to $41,433,000, which was approximately 28 per cent of the total payments made across Canada. On a per farm basis Federal assistance during that year in the Province of Quebec averaged $432 per farm compared with the national average payment per farm of $304.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The farmers of the Lake St. John

region apparently are plagued by too much rain, but I want to ask the Minister whether he is contemplating any emergency measures to help those farmers of the Ottawa valley who are affected because there is not enough rain, with the result that drought conditions are the worst in many years.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in this regard one does not know if one is afoot or on horseback. I can assure the hon. Member that we are very sympathetic to the farmers of both regions. So far as the Lake St. John area is concerned, I do not think the Federal Government has any responsibility with regard to rain making.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I am more interested at the moment in the farmers of the Ottawa valley. I am sure the Minister has received representations from many associations of farmers in that area. Has he taken note of these representations, and is he taking any special steps?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, these representations should first be made to the Province. In this regard may I say that on Tuesday afternoon in Toronto I discussed the drought problem with the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. We are all greatly concerned about this matter, but at the moment we have had no representations from the Province.



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.
Is the minister now in a position to reply to the question I asked him on May 12 concerning the preparation of the R.C.M.P. reports at Quebec harbour?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the R.C.M.P. at Quebec harbour are bilingual and may use any one of the two official languages. However, they have had verbal instructions to report any complaint they receive in the language it was made. As for administration directives dealing with security, they are all given in both French and English.
June 10, 1965



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Did the minister receive a notice of appeal from Autair Helicopter Services Limited concerning Order No. 4245 of the Air Transport Board and, if so, could he tell the house how he dealt with that appeal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did receive such an appeal, and I disposed of it yesterday by allowing the appeal which asked that the suspension of the licence should not take place until there had been a public hearing. It might be convenient for hon. Members if I were to table the three documents concerned, the order of the Board, the appeal and the judgment I made on the appeal.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that about 100 persons now employed will be thrown out of work because of the order of the Air Transport Board, will the Minister consider staying the suspension of the firms operations until the appeal has been disposed of?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I did, of course, by allowing the appeal. The appeal was against suspension before a hearing had been held, and I agreed with the appellant that a hearing should be held before there was any suspension of the licence.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is the Minister then stating that the company will be allowed to continue its operations pending the appeal hearing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely the purport of the judgment, which the hon. Member can read.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What action do he and the Government intend to take to prevent the flight of capital from Canada result-
22620- I41J
Inquiries of the Ministry ing from the drop in the stock market and the policies of the Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find this question extremely interesting but I do not see how in the next two or three minutes it is possible to give a detailed reply to this very important question.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both for a very good reason, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Government of the United Kingdom or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Right Hon. Arthur George Bottomley, indicated to the Canadian Government that at the Prime Ministers' Conference a recommendation will be made by that Minister for the setting up among the Commonwealth nations of a representative assembly? What is going to be the attitude of Canada in this regard? I ask this question because there is no possibility of discussing this matter; and may I indicate at once that in asking the question I am not giving any support whatever to the suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, obviously this is a question with regard to which I have no information. I have not heard of any such proposition but in any case I would hesitate, with my limited capacities, to answer it. The Prime Minister will be in his place tomorrow, and I am sure he will be glad to have had notice so he can prepare the very careful reply that I am sure he will wish to make to so far reaching a suggestion.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the house whether a date has been set for a meeting of hon. members

June 10, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry ol parliament with the members of the Centennial Commission concerning the programs and projects of that commission?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the date was suggested and even set for next Tuesday, at 9:30 a.m. in room 307 of the West Block.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the increasingly grave shortage of steel in Canada and the consequent serious increase in the number of lay-offs in secondary industry all across the country, what emergency measures are being taken by the Government to relieve this shortage of steel and thus prevent further lay-offs in secondary industry dependant on steel supplies?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: During the past 12 months there has been a substantial increase in the demand for steel in Canada. This has been consequent upon the upsurge in economic activity. This has been met in the interim by a significant increase in imports, mostly from the United States and Europe, as well as by bringing on stream a substantial amount of new Canadian production. I think the shortages and the time lag on deliveries which has been experienced over the last 12 months are likely on the way to being cured.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If these shortages should continue and increase-I realize this question is slightly hypothetical-would the Minister give consideration to recommending to his colleagues that the import duties on steel from certain countries be temporarily withdrawn until the shortage is over?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: While accepting this as a hypothetical question, I may say that it would not be apparent to me that a change, temporary or otherwise, in the tariff on steel would materially affect the supply.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. Could he tell the house whether the Quebec authorities, in order to achieve their SIDBEC project, have requested the good offices of the federal government, from the technologi-

cal, scientific as well as monetary standpoints?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about SIDBEC between officials of the federal Department of Industry and those of the provincial department. Moreover, the federal authorities are always ready to give as much help and advice as possible.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
I have been asking him repeatedly now for the past three or four months what the C.B.C. intends to do concerning extension of its radio and television services in British Columbia to serve the French population of that province. But the Secretary of State has always replied that the Fowler Commission would be presenting its report.
Furthermore, that report was to be presented in May. This is mid-June and we do not have it yet. Could the Secretary of State tell us today when that famous Fowler Commission report will definitely be presented and, more particularly, when the French speaking citizens of British Columbia will receive the same treatment by the C.B.C. as their English fellow citizens of the province of Quebec?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, because of very complex studies, the publication of the Fowler Commission report has been delayed, but Mr. Fowler assured me recently that the report would definitely be ready and published early in September.
My hon. friend can be assured that, as soon as the Fowler Commission recommendations are received, action will be taken as quickly as possible.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that this time last year it was indicated the Fowler report would be ready early this year, and in view of the fact that it has been postponed on three or four occasions, will the Secretary of State not consider asking the Government to give consideration to making the grant suggested
June 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry
by the C.B.C. to carry out this extension of ask the C.B.C. to give effect to such a rec-service, which is greatly needed in the north? ommendation?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Government is of the view that we should wait for the recommendations of the Fowler Committee. Since this is the most serious investigation which has ever been made into broadcasting in Canada, I do not believe a study of a year and a half is too long.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he would consider approaching the Board of Broadcast Governors and asking them to suspend any awards or grants of licences for the extension of service until we have the Fowler Commission report.


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to check on this, but my view is that the freeze on the extension of alternative service is still on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. I would refer the Minister to the hearings that are being held next week at which both the C.B.C. and a number of private stations have applications for extension of service. In view of the fact that the Minister does not seem to be informed of this, I wonder if he could look into the matter a little more thoroughly.


Maurice Lamontagne: I will.


Robert Simpson: I wonder if the Secretary of State could inform the House how the Government can justify waiting until the Fowler Committee makes this report before approving any further extensions of service, when they allow the capital expenditures of the C.B.C. to carry on into the hundreds of millions of dollars when for a few million dollars they could extend services. How can this be justified?


Maurice Lamontagne: I should like to tell my hon. friend that the extension of service has not been stopped, and there are several millions included in the C.B.C. estimates for this year for that purpose.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State.
Should the Fowler Commission recommend in its report the extension of the C.B.C.'s French network wherever there is a French speaking minority, can the Secretary of State assure the house that the Government will


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the party to which I belong has already taken a very definite position on that matter.



CONSIDERATION OF STAFF BOARD REPORT ON STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Cyril Lloyd Francis: I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council if he has any further information on the subject of increases for certain members of the staff of the House.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated yesterday this matter has been considered and a decision taken. As I understand the practice, it is that the report is printed in Votes and Proceedings. This will be done in due course.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, since this might be my last opportunity to do so before a time limit on questions is imposed next week. Might I ask the Minister if he has seen a resolution passed by the Maritime Provinces Board of Trade in Saint John this week which urges a freeze on all rail freight rates in the Maritimes pending the study the Minister announced at the beginning of the week. If so, does this commend itself to the Minister?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought from the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question that he was about to go to another place. I am relieved to discover that he is going to stay here to enjoy the new regime.
In reply to the question, I may say I have no doubt that a communication is on its way to me from the Maritime Provinces Board of Trade. I did note the press report to which the hon. gentleman referred. I have had similar representations from other bodies in the Atlantic Provinces and the matter, of course, will receive the most careful consideration.

June 10. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: In this connection, will the Minister make a statement on whether representations are expected at the Dominion-Provincial Conference in connection with the transportation item on the agenda, because this question is looming large now in the Maritimes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I should attempt to anticipate the proceedings of the Federal-Provincial Conference, but I may say I did give an assurance to the Premiers of the Atlantic Provinces that before any legislation was introduced I would receive representations from them; and it was thought, if the legislation could not be introduced before a recess, that that might be conveniently done at the time of the Federal-Provincial Conference.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns an urgent matter which affects some two million people living in Montreal. A news item appeared in La Presse to the effect that the Montreal harbour authorities deny access to the harbour to the citizens of Montreal who have no other place for summer relaxation.
Is the minister aware of this situation and does he intend to order the Montreal harbour authorities immediately to allow the citizens access to harbour facilities during the summer season?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be very wise for a Minister of the Crown to proceed in the arbitrary fashion the hon. gentleman has suggested, but I will look into the matter.


Georges-J. Valade: As a supplementary question, does the Minister not realize that just a letter to the director of the harbour might be sufficient, asking him to be more lenient in the application of the rules so that people could use the port facilities during the season?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad to look into the matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the close proximity of the sour cherry season, could the Minister advise the House whether he proposes to use the value for duty provisions of the Customs Act or the price support system in order to assist the cherry growers of this country?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made so far as this matter is concerned. Last year /when the sour cherry people were in trouble the Stabilization Board assisted them at a cost of approximately $300,000, but no decision has been made this year nor have we had any representations from these people.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the Minister do everything within his power to keep down the great flow of U.S. cherries coming into Canada?



DAIRY PRODUCERS-MAILING OF CLAIM FORMS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Can the Minister inform the House when the mailing to dairy producers of the claim forms for supplementary payments will be completed?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I am not able to give a concrete answer, but I will obtain the answer for the hon. Member.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence; I think he is behind the curtain, or perhaps he has had to return to his office. In view of the fact that, according to yesterday's press, employees at the Point Edward Naval Base are now receiving official letters
June 10, 1965

that they have been fired, something I questioned him about the other day, can the Minister now advise where these former government employees, numbering several hundred, are going to find employment? May I also ask the Minister if he is possibly being brainwashed by the repeated statements of his colleague the Minister of Finance, that we "never had it so good"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the question is in order at all it is one for the order paper.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, these employees received their letters yesterday, about 24 hours ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is really beginning to dispute the suggestion or decision of the Chair, and it seems to me this is not the proper time to do so.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, this question is urgent. It is of national importance. It concerns a base of the Royal Canadian Navy. It concerns unemployment, which is of national importance. I would like to know what is going to be done on behalf of these several hundred-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member on calling attention to the point at issue.


Robert Muir: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not bring up the question just for the sake of bringing it to the attention of the House. We have several hundred people who do not have any jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If every single, individual Member of Parliament asked about unemployment in each individual constituency, I think the hon. Member would realize we would have to be here for 36 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: May I pose a question to you, Sir, with all due respect. When has it become out of order to ask questions about unemployment in this House? For years I have sat here and heard other Members ask such questions. Why has it become unpopular at this stage?


Mr. Speaker:: The reason, it seems to me, is very simple. The same question has been asked quite often this session-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: With no answer from the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: -and it has been carefully considered several times by different Ministers. I think we have some very pressing and urgent questions coming up, and I do not see how the hon. Member can expect a complete answer to his question in the space of two minutes.



MID-CANADA RADAR LINE-MAINTENANCE OF AIR STRIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In relation to the phasing out of the mid-Canada radar line, can the Minister say whether consideration is being given by his Department or any other Government department to the maintenance of air strips such as the one at Winisk?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. Member put this question on the Order Paper. It seems to me it was asked before.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when outlining the business for the next two weeks or so the Prime Minister indicated that certain veterans legislation will be introduced. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him could he indicate just what is intended in this legislation and, specifically, whether substantial upward revisions in disability pensions are being considered.


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of Government policy, and I think a proper answer would be that the bills will be introduced as soon as possible, I hope within the next 10 or 12 days, and at that time the intention will be made known to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles:: The hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that it is two minutes to four o'clock. Perhaps we should allow a little more leniency in anticipation of some new rules, but I point out that it is

June 10, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry almost four o'clock. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get the floor for an hour, so I do not think I have to apologize. I wanted to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question, but since she has left the Chamber her Parliamentary Secretary might take it as notice.
I would like to ask the Minister what steps she is taking to revise the administration of the Narcotic Control Act so that doctors who wish to treat narcotic addicts will not be interfered with in their medical treatment by the Department in the way that an Etobicoke doctor was interfered with, and about which Rev. Mr. West, director of the Anglican Correctional Chaplaincy for the Diocese of Toronto wrote to the Minister in such strong terms.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think out of fairness to the House this type of question is not one that should be permitted without notice before orders of the day, and to that extent should be put on the order paper.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. Member put this question on the order paper?


David Orlikow: I would like to debate it at ten o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has raised this matter repeatedly and suggested that Members put questions of this type on the order paper. I point out that this is a matter that affects someone immediately. If anyone looks at the order paper he can see the length of time questions remain on it. Questions have been on it since April 5 and April 6, half a dozen since April 6 and one since April 5. Last session we had questions that were on it for five months.
For the Minister to get up and say that a question which affects someone in a community near Toronto, on which a decision should be made in the course of the next few days or weeks, should be put on the order paper, where it may he for days if not weeks, is not good enough.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think I should clarify my reasons for asking that it be put on the order paper. It is perfectly apparent to any one in the House who listened to the question that it could not be answered without notice, and surely the hon. Member should not be taking up the time of the House asking a question which, by its nature, cannot be answered without notice. Either he should put it on the order paper or give notice of it.
I admit it is an important question, but it is not one which meets the criteria set out in the rule book for questions which are asked before orders of the day are called. That is why I took objection to it, and I think if hon. Members examine the question carefully when they see it in Hansard they will realize I would have been remiss in my duty here if I had not pointed that out.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the President of the Privy Council that this is a matter which was raised today in the lead editorial of the Globe and Mail, and the Minister received a letter from the Chaplain working in this field. So the Minister really did not need notice from me, which I gave today, because she knows about the case and she knows the medical association has said that it is useless to try to deal with this question. As far as putting it on the order paper is concerned, when we get into debate today I want to point out to the President of the Privy Council that I have had questions on the order paper for as long as six months.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give notice and raise the matter at ten o'clock. The hon. Member for Danforth.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Justice but he seems to have disappeared.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 9, 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:
June 10. 1965
[Stage Direction]
Standing Order 6
6. (1) At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays and at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, unless provided otherwise in these Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day.
(2)	A motion that the House continue to sit after the hour specified in Section (1) may be made at any time without notice. If any member objects to the motion, Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if ten or more members then rise, the question shall not be put on the motion. If no member objects or if fewer than ten members rise in their places, the motion shall be deemed to be carried. No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting. An extended sitting under the provisions of this Section, unless a closing time has been specified, shall not be terminated except by the adoption of a motion to adjourn and Mr. Speaker shall not deem that a motion to adjourn the House has been made by virtue of the operation of any other Standing Order.
(3) If any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1:00 o'clock p.m. and 2:30 o'clock p.m. or between 6:00 o'clock p.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise, the taking of the 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.
House of Commons Procedures
(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 v-m.-Private Members* Business)
Public bills.
Private bills.
(4) When a debate on a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, the order for Private Members' Business on that day shall be suspended.
4.	That Section (2) of Standing Order 31 be amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 31, Section (2)
31. (2) When the business of Private Members is being considered, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time.
5.	That Section (5) of Standing Order 39 be enacted to read as follows:
Standing Order 39, Section (5)
39. (5) Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper, provided also that the time allowed for a question period prior to the calling of the Orders of the Day shall not exceed thirty minutes.
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject-matter of his question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein, whether or not it is given orally during the question period before the Orders of the Day, must be given in writing to Mr. Speaker not later than 5:00 o'clock p.m. the same day.
6.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 41-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 41-A
41-A. Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 41, any member proposing to
June 10, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures
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 writen 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 Corporation, to consist of 22 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(f)	on Fisheries, to consist of 22 members;
(g)	on Health and Welfare, to consist of 22 members;
(h)	on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, to consist of 22 members;
(i)	on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 22 members;
(j)	on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 22 members;
(fc) on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(l)	on Labour and Employment, to consist of 22
members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 22
members;
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of 22 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 22 members;
(p)	on Northern Affairs and National Resources, to consist of 22 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 22 members;

(r) on Public Accounts, to consist of 24 members;
(s) on Standing Orders, to consist of 22 members;
(t)	on Transport and Communications, to consist of 22 members; and
(u)	on Veterans Affairs, to consist of 22 members.
(2)	The Special Committee shall also prepare and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees:
on Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members:
on the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses to consist of 21 members;
provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
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 hereon; 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
June 10, 1965
[Stage Direction]
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.
The Chairman:: Order. When the Committee rose yesterday an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was being considered. This amendment reads as follows:
That the proposed new Standing Order 12(1) be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "provided, however, that an appeal on a substantive motion, accompanied by the citation of authorities and precedents, may be submitted for study to a special committee to be appointed for that purpose".


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a few remarks, it is not my intention to prolong the debate-because I have been patient enough from the very start of this discussion on the proposed changes to the parliamentary procedure-but simply to dispute the claims that the Speaker, or his representative, or the chairman of committees may have preconceived ideas or prove to be partial. Personally, I believe that the Speaker is at least as objective as any other member, be it the mover or the seconder of a motion or the one who speaks in support of, or against, that motion. That is why I dissociate myself from those who claim that the Speaker may, more than others, prove to be partial in his rulings in this house.
Another point I wish to make is this. When members support the Speaker's decision, they do not necessarily support the amendment, the subamendment or the motion which has been introduced but only the Speaker's ruling. When we support the Speaker, it is on the basis that he was chosen not by the government or the opposition but by Parliament, to maintain order in the house. And since we trusted him when we appointed him, we should continue to trust him until he decides to give up his post.
When, at the beginning of a parliament, the Prime Minister moves the appointment of a Speaker, if the members do not agree, they may thereupon introduce a counterproposal or else simply object to the appointment of the proposed candidate. I am convinced the Speaker would not accept his appointment without unanimous consent of the house. That is why I maintain that if we vote for a new rule forbidding members to appeal from Mr. Speaker's rulings, it is
House of Commons Procedures only because we trust him; we trust him today, we shall trust him tomorrow, and we shall also trust any Speaker who will be appointed in the future, because we rely on the Speaker's good judgment and his ability to conduct the business of the house.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said that the Speaker occupying the Chair once admitted he had made a mistake and had asked the house to appeal his ruling: such was his statement. I could immediately suggest that if the Speaker realized he has made a mistake, he only would have to ask, with unanimous consent from the house, that the house appeal his ruling. Then, should the members not be satisfied, they could unanimously allow the Speaker to act counter to clause 2 of paragraph 2 of resolution No. 15 under consideration.
Those are the remarks I wished to make, Mr. Chairman.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to point out that when it is said that the Speaker is prejudiced, the statement could be reversed and applied to the one who is appealing his ruling. In fact, whoever appeals a ruling of the Speaker often is sore and disappointed because he has not drafted his motion in such a way that it be in order, and then, from that grudge, if one may say so, he rises and appeals the Speaker's ruling.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, granting a member or a group of members the right to appeal a ruling of the Speaker on a question of personal feelings would not be more justifiable than allowing any doubt about the impartiality of the Chair.
There is another minor argument which I wished to put forward and which nearly slipped my mind. Someone criticized the rulings of the Speaker, pointing out that quite often, he did not trust in his own capacities but depended on the advice given him by the officers of the House. I must most humbly say that, in my opinion, the officers of the House are most competent to give the necessary information to the Speaker. In my opinion, their duty is simply to find faster than the Speaker, the reasons on which the latter could base his ruling if he had time to look for the necessary arguments. It seems to me that the officers of the House, who have a thorough knowledge of the procedure, and who are able to find speedily the arguments which the Speaker needs to make his ruling, are simply assisting the Speaker.
June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures
I think that we should commend them for it and once again, I do not agree with those who try to minimize their work and especially their goodwill.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak any longer, because I know that for 12 days we have been looking forward to that happy moment when we might express our opinion, by means of a vote, but I wanted to dissociate myself from those who have made such statements with respect to the Speaker and the officers of the House.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a very few minutes of the time of the Committee to make one or two comments on the amendment which is before us in respect of this question of the abolition of appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings. I noticed yesterday when the Minister of Transport was speaking that he made quite a little play on the fact that when he was on the Opposition side he had, if I remember correctly, advocated on three different occasions abolition of appeals. I must say, Mr. Chairman, having been one of the Members who was in the House at the time of what we commonly refer to as the pipe line debate, the thought that immediately crossed my mind was what his position would have been had he been on the Opposition side, in the context of that debate, in respect to the right of appeal from Mr. Speaker's rulings.
I mention this because I feel that very much of what is involved in this question of appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings depends upon the occasion and the manner in which they have taken place in the past. I certainly agree with the Minister of Transport and with others who suggested that there has developed all too frequently a practice of appealing Mr. Speaker's rulings on grounds other than the simple merits of the ruling itself. If I may say so, I think that that change has taken place to quite an extent since the period when I first entered this House in 1953, a time when appeals were of very rare occurrence indeed and were something which no Member of the House thought of making lightly.
While I realize that the present Minister of Transport had an entirely different view from that which I had on the subject matter of the pipe line debate, nevertheless I would hope he would agree that, at least on some of the appeals which were made against the ruling of the Chair during the debate, the

Opposition did have a legitimate right to feel that there had been a breakdown in the integrity and impartiality of the Chair. Had we not had the right of appeal under those circumstances, then I think there would have been a very difficult situation in Parliament, and perhaps the effect upon Parliament as an institution might have been even worse than that particular episode, in my view, demonstrated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman has sought to interpret my views, I hope he will not take my silence as indicating agreement with the views he has just expressed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was not disposed to agree that that necessarily was the case, but I am quite happy to have the Minister clarify his own position in this regard.
The reason I have sought to express my own feeling in this regard in supporting the amendment is that if a situation of that kind developed at some future time in this Parliament, then the kind of mechanism proposed by the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam could be a very useful and necessary safety valve to protect the integrity of the Speakership, and also the integrity of parliament as an institution.
I will not add much more, Mr. Chairman, except to say that one of the things I found rather puzzling when I came back to this House after an absence of some four years was to discover that the practice of voting when Mr. Speaker's ruling was challenged had altered so as at least to give the appearance that an appeal from a ruling of Mr. Speaker had become a party matter. In other words, as matters have stood in this Parliament and the last Parliament, if Mr. Speaker's ruling is appealed the normal practice seems to have developed whereby the Leader of the Government first rises to indicate that Mr. Speaker's ruling should be sustained. Whereas unless I am very much mistaken the practice in former years was, at least technically in the form of voting, that it was regarded as having nothing to do with party structure and it was usually a private Member on the front bench on the Government side who was the first to rise.
If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, I think this practice has tended to aggravate the development of a tendency in the minds of many people and many Members of this House to think that when we are called upon to vote on a challenge of a ruling we would
June 10, 1965
normally divide on party lines, as we would either for or against a Government measure. I think this has been a contributing factor to what I consider to be the rather hasty and ill-considered proposal of the Government for the complete abolition of appeals.
The Minister of Transport tried to suggest that if we had any hope of obtaining a continuity of the Speakership this could not be achieved, first of all, without abolishing appeals. In my view, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has put the cart before the horse. As far as I am concerned the logic is all on the side of the complete converse of that. If we can devise ways and means of achieving some continuity of the Speakership, and if this House can be guided and directed in its deliberation for a period of time by someone who has enjoyed the confidence of more than one parliament, then I think the question of the abolition of appeals would be more easily resolved, on all sides of the House. The only way we can be convinced that we have established in the institution of the Speakership someone who is beyond and above the kind of pressures to which many of us in this House feel Mr. Speaker of that day yielded in 1956, would be the acceptance of the idea of a permanent or continuing Speakership. I must say it is difficult for us to agree to endorse the idea of the abolition of appeals from rulings of the Chair, in the absence of such an arrangement.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is in this light that the proposal advanced by my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam should be considered. He has proposed a mechanism which would eliminate the kind of frivolous or tactical appeals which have been made from time to time and which I believe to have been most unfortunate. It would base the appeal purely on the question whether or not the decision of the Chair was correct. In the light of these considerations I urge the adoption of the amendment now before the Committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The question on the amendment is now being put. No Member should be allowed to vote after the motion has been put. Those hon. Members who have just come in should not take part in the vote.
Amendment (Mr. Douglas) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 40.
I declare the amendment lost.
Does this conclude the discussion of section 2 of the resolution before the Committee?
House of Commons Procedures


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it my understanding that we now revert to the consideration of section I?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there may be some discussion on section 1. Indeed, I am opposed to its general purport, namely sitting through meal hours, sitting overtime and so on. But I rise at this time for the purpose of moving a simple amendment which I think is in accord with the Government's intention and which I hope the Government and the Committee of the whole may accept.
My amendment relates to what could happen in the period after the normal hour of adjournment. There is a provision in subsection (2) of the proposed Standing Order under which the House might continue sitting after six o'clock on Wednesday or Friday or after ten o'clock on Monday, Tuesday or Thursday. The Government has said the reason for pursuing this is in order that the House or the committee of the whole might be able to finish some business with which it was seized at that moment. But the Order as now drafted makes it possible, once the adjournment hour has gone by, for the Government to go on calling other items on the order paper and thus keep Members here all night, trying for example to finish a session. That might be a commendable objective at some point but, generally speaking, it is a situation which could lead to abuse. I take the Government at its word that all it wants by this provision is the right, unless more than ten Members object, to continue after ten o'clock in order to complete whatever Order had been called. Therefore, to make this clear, I move:
That paragraph (2) of the proposed Standing Order 6 be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the sentence which reads "No debate or formal vote shall be held on such a motion to extend a sitting", the following new sentence:
"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 hours of adjournment."
As I say, the purpose of this amendment is simply to make it clear that this rule if it passes will be used only for the purpose for which the Government has told us the rule is desired. I wish in all fairness to enter the caveat that even if this amendment passes I still do not like the new Standing Order and there will be other comments on it. But since there may be agreement on this

June 10, 19SS

House of Commons Procedures safeguard, I think it might be cleared up first.


George James McIlraith: There is one quite narrow point I should like to raise. The hon. Member says no new order should be dealt with. But the order might be for second reading of a bill; then, subsequently the House might wish to continue with another stage. Or suppose a measure was being considered in committee and it was desired to go on to third reading. Has the hon. gentleman thought about this point? Otherwise, we could agree with the suggested amendment. I did discuss the matter and we had intended to raise it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly did think about the point which the Minister has raised. I ask him not to press that the amendment go further than I have suggested. I used the word "order" as meaning something listed on the order paper. If an order for second reading had been called prior to ten o'clock, the way this amendment is worded, that could carry on. If an order for consideration in committee of the whole had been called before ten o'clock, having gone into committee of the whole we could carry on. But I do not think it would be a good thing to word this rule in such a way that having finished the Committee stage of a bill we could go on to third reading or go on from second reading to the Committee stage. I think the Government should be taken at its word that it wants this rule in order that we may complete some particular item which had been engaging our attention before ten o'clock. The Minister of Transport made this clear. The President of the Privy Council made it clear, and I hope I have made it clear by this amendment.


George James McIlraith: Yes. I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I was trying to question him for clarification. We are quite prepared to accept the amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair would like to put the amendment. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Howard:: Like my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre I am not favourably disposed to the original proposition concerning this Standing Order. Such being the case it seems silly or asinine for me to vote for the amendment now before us. I say this with all respect to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and to my other colleagues.

I fail to see how we can support a proposal which seeks to amend a bad proposition so as to make it a little more acceptable. We intend to fight against this idea of giving the Government open-ended permission to develop its legislation by means of exhausting Members completely night after night as has been done in the past.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am not in favour of the amendment or of the original proposal. It may well be that we will have to spend from now until five p.m. tomorrow debating this particular matter, thus denying to Members the opportunity to move amendments to other proposed changes. There is one matter of extreme importance on which I should like to move an amendment later, but if the debate on this point carries on interminably we are quite prepared to accept that.
Because of past experience both with this Government and other governments. I am not in any respect prepared to accept the principle that we should be required to legislate by exhaustion at four o'clock in the morning merely because of the desire of the Government either to rush something through or to cram something down the throats of Members of this House. So far as I am concerned, this proposal is far worse than the so-called guillotine to which the Tories were spuriously objecting a few days ago.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before you put the question I should like to ask this question. If this amendment is carried, what will it really mean? I know what it says. I know what the contention is. However, if second reading takes place at three o'clock in the morning and there is agreement to proceed with third reading, does the amendment mean that the House does not have control of its own affairs and cannot by unanimous consent proceed with third reading at that time? I doubt that this can be accomplished in this manner. If it cannot be accomplished in this manner, all we are really doing is trying to make acceptable something that obviously is not acceptable to most Members, and they want to provide a safeguard.
I suggest that this highlights one of the problems we are going to have with these rule changes. We are trying to eliminate the opportunity to accomplish something that the majority may wish to do, and I think this type of change should be seriously considered before it is decided upon. By adopting this amendment we can make changes in this
June 10, 1965

section that I am sure will be acceptable to the Government, bnt I wonder whether this will grant the power to a minority who may be opposed to prevent the majority from proceeding to deal with an additional stage at that late hour. I think we should always realize the fact that on occasions Governments do bow to Opposition objections and it may be that at two or three o'clock in the morning, or later, it is easier to arrive at progressive amendments than at other times. If agreement is arrived at to give second reading to a measure, it is probable that the introduction of third reading and passage of the bill would also be warranted.
I think the Members of this Committee will be very asinine if they lay down rules that do not accomplish what we want, but the very opposite. If in the end we arrive at a point where we cannot progress with the business at a more rapid rate through the usual method of amendment and agreement, these rules will be a detriment rather than an asset.


Lucien Lamoureux: The Committee has heard the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) agreed to on division.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude the discussion of section 1?


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. The second last speaker said that the Government would have the power to move a motion. As I read paragraph 2, it provides for the making of a motion that the House continue to sit. Does this mean that only the Government can make such a motion or that any Member may do so?


George James McIlraith: Any Member may make it.


Frank Howard: In practice only the Government will take advantage of this provision.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am always hopeful that the hon. Member for Skeena may change, and possibly he will be moving such a motion many times in the future. Who knows?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't suggest it; he might do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some of us do not share that hope.
House of Commons Procedures


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I want to propose an amendment which is being moved at the request of some hon. Members. It has to do with the clarification of section 2 of the proposed new Standing Order. A question was raised as too whether or not it was sufficiently clear that the Speaker had the authority to interrupt the proceedings after the supper hour and call the postponed vote. In order to improve the wording and make it clear that it was the intention that Mr. Speaker should have the right to interrupt whatever proceedings were going on after the supper hour and take the postponed vote, I move:
That clause 1 of the proposed resolution be amended by striking out section 3 of the proposed Standing Order 6 and substituting therefor:
"Standing Order 6 Section (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 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."
It will be seen that this is merely a clarification of the point in order to make it very clear that Mr. Speaker has the authority to interrupt any proceedings before the House for the purpose of taking a postponed vote.


Mr. Lambert:: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, this meets the point I had raised privately.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I think this point is clear but, as did the Minister of Transport, I should like to make sure that silence does not mean consent and that in supporting this amendment we are not supporting thereby some of the principles that arise that make this amendment necessary. In other words, if we allow this amendment to carry it does not mean that the resolution cannot be further amended in such a way as to make the proposed provision in effect null and void or superfluous.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude the discussion on section 1?
June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr, Peters:: I am not sure how to do it, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to delete the whole of the section. Perhaps all I have to do is move a motion that we delete the whole section. I am one of those who believe that we should not go back to barbaric conditions of giving up our lunch or dinner hours. The supper hour means more in Canada perhaps than it does in a number of other countries. I ask the Government to reconsider this provision. A limit of 36 days has already been established for estimates and the House is going to put on a further limit. I suggest the Government reconsider the idea of establishing a regular supper hour as we have it in the Standing Order. The Standing Order indicates the House shall not sit between six and eight. The amendment provides, by inference, that we shall not adjourn for a supper hour.
There is no question about it, if a Member of Parliament is doing his job he starts at nine o'clock in the morning with committees and attends the House in the afternoon. He should be entitled, therefore, to some reasonable period for a supper hour. The lunch hour in Canada, in my opinion, is not as important as the supper hour. The dinner hour may be celebrated at a different time in other countries than it is in Canada. I believe we are being silly, Mr. Chairman. I believe we are being silly enough that I will try to bring this to the attention of the House and the country in a very vocal way in the next few weeks by being more obnoxious than I have been in the past. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is no idle threat and I do not believe I will have any disagreement on that.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Arnold Peters: Hon. Members can say
"Shame" all they like. I think we are adults in this country. Let us discuss for a moment what has happened over a period of time. We have had in the opposition one of the best lawyers that have been around Parliament for a long time, in the form of our previous legal counsel, who is now in another place. Many Members of the House of Commons developed good ideas for introducing new legislation during Private Members hour, through motions, through bills and other procedures that were seldom ever used. Now, the operation of this House has been such, and I will be prepared to talk about that during this debate, that it has not been able to cope with this problem.
[The Chairman.]
When I first came here there were probably half a dozen major bills in the names of private Members. Now, there are a hundred or more, some of which are worth while. It is true also that each Member has spent a great deal of time with the various departments and given a great deal of thought to the subject matter of these bills. What has the Government said? It has really said: We hate the idea of having to sit here and have our Government Members stand up and talk out these very good ideas. Let us refer to one of those good ideas. I have seen most of the influential Liberals, as well as some Conservatives, at a recent meeting with regard to the abolition of capital punishment. These are the same Members who loved the capital punishment bill to death for a number of years. They loved it to death because the Government of the day did not have the guts to do anything about it. They have no guts yet. They are going to do something about it in a roundabout way. What are they going to do?
They have decided this is a rather dangerous thing. They are going to have private Members hour. We are going to gain therefore body is going to be here. Let us waive the right of a quorum; let us waive the right of any press coverage that a private Member might get, and not do anything for the private Member. The Government will not even have to face a vote during that period if anybody gets up and objects to it. Surely, as adults we can come up with a better system than that. Really, we are going to extend the hours by only one hour because the Government has not been able to cope with private Members hour. We are going to gain therefore only one hour. Does the House Leader honestly think he is going to get away with this? I do not know what vehicle we will use. I am not sure we are going to find one right away, but I am sure we will find one. I am sure also, because I have seen it happen that if the Leader of the Opposition in this House finds we have a good vehicle and use it two or three times he will throw his weight behind it. If I do not hit it the first time I will get it the second.
Surely, we can arrive at a better solution of the problem that has developed in the last few years with regard to private Members hour. There will not be anybody here during the supper hour, there will not be anybody in the press gallery, so that an individual can make a speech for his riding back home. In the consumer credit field alone,
June 10, 1965	COMMONS
there are seven or eight excellent bills in my opinion, bills that this Government should have introduced or previous Governments should have introduced. They are bills that the Government is going to have to consider, and they contain well thought out proposals. They are not crack-pot ideas directed to somebody in the home constituency. These are attempts by backbenchers who have not had an opportunity to make a contribution in the House. These Members, some with a legal background in this field, have considered the matter and offered the Government some solutions. It is not going to be good enough to slough these off in the supper hour. I do not believe the Government is going to get away with it.
Surely we are not going to be so barbaric as to say we do not want any regular hours. How stupid have we been over the years? Only last year, Mr. Chairman, did we decide to have regular holidays. We did not even have July 1 off, which was the celebration of the birth of our Dominion. We are so foolish in this country that we did not even get around to that. We got St. Jean Baptiste Day as a holiday, although some of us do not even know what the celebration is about. But we got that day because we would not have obtained the other holidays without including that. We jump from crisis to crisis in trying to solve the problems of this House. Surely any bunch of school kids in a club they might set up would have been able to devise better solutions to their problems.
There has been no advantage whatever, in my opinion, in the extension of hours. If we know what the business of the country is, if we have prepared the legislation and presented it to parliament, then parliament has some responsibility. Every day we hear about a new piece of legislation that has to be introduced before the summer holidays. The House Leader has not even as yet told us when those holidays are going to be. We know we are going to have a holiday on June 24 and July 1. It would be logical for us to assume that we might include the long week end in that holiday, and we really would not put the conduct of business farther behind if that were understood. We can think back to the fact that we got a holiday in the wintertime for two months, not because the House needed it but simply because the Government was not ready to do anything else.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


William Arnold Peters: Well, it is true. We have not had any major legislation introduced since
DEBATES	2215
House of Commons Procedures this session began. The budget was introduced, but they said it had already been prepared. The Throne Speech could have been lifted holus-bolus out of the last one without really hurting anything. The Government Members may not know it, but really we have not advanced any farther, in so far as providing the country with a program of legislation is concerned, than we were when we ended debate in the last session, at which time there were 25 or 26 important pieces of legislation which had not been considered at all. Most of them are not kicking around any more, showing they have been forgotten and how unimportant they were.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Most hon. Members I have talked to feel there should be some period for supper hour. Most people think we are civilized enough in this country to have a regular supper hour. Over the years we have been able to curtail many of the formalities. We have been able to speed up our business procedure. Now we have agreed to curtail time spent on estimates. We have made a number of concessions which the Government should appreciate.
We have agreed that the regular adjournment hour may be waived at any time so that we may continue to discuss certain legislation before the House, until Government orders are called the next day. I for one am prepared to sit all night if it serves any reasonable purpose, but we should at least be a little sympathetic to the staff.
The Clerk of the House is not well, but we have not appointed a second one. We have really no officials at the Table prepared to take on the onerous duties they must handle during our regular supper hours. Our staff carries a heavy work load. We have not the necessary stenographic staff; we have not the necessary Hansard staff; we have not the necessary translation staff to cope with the longer hours. There are advertisements in every paper one picks up seeking staff in all these branches. We have not sufficient staff now; yet the Government, with tongue in cheek, is asking to extend the hours and take away from our employees some of the amenities previously enjoyed.
If there were good reason for this we could agree to it on occasion, and have done so. It will be recalled that early one session we decided it might be a good thing to extend the hours and sit on Wednesday afternoons and Friday nights. At that time I was prepared to sit on Sundays too. I do not know
June 10, 1065

House of Commons Procedures why everybody throws up their hands at Sunday. It is a day in which we could fill four or five hours if we wished, and I do not see why that particular day should be overlooked.
It will be recalled that the hon. Member for Port Arthur moved to extend the hours early that session. The Government of the day accepted the motion, but that session went on for seven or eight months and turned out to be the longest session until that time. On occasions since then we have extended our sitting hours and sitting days, and on other occasions we did not need to do so. But all the time we find sessions getting longer and longer.
I suggest it would be completely barbaric to eliminate the supper hour. It will lower the mental objectivity of Members who have to sit during these extra hours, and I am prepared to do what I can to point out to the people of the country the ridicule that is deserved by a government that stoops to this method of extending the hours.
The supper hour should be maintained, and the Government is going to have to face a problem with private Members hour. I do not know what the solution to that will be, but very shortly the Government will face this problem.
I am prepared to move an amendment deleting sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the proposed Standing Order 6.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude discussion on clause 1?


William Arnold Peters: I am moving an amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no amendment before the Chair at the moment. Is the hon. Member preparing one?


Frank Howard: While my colleague is preparing his amendment perhaps I may say a word or two to express my agreement with what he has said. It is a fact, as the hon. Member for Timiskaming so ably pointed out, that with all this desire to extend the hours, giving the Government the right to legislate by exhaustion, the right to move a motion without notice, without any indication of time contained within that motion, the invasion of the normal lunch and dinner hours, and the relegation of private Members hour to an even more minor position than it has at present, will not add one bit to the so-called efficient dispatch of public business in the House. Such things have not done so in the past and 1 cannot foresee their doing it in the future.

We could accomplish that end if, at the beginning of a session, and at regular intervals throughout, the Government indicated so far as possible the measures it would like to see passed and by what time, and asked the co-operation of the House to that end. If the Government is reasonable there will not be objection.
Governments have made such requests in the past, and whenever a government has been reasonable, has come forward openly and frankly to parliament and laid its cards on the table, by and large parliament has agreed with it and has done its best to meet the timetable set out.
I do not see why this Government should try to operate in a different fashion unless, of course, it simply does not know where it is going, that it has no idea about the course of its business or the policies it would like to see enacted-just fumbling along from day to day, as in the case of Liberal governments in the past, trying to get free of Parliament as soon as possible so that they can get on with the business of running the country by secret Order in Council.
The Minister of Transport laughs, whether at what I have said or something he has read I do not know; but we all know his attitude to parliament is to say whatever is convenient to parliament in order to get government business agreed upon, even if it means some underhand skulduggery to get parliament to agree to it.
Might I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As yet no formal motion has been received by the Chair. Perhaps before I call it five o'clock I might read the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Timiskaming. The hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) moves:
That standing order 6(1) be amended by deleting subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) in resolution 15.
In order to permit the House to proceed to the consideration of private Members' business, it is my duty to leave the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bas-
June 10, 1965
[Stage Direction]
ford for the second reading of Bill No. C-95, to incorporate Laurentide Bank of Canada, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Belanger.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are considering Bill No. C-95 concerning which an amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) to give the bill the six months' hoist.
I rise this afternoon to support this amendment to give the bill the six months' hoist. In view of the fact that during the next few weeks we will be once more examining the Bank Act for the purpose of renewing existing bank charters, I believe that every member of this house should be entitled to examine the Bank Act more carefully so they can move new amendments and play a role which will be better appreciated by the people of Canada.
As the Prime Minister said during the week, we shall soon examine the Bank Act. When the new bank charters are granted, perhaps those who seek a charter through Bill No. C-95, such as the Laurentide Bank of Canada, will have changed their minds and will want a bank charter enabling them to offer certain services to certain parts of the country.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I did a few days ago when I spoke on a similar bill, I want to assure the house once again this afternoon, that I am not opposed to banks as such, but rather to the granting of present bank charters.
We need bank branches to make certain credit transactions and to put at the disposal of the people a place to make their deposits and to put their savings in safety. I agree that our chartered banks have rendered great services in that connection in the past and I do not see why they should not continue to do so in the future.
Moreover, I believe that the present bank charters give too much power to the banks, which in fact are private institutions, by allowing them to accumulate credit which is a source of excessive power, to the point where they can direct the country's economy as they see fit.
It has been said that capital is accumulated work. I agree but, since one cannot do everything, accumulation is done by a few while the others work.
Private Bills
We have seen in the past that the powers granted to lending institutions such as chartered banks enabled them to direct the country's economy at will, thus permitting them to alternate periods of progress and depression. As a rule, they are the ones which generally decide on such periods.
We have seen people interested in production or services take advantage of economic progress periods to expand their industries, their businesses or their services and to invest capital through the sale of shares, bonds or borrowing. They did it in the past and nothing shows that, under the present banking system, they could not keep on doing it in times of economic progress. But before they had time to pay back their loans came a depression decided upon by the same financial authorities which, in many cases, caused industries and businesses to lose everything they had invested in expansion.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not approve of the present financial system. That is why I will propose-and I think many members will do likewise during consideration of this bank bill-amendments so that the present financial system may be reformed and that the issuing of credit may no longer be left in the hands of a few individuals but may be controlled by the Bank of Canada together with the Canadian government which administers the affairs of the country and represents all Canadians.
If the Creditistes in particular objected to applications for the creation of new chartered banks, they had another reason: similar applications had been made by a certain province and they were practically denied.
I know that right now two provinces are interested in owning bank shares but apparently the federal government does not want to grant them that privilege.
I think that until now only British Columbia and Quebec have expressed the desire to own bank shares. On the other hand, I know that one province in particular, that is British Columbia, has submitted a petition in the form of a bill to obtain a bank charter. That bill is now in the other place and since the Senate stands adjourned until June 22, it is obvious that the bill will not be passed before the end of June or at least that it will not be submitted to the House of Commons before then.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the bill concerning the incorporation of the Bank of British Columbia had been introduced in the

June 10, 1965
Private Bills
house, we would have asked that the three bills be referred to the committee on banking and commerce for a special study; but as the said bill still remains in the Senate, we will have to wait until it comes before the house, is examined and referred to the committee on Banking and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I referred a while ago to the fact that some provinces want to own bank shares. A few weeks ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) stated that he would object thereto.
When these two provinces expressed the wish to own bank shares, I kept wondering where this would lead us; in short, what was their purpose. So I drew a parallel between the two provinces concerned, namely British Columbia and Quebec, and I wondered what could induce the authorities of those provinces to want to own bank shares.
So far as British Columbia is concerned, I sympathize with the provincial authorities, since the province records surpluses and has no debts so to speak; thus, the holding of bank shares would place it in a beneficial position.
On the other hand, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, a province which is up to its ears in debt, I wondered what would be the use of holding bank shares in its case. But when I heard the Minister of Finance stating that a bill would be introduced to prevent the Canadian provinces from holding bank shares-
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr, Basford:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see that the hon. Member's remarks are relevant to the bill before us.


Gérard Laprise: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the few points I am raising now are precisely meant to explain why I am supporting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Charlevoix, to have this bill given the six months' hoist.
As I was saying, the federal government's refusal to allow the provinces to own bank shares goes against the constitution in my opinion, because the British North America Act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If I may, I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the comments he is making now seem to go a little beyond the limits of the subject under discussion and I

suggest that he come back to the bill now before us, which deals with the incorporation of the Laurentide Bank of Canada.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your remarks and if I strayed away from the subject, it was precisely to make known the reasons why I support the amendment of the hon. Member for Charlevoix proposing a six months' hoist with respect to that bill.
Mr. Speaker, we now have before us two bills to incorporate chartered banks. On the other hand, everybody-including you, sir- knows that another group of businessmen has called for a bank charter, and I want to deal with those three petitions at the same time. I was saying that the British North America Act, and particularly section 91, subsection 13, allotted property rights to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when this measure is officially put before the house, we will have the opportunity to object and to have provincial rights recognized. Moreover, according to the reports of the Senate committee which considered the matter, the Laurentide Bank of Canada which Bill No. C-95 tends to incorporate is nothing but an offshoot of a finance company called the Laurentide Finance Company.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that when the debate on the revision of the Bank Act is resumed within a few days, we will then be better prepared to determine whether it would be useful to grant new bank charters in Canada.
A few days ago, during consideration of another similar bill, I mentioned that the banks had more than 5,300 branches across the country, and that they were in a position to render the services which the people are entitled to.
When the revision of the Bank Act has been completed, I am of the opinion that perhaps we will be better informed to make a thorough study of any new application for a chartered bank.


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, once again we are considering Bill C-95 entitled: "An act to incorporate the Laurentide Bank of Canada" and the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) to the effect that Bill C-95 should not be read a second time, but that it should be given a six month's hoist.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the other place, to which were submitted three bills to incorporate banks, has rejected one and passed the other two. I think that it
June 10, 1965

would have been advisable and essential for the Senate to pass those three applications for the incorporation of banks and then to send them to the House of Commons, before they were referred to the committee on banking and commerce after second reading.
I am really amazed to see that the business men going under the name of The Lau-rentide Bank of Canada are dead set on presenting a bill to get a bank charter, while they are perfectly aware that a bill to amend the Bank Act and banking is already on the order paper. In fact, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said something about it barely two days ago. Since that resolution must be considered prior to July 1, I fail to see what would be the use of accepting or granting new chartered banks before we get the result of the Bank Act revision. [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
These people who are asking for a bank charter seem in a great hurry. It looks as if there is something in it for them. That is why we do not want new chartered banks approved until the Bank Act has been examined by the House of Commons.
On several occasions over the last few years, we denounced the excessive discretionary powers granted to the present chartered banks. These powers are too wide because they give some individuals absolute control over the whole country's economy.
Chartered banks are the very basis of our country's monetary system and, consequently, of its economic life.
A country's monetary system is, with regard to its economy, the wheel, accelerator and brakes of an automobile, that is the most important parts of the car.
In fact with the powers they hold at the present time, the chartered banks control all the economic activity of our nation. They can speed it up, as it happens in certain years, or slow it down, as they please.
We have had an example of this during the depression years from 1929 to 1939. It was not that the people were not able to work or produce, but the chartered banks had restricted credit in order to control in an even more frightening way, the economic blood stream of the nation, i.e. money.
The chartered banks hold in their allpowerful hands the economic life or the economic life blood of individuals, companies and in fact, of the whole nation. Our economic life will have its ups and downs depending on the way they increase or tighten credit.
Private Bills
It is to remove or reduce the influence of chartered banks at the present time and show the deadly danger of leaving in the hands of some individuals such a dangerous weapon which can increase or decrease credit, that is the reason I object to the setting up of new chartered banks.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), namely: that we should not accept, now or at any time, these new chartered banks; that the measure be hoisted six months and that we wait for the outcome of debates in the House of Commons concerning the Bank Act, which should come up in a few weeks, in view of the announcement made yesterday or the day before, by the Prime Minister himself.
That is why we should agree to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, so that it will not be said that the war ended for lack of warriors, I take the liberty of coming back to Bill No. C-95, an application by a group of persons who have the privilege, like others throughout the country, of operating a banking business.
I would not deny them that right, provided we are properly enlightened on their aims and on the possible repercussions of granting such a right to that group of financiers who, from certain information we have, already possess considerable power in the country's financial or monetary affairs.
Among the applicants we see the names of Mr. Peter Paul Saunders, executive, Mr. Elliott Saxton, executive, Mr. William Cross-ley Mainwaring, executive. All those men are also managers, directors or shareholders of a finance company known as Laurentide Finance. Most of them gave evidence before the Senate committee.
According to No. 1 of the report of proceedings, Mr. Peter Saunders testified on Wednesday, May 27, 1964, that the promoters of this bank are well-intentioned and have been planning for several years to own a bank charter which would surely enable them to broaden their monetary activities, within the country and, I would even say, abroad. That explains what they intend to do with respect to the distribution of the capital stock of that bank. Page 9 of the report of the standing committee, reads as follows:
-it is now intended that the bank will be financed by a portion of the capital to be issued

June 10, 1985
Private Bills
being offered to the shareholders of Laurentide Financial Corporation Ltd.,
-a finance company which has been doing business about ten years in Canada, both in the province of Quebec and in the other provinces, under the legislation governing small loans companies and consumer credit companies.
We all know that interest rates are charged on those small loans granted consumers for the purchase of production or consumer goods. Those people would be given a powerful weapon should they be granted, through a chartered bank which they would own themselves, the power to multiply the promissory notes signed by the borrowers of the Laurentide Financial Corporation Ltd., because for all such loans, the borrower must necessarily sign a note whereby he promises to reimburse every month on a certain date, during a period of 10, 12, 24 or 30 months, an amount which includes the principal and interest.
But when we examine those loans, we realize that the rate of interest charged is unreasonable.
The granting of this charter to the petitioners would therefore mean that vested rights would be given to persons who already exercise very strong powers in the monetary field in this country.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The Minister of Finance stated recently that he hoped the Canadian Parliament would, through the Bank of Canada, exercise better control, I would even say closer control, over the amount of money in circulation or over the money supply in Canada.
I do not think his goal will be achieved by granting charters to banks or companies or persons who, I agree, have a lot of experience in banking or in money matters.
In order to clarify the matter, the witness states, as reported on page 10 of this report:
I have mentioned that we consider it desirable for the proposed bank to ally itself with Laurentide Financial Corporation Ltd., with which company a number of us appearing before you today are associated in one way or another. It may be of interest to the members of the committee to know that the directors of Laurentide Financial Corporation formed the intention, approximately eight years ago, to assist in the formation and development of a new Canadian chartered bank. This was prompted by their view, which continues today, that such an institution could be of benefit to and be assisted by that company to the advantage of each-[DOT]
I do not know whether they meant the Canadian company or their own company.

-of benefit to and be assisted by that company to the advantage of each.
He goes on to say:
Active co-operation toward this end commenced some four years ago-
Here, Mr. Speaker, is the explanation of what I referred to not only in regard to monetary and banking business in Canada but also to its important and far reaching effects-
Active co-operation toward this end commenced some four years ago when Laurentide Financial Corporation Ltd., together with local interests, formed the Commonwealth Industrial Bank Limited in the Bahama Islands. At about the same time, the company began to locate its offices in Canada in premises which could be suitable for the operation of bank branches. There are now more than 70 such locations distributed amongst the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Thus a man could, perhaps under normal circumstances, go to the bank to borrow $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 and be turned down. He might then climb one flight of stairs in the same building and go to the Laurentide Finance Limited where he could obtain a loan at the rate of 18 or 24 per cent interest. The next day, the same note used on the next floor up has now come down and meets the terms required under the Bank Act by those moneymakers controlling the economic blood of the nation. They are becoming the true masters of family life and individuals and they also control this parliament to a very large extent.
Certain facts are quite revealing, according to this:
A correlation of the growth in national income and the assets of all the Canadian chartered banks shows a remarkably similar pattern. In the nine-year period ending December 31, 1963, the national income increased by 72 per cent as did the assets of the chartered banks.
Assets of chartered banks, therefore, have also shown the same increase as the national income, that is an increase of 72 per cent in nine years of operation, nine years of labour by the Canadian people, nine years of intensive development of our natural resources. During the same period, the Canadian chartered banks, of which there are eight, recorded the same rate of progress.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have the right to ask for more accurate information. We want to obtain fuller information concerning banking operations. That is why we are in favour of setting up a committee, to make a thorough investigation of our banking system as well as of the recommendations of the Porter commission. In allowing private enterprise, that
June 10, 1965

is, those institutions called banks, to create and control the economic lifeblood of the nation, that is money, be it coins, currency or scrip money, in the form of figures, in my opinion we are failing in our duty as representatives of the people in Parliament.
It has been said and repeated many times that governments have failed to carry out their lofty purpose because they allowed private enterprise to control money, credit, at will; because they gave the chartered banks the absolute control over the creation of credit, the monetizing of credit in Canada.
I think we would be remiss in view of the fact that within a few months, that is by December 31, we will revise the Bank Act in this country.
We have witnessed too many financial ups and downs in Canada, that is times of the lean kind, corresponding to credit restrictions which lead to immediate economic crises, as a result of which we starve in spite of an abundance of wheat, and we realize that periods of prosperity occur when international or national interests must be adequately protected. Then, large credit facilities are made available and the sky is the limit when war production is concerned. Nevertheless, in the past, we have experienced the effect of credit restrictions, especially between 1930 and 1939. The situation was the same in 1932 and 1953 when restrictions were set. It was a period of unemployment and the situation was very serious in the country at a time when there were 700,000 to 800,000 unemployed. Was there a shortage of natural resources, workers, brains and roads to be built? Definitely not. Everything had slowed down in the field of consumption and the use of consumer goods.
Then, if money can have such important repercussions on the Canadian people as a whole, it is normal we should consider it as a social instrument, rather than, as suggested by the banks, as a third commodity that they have the privilege to manufacture as they please, but actually as a social instrument to be distributed and put into circulation at the same rate as society itself, through scientific progress, the labour of man and the development of natural resources. It should be distributed as a commodity at the disposal of human beings. Goods exist in order to satisfy our needs. This third commodity, as suggested by bankers, being controlled by private enterprise called banks, does not always constitute a bond between the two. That is why if we do not always support the views of those
Private Bills
so-called economists who warn us of periods of recession and of tighter credit especially for workers and farmers, because when the big fellows are on the verge of bankruptcy, credit is released and new life is put into the economy. When the wheel turns too fast, credit is once again curtailed.
Such are the theories advocated, for instance, by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) who explained them in a document put at the disposal of Quebec citizens. As far as we are concerned, our economic theories are to give new life to the Canadian people so that they will no longer be deprived in the midst of prosperity and the poorest will be sure to get enough to live on thanks to the government which, in the exercise of its sovereign rights, will control through its agencies normal social credit which will allow for a better development of our wealth and will give our poor classes a chance to enjoy the country's prosperity.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many times this bill has been before the House in this session and we remember, of course, that it was also before the House on a number of occasions in the last session. This is the first time I have entered the debate and I assure the House my intervention will be very brief.
There is a new development in Canada which is more or less a reversal of the trend in past years, when the number of banks operating in this country was constantly decreasing. In recent months there have been three applications for charters and it would seem that this is all to the good. I believe this development is a healthy one that should be welcomed. I do not know whether it will result in making it a little more uncomfortable for those already engaged in the banking business in Canada, but I am sure it will eventually be to the advantage of the economy and of our people as a whole.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Now, the principle of competition in banking has been urged by the Royal Commission as necessary to the proper and adequate functioning of our financial system. I believe the suggestion that has been made that there is already adequate competition amongst the various banks of our country is open to question. In the banking commission report we received some time ago two dangers were pointed out. The first was the danger of agreements which would limit competition amongst

June 10, 1965
Private Bills
financial institutions. The second was the concentration of the financial system.
This is not the time, Mr. Speaker, to discuss over-all banking procedure and the monetary system. We are looking forward to the opportunity of debating this more fully when we return to the various bank items that have been introduced and which will be considered at a later date. There have been several developments that are giving cause for great concern. First of all, there was the announcement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) concerning his intention to introduce amendments which would prohibit provincial governments from owning bank's shares. This subject may be considered a little beyond the ambit of this particular bill, but it does mean that provincial governments would not be able to invest any money whatever in the shares of this particular bank, were it to be granted a charter. 1 think the Minister of Finance knows very well that when he brings this matter before the House there is going to be serious opposition taken to it. It is going to be criticized most strongly because we are definitely of the opinion this is something that should not be done; he should not forbid provincial governments purchasing the shares of banks. We believe it is an infringement of the rights of the elected representatives of the people in another jurisdiction to introduce such a measure. This is one of the things that is causing a great deal of concern and it does enter our minds when we are discussing the measure we have before us.
The other factor is the action of the other place in dealing with applications such as the one we have before us today. As has been pointed out, there were three applications to the other place during the last session. It seems that two were granted without serious opposition, yet the third was turned down. When the report of the Banking and Commerce Committee of the other place was dealt with, one application was rejected and the matter referred back to the Banking and Commerce Committee. The interesting thing is, Mr. Speaker, that the application of the Bank of British Columbia was referred by the other place to the Banking and Commerce Committee. Then the other place immediately took a long recess. It does not seem as though they are too much interested in getting this particular application through, at least not as much interested as they were in getting the other two applications through. These things seem rather strange. There may be certain considerations that enter into the

picture which may be questioned, but it certainly looks rather strange from this vantage point.
There are other things that I believe are of interest about the particular bill before us. It has been indicated the bank intends to establish headquarters in Vancouver. We all appreciate the tremendous developments that are taking place in British Columbia. Certainly I think that Province warrants something like this. I feel it is a good thing so far as this particular measure is concerned. Then, too, the directors are residents of Canada. This is commendable because in the past there has been a great deal of opposition to the acquisition of Canadian enterprises and industry by those outside our borders. This is a desirable feature, therefore, of this particular measure.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the multiplication of banking institutions in Canada is a desirable thing. I have no particular objection to this particular bill except this, and it has been mentioned several times and was dealt with specifically by the hon. Member for Lake St. John (Mr. Les-sard) last session, when he pointed out that the bank could possibly become the wholesale office for the retail outlets of the Laur-entide Finance Company. This is something open to question; we wonder if it is desirable. It could be abused and it could possibly have a very serious effect on our people and on our economy. Nevertheless, let me say again that I believe there should be additional banks established in Canada. For that reason, I believe that possibly we should delay the passage of this particular bill until the other one comes from the other place. Then, as has been pointed out, the three could be considered together in the light of the needs of Canada for banking institutions and in the light of the debates that will possibly take place on the question of banks and banking in Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-95, an Act to incorporate the Laurentide Bank of Canada, has been under study and under consideration for a few weeks under this title, while last year we considered a similar bill from the other place.
As was stated by the hon. Member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) we have no objection to the proliferation of banking institutions or banks in Canada. On the other
June 10, 1965

Private Bills
hand we are against an application being treated differently from other applications.
Today we are considering Bill No. C-95. There is also Bill No. C-99 to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada, but the bill we do not have concerns a bank which would be called the Bank of British Columbia. This bill has not been dealt with in the other place, in the same way as the two other applications for the setting up of new banks in Canada. When the three bills respecting the settingup of banks are introduced together in the house, and referred later to the Banking and Commerce committee, we will allow the passing of Bills C-95 and C-99; but until then, if any discrimination is shown as at present, we in turn, will do likewise.
We are now considering the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), for a six months' hoist. Well, after the vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member is taken, we will introduce a further amendment for another six months' or even 12 months' hoist if necessary. So long as the other bank bill is not introduced in the same way as the other two I have just mentioned, we will vote against the others.
Bill No. C-95 provides that:
-the persons hereinafter named have by their petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth-
Precisely along the same line as the act now governing chartered banks in Canada.
-and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	Peter Paul Saunders, Executive, Andrew Elliott Saxton, Executive, William Crossley Mainwaring, O.B.E., Executive, Paul Britton Paine, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Howard Theodore Mitchell, Publisher, and Edgar John Saba, Merchant, all of the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, and Lionel Leroux, Notary, and Bernard de Lorimier Bourgeois, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, both of the City of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, together with such persons as become shareholders in the corporation by this Act created, are incorporated under the name of Laurentide Bank of Canada, hereinafter called "the Bank".
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have received in my office, among the citizens I have just mentioned, visitors from British Columbia and the province of Quebec who told me that the purpose of this bank is to give sound help to the poor French Canadians of the province of Quebec who have been unable, up to the present, to finance their own projects through their own financial institutions, and to help small wage earners in the province of Quebec to spread their wings, to gather 22620-142
economic momentum, to develop and to expand the economy of the province of Quebec.
In the province of Quebec, we have chartered banks. For instance, the National Canadian Bank, which was established by French Canadians, to assist French Canadians, to finance the province of Quebec, to finance the economic development of the province of Quebec. There is not a single Canadian bank that is stingier than the National Canadian Bank when it comes to banking operations, to assisting the economic development of a province like ours or of any province.


An hon. Member:: One has to resort to the Royal Bank.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, one has to resort to the Royal Bank.
I can see that the hon. Member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) is applauding. He probably finds it difficult to borrow from the National Canadian Bank.
The privileges requested by the Laurentide Bank are exactly those enjoyed by the other chartered banks throughout the country. What are those privileges? Well, let us assume I walk into the Laurentide Bank of Canada after it has been established, and I borrow $10,000. Under the law now governing Canada's chartered banks, I borrow $10,000 at 6 per cent interest, which amounts to $600. As I do not quite need the $10,000 immediately, I put the money into a savings account rather than a current account. The bank will pay 3 per cent interest on my savings account, that is $300 on my $10,000 deposit. This means that I lose $300 per year if I do not use the $10,000 I have borrowed.
But that is not the paradox. It is that, whenever I open a savings account in any branch of a bank in Canada, immediately my savings account is transferred to the reserve account of the said bank, and then the bank has, or will have soon, a right-if the legislation to decrease their reserve to 7 per cent comes into force-to multiply my $10,000 savings account by 14J times, thus creating $145,000 worth of credit at 6 per cent interest; this will yield the bank $8,700 in interest per year, in addition to the $600 I pay on my loan, which means $9,300 in addition to the $10,000 I borrowed one year before. That is the paradox. And that is the monetary system that the Grits as well as the Tories persist in maintaining in Canada, a system which breeds poverty and which resulted in small people becoming smaller in greater numbers and in big people getting

June 10, 1965
Private Bills
bigger in greater numbers in all Canadian provinces. In fact, the power of the banks is almost unlimited. For instance, someone may borrow out of the $145,000 created by that savings deposit because it makes up a reserve for the chartered bank, giving it authority to multiply again by 14J the amount of its reserve. We may say that Canadian banks have an unlimited power which is laid in the hands of a small group of men who are not the owners of that money but who are the depositaries of those funds that they manage as they please.
We do not object to having two, four or ten more banks in the country. We are not against the system itself. We ask that the banks have a 100 per cent reserve like the credit unions. Then, the banks will be able to lend exactly as they do today, but they will lend what they have and not what they do not have. The only institution which should have that power to multiply by 14, 15 or 20 is the Bank of Canada, owned by the Canadian people. And that is the responsibility of a Parliament that is responsible, sovereign and able to assume its own responsibilities in a country such as ours.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, we do not object to other banks being incorporated in Canada. Besides, in the committee on banking and commerce we will be able to discuss the control placed in the hands of these few individuals, but when I see the government placing before us all kinds of legislation designed to restrict private enterprise, which builds something in Canada, in brief to restrict the personality of men and individuals in Canada, then I object.
However, when we should tackle our monetary system, members on the other side of the house remain silent. In fact, to your right, people seem to be out of breath, without any voice in short they are unable to express themselves when we have to deal with monetary matters.
Well, we, in this corner of the house, the Creditistes, will not be afraid to speak time and again on this question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39-A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: (1) the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie)-C.B.C.-request for better facilities in Vancouver; (2) the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis)-Parliament Hill-provision for parking for tourist buses; (3) the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-Labour relations-Hal Banks-deposit in Montreal bank to cover wages of S.I.U. seamen.
The House will now resume the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 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 pm. as the case may be.
June 10, 1965
[Stage Direction]
(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 v.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
(Wednesday)
Questions.
Notices of motions for the production of papers. Government orders.
(From five to six o'clock v.m-Private Members' Business)
Notices of motions.
Public bills.
(Thursday)
Government orders.
Questions.
(From six to seven o'clock v.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 v.m.-Private Members' Business)
Public bills.
Private bills.
(4) When a debate on a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply is in progress at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on either a Monday or a Tuesday, 22620-142^
House of Commons Procedures 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.
June 10, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures
10.	That Standing Order 65 amended to read as follows:
Standing Order 65
65 (1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
(a)	on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development, to consist of 45 members;
(b)	on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of 22 members;
(c)	on Crown Corporations, to consist of 22 members;
(d)	on External Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(e)	on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
(f)	on Fisheries, to consist of 22 members;
(g)	on Health and Welfare, to consist of 22 members;
(h)	on Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, to consist of 22 members;
(i)	on Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration, to consist of 22 members;
(j)	on Industry, Research and Energy Development, to consist of 22 members;
(k)	on Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of 22 members;
<i) on Labour and Employment, to consist of 22 members;
(m)	on Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of 22 members;
(n)	on Miscellaneous Private Bills, to consist of 22 members;
(o)	on National Defence, to consist of 22 members;
(p)	on Northern Affairs and National Resources, to consist of 22 members;
(q)	on Privileges and Elections, to consist of 22 members;
(r) on Public Accounts, to consist of 24 members;
(s) on Standing Orders, to consist of 22 members;
(t)	on Transport and Communications, to consist of 22 members; and
(u)	on Veterans Affairs, to consist of 22 members.
(2)	The Special Committee shall also prepare and report with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees:
on Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
on the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 21 members;
provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of a standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
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 loans 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 six o'clock the Committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. When the Committee rose at 5 p.m. an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Timiskaming was being considered. Is the Committee ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee; however, the hon. Member for Timiskaming made some statements which I do not believe should go unchallenged. First he said that he could become quite obnoxious.


Reid Scott: What is wrong with that?
June 10, 1965


Mr.   Olio@: I am not going to challenge that, either. In connection with this resolution he also said that there was something wrong about sitting through the lunch and dinner hour occasionally. Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that something spectacular happens apart from the dinner hour. Consider the time now, Mr. Chairman. It is not dinner hour. I am sure we will get as good an attendance as we have had on many occasions when there is no dinner or lunch hour. On top of that, it would not do us too much harm, some of us, to miss the occasional lunch and dinner hour.


Mr. Fane:: Speak for yourself.


Norman Platt Lambert: Wear your own halo.


Mr.   Olio@: Specifically in connection with the private Members hour, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman seemed to consider that the private Members hour should be at a more appropriate time. I want to challenge that, first. I think we should try to stick to the truth and with the knowledge that private Members hour is really of little use at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: It is of very little use. Considering that a great number of Canadians are under the impression that a bill introduced by a private Member has some importance, I think it is about time we brought it to their attention that such a bill often cannot pass, and rightly so, because surely the hon. gentleman does not represent that a private Member's bill should pass without responsibility, and the Government have to take responsibility for it.
Surely no one can suggest that such a bill can always pass, and is it not just as well that, failing to do away with private Members hour completely, we should have it on some occasion when it does not interfere with the conduct of business in the House? I suggest we have come to the day when the time of the House is becoming very, very precious and it is time we dealt with the business of the Government rather than indulging in an exercise of elocution or debate. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state to the Committee that I do not believe the arguments presented by the hon. Member really have much foundation in fact.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the remarks just made by the hon. Member are probably shared to a greater or lesser degree by most of the Members of the
House oj Commons Procedures Liberal Party. It is quite true that over the years this matter of the private Members hour, and bills introduced by private Members-although some consideration has to be given to what they really are-must be of such a legislative nature that there is no financial responsibility resting on the Government. A private Member is not allowed to introduce a money bill. A money bill, of course, has to be introduced by way of resolution. While some resolutions can be introduced by private Members, the financial responsibility attaching to them has to be worded in such a way that the Government will give consideration to the spending of money, not that the Government will spend it.
This has not always been true because there have been one or two exceptions. One that comes to mind is the bill passed recently for which one of the colleagues of the hon. Member who has just spoken has taken some credit, and rightly so, whether or not the credit is on the debit or credit side of the ledger. This bill involved the matter of a very simple change in the name of our major air line, from Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. There was an incidental expense in this connection that has amounted to something like three quarters of a million dollars already, and there will probably be much more expense in the future. This I presume, because the Speaker allowed it, was an incidental expense and was really not involved in the original bill. But I think it is a fact that many of the bills which have been introduced over the years have been introduced to give some expression to a new idea and have in many cases-I referred this afternoon to the one concerned with the abolition of capital punishment-become popularized throughout the country and have actually been acted upon by the Government.
It is true that there is this caveat on the abolition of capital punishment that it is going to be a free vote. But it has been my impression since I have been in this House that there is no such thing in parliament as a free vote; that parties do insist on a certain amount of loyalty, and that we in Canada are not grown up in the political sense to the extent that we can really have what could be called a free vote.
The other matter, Mr. Chairman, is the attendance in this House. I am inclined to believe-and I think there are other hon. Members who will agree with me-that the attendance is going to be very sparse between

June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures the particular period from six o'clock to eight o'clock. I suggest that it is quite likely there will be an adjournment during that period because of the lack of a quorum. In the committees which I have attended I have not noticed a predominance of Government Members, and often the reason a quorum was not obtained earlier was that the Government had not been able to provide their share of the people to make up the committee. I believe the same thing will be true in the House and the Government will be very hard pressed to persuade Members to take part.
I would like to mention one other matter that has not been raised; that is, the role of the Official Opposition. It seems to me that the new House Leader of the Opposition cannot go completely blameless with regard to some of the things that were decided in these very complicated relationships in reference to the Standing Orders. It would appear to me-and I may be doing him an injustice-that most of these changes have been made by agreement between the two major parties in this House for the specific purpose of trying, wherever the rules will allow, to re-establish the two-party system. I am not particularly concerned about the fact that I know the Members of his party are no less interested in having a dinner hour than most of the other Members of the House. In my opinion they are not quite in the same position as the Government Members.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Member a question?


William Arnold Peters: Sure.


Maurice John Moreau: I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware of the statistics on committees attendance. I wrote to Mr. Speaker for the figures with regard to the percentage attendance, by parties, in committees. I find in the reply which the staff prepared that the attendance on the Government side was better than any other party's, certainly better than the hon. Member's.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have not come prepared to debate attendance on committees in general, and I have no intention whatever of defending my party and its attendance in committees. However, I sit on several committees, one of which is the Agriculture and Colonization Committee, and I think no one who has sat on that Committee during the past year is unaware of the fact that it is always Government Members we wait for to get that Committee started; and it is always

lack of Government Members which causes the Committee to cut short its session before the termination of the period it decided to sit.
I also point out that I am on several other committees, but as I am not statistically prepared to deal with attendances generally I can only speak about those I sit on. I am not quarrelling about this, but there is a tendency in this regard in other committees too. For example, on the Special Committee on Railways-


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. Member is suggesting that his attendance on the Agriculture Committee has given him an insight into the statistics regarding attendance on that particular Committee. I would put on record that the N.D.P. attendance-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. That is not a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. Member that the relative attendance of Members on committees is not relevant to the discussion at hand at the moment.


Maurice John Moreau: On a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. Member for Timiskaming has the floor.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is not a matter now before the Committee. The only reason I raised it was because I was wondering whether we intend to set up here something which I doubt, from past experience, will be successful in providing even a bare quorum. I am also wondering whether the Government is removing the quorum during this period. It seems to me it might be very nice if the mover of a private Member's bill could get up and make his half hour's speech and then everyone could go to supper, and we would not have to go through the rigamarole of talking it out. If the Government would withdraw their Members during private Members hour they could always call it off because there was not a quorum.
If we are contemplating that type of action, must we not be rather silly to suggest that this will really provide more time and opportunity for discussion? I do not think there is a Member in this House who is convinced there is some use in private Members bills. Private Members often find when introducing a private Member's bill that the Government give it no consideration at all. Anybody with any connections with private Members business who believes this period serves some small function, would be more interested in
June 10, 1865

having the whole procedure involving private Members business improved immensely, rather than relegating it to a period in which it is quite obvious that nobody expects any great amount of attendance.
I am not in disagreement with some of the suggestions which are made in this section. However, it was necessary to move the deletion of the four paragraphs relating to standing order 6 because the changes which are being made eliminate the existing standing order. While this does not set new hours it does eliminate the hours we now have, substituting these four paragraphs instead.
I am not sure if anyone has considered private Members hour in relation to the practice developed over the years of presenting new ideas and philosophies to the House, which the Government may eventually introduce as legislation. Offhand I cannot think of too many examples of this, but since I have been here there have been at least four or five bills which have been accepted. As the previous speaker said, I am quite prepared to admit that in the main this was not as a result of a free vote, but they were accepted by the Government and literally reintroduced with Government support. This should be a consideration when deciding on changes such as those now contemplated.
The hope of the Government, Mr. Chairman, if there is any legitimate hope, is that this will eliminate the problem of private Members hour experienced by Governments within the last four or five years. But this is a problem which we as well as the Government should face independently of rule changes. Other countries have much different ways of introducing private Members legislation. They also have different ways of introducing public legislation through private Members. I suggest that the Government may not have taken a really close look at what this is going to do to some of the legislation which is controversial, which is receiving a great deal of attention and is developing into a filibuster situation. I think the Government have found a way of getting around it, but I do suggest that in days to come the warning I have sounded will probably prove to be the fact, and this particular section will have to be renegotiated.
I have talked to a number of people who say that they agree we should have enough polish and finesse to have regular breaks for lunch. I have heard no Government Member stand up and say that this has been considered in terms of staff requirements or any

House of Commons Procedures of the physical conditions which must be met when such a change is made. I have heard a number of Members say they do not agree with this and they just won't be here. They have said: "When my Whip says to me he wants me in the House between six and eight, I won't be there". That may be all very well, Mr. Chairman, but I would suggest that these Members of Parliament also have a responsibility to Parliament. It is not always the Government which makes the correct decision; some Members who feel strongly about things should also express their opinions. Therefore I give the warning, although I am sure my warning will not be heeded, that this step is going to make for a very interesting two hour period over the next two or three weeks, and we will just see how it develops.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 60.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Obviously the majority of the Members of the committee is not in favour of the amendment which was proposed by our hon. friend from Timiskaming, despite the persuasiveness of some of the arguments he put forward. I would have been happy to have joined him in putting forward arguments on this question, but in view of the general arrangements which have been made in connection with the consideration of these proposals it is probably undesirable that we should take a too-extended period in which to discuss any one aspect of the proposed changes in the Standing Orders.
However, I do feel some consideration should be given to the proposed first paragraph of Order No. 15. I have a feeling- though I am sure the President of the Privy Council would not be prepared to admit it is correct-that when the proposal to abolish the supper recess was originally considered by him and by his colleagues who were drafting it they had in mind providing, in effect, a sop to the Opposition side of the House to make up for the proposal to restrict the number of days spent in Committee of Supply, and the other measure to restrict debate in special circumstances, which will probably be passed in one form or another. It has become obvious that if this was the intention-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Has he not been concerned
June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures about the fact that in the course of the afternoon sittings, due to the length of the time taken on routine proceedings and the question period, and taking into account the private Members hour, there is very little opportunity left for the consideration of Government business? Is the hon. Member not concerned about this?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The answer to that question is that the President of the Privy Council is proposing certain other action so as to make more time available for Government business in the afternoon. I realize we have not dealt with these proposals as yet. I am not maintaining for a moment that there have not been occasions during the last session or so when, between 2.30 and 6 p.m. the time available for the dispatch of Government business was much less that I think should have been available. I do not think this is the moment at which to discuss just how and why such a situation has arisen. I suppose each of us would have his interpretation of what has happened. Each of us could produce his own justification for actions he has taken as an individual Member which have helped to bring these circumstances about. But as I read this proposal it is that private Members business should be taken up in one of the hours which have been devoted in the past to the supper recess. Having regard to all the other proposals to speed up the dispatch of Government business which are being put forward, I do not see why this should be necessary, and I note that no argument has been put forward to explain why the House, having spent from six o'clock to seven o'clock on private Members business, should turn immediately to the consideration of Government business.
Other hon. Members have referred to the problems which the staff of the House will face. I listened with interest to a most eloquent speech on this subject by the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. So far, no spokesman for the Government has told the committee what practical measures are being proposed in an attempt to deal with this problem. I think we should have a statement from someone speaking on behalf of the Internal Economy Commission telling us just what the authorities have in mind in this regard. The President of the Privy Council very often acts as unofficial spokesman for the Commission in this House and I think we are entitled to have an assurance from him on this point. Possibly it is very well

for us to subject ourselves to the indignities which are proposed in this motion, but it is quite another matter for us to foist a situation of this kind on those who are employed in the service of the House. I hope this aspect of the matter will be clarified or that there may be some modification of the proposal as it now stands before we end discussion on this particular part of the resolution before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In line with the concluding suggestion just made by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni may I put forward an amendment which obviously represents a compromise. It was our view, and it still is, that it is a mistake to add these two hours between six and eight. We think it is unfair to the Members of this House, unfair to the staff and unfair to the press. We believe it will not gain the time which the Government thinks will be gained. Our amendment which would have restored the two hour recess between six and eight o'clock and the one and a half hour recess on Friday has been defeated, so it would not be in order to move that proposition again. However, I should like to suggest to the Government that it go this far-that it provide for an hour's recess between seven and eight on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays.
It will be obvious that what I am offering is a compromise, giving more than we are asking. It accepts the proposition that we should sit straight through on Fridays. But I would urge, without repeating the arguments that have been made by other members of this group, that for this trial period the whole proposition the Government wants might work better if it would consider letting us have that one hour break on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Therefore I move:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
That subparagraph (1) of the proposed Standing Order 6 be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "provided, however, that at seven o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair until eight o'clock p.m.".


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered is an attempt to introduce something that I suppose superficially must appear to be attractive to many Members, but I think that the proposition that the House should sit continuously throughout the afternoon and evening is one that is in common usage in many of the jurisdictions of the world and seems to work satisfactorily. We have made a compromise on all of these rule proposals that I think is very far reaching
June 10, 1965

in that they will be applicable for the balance of this session and for one session thereafter on a trial basis only. I respectfully submit that we should proceed in that way, try out the suggested proposal and see if it will work. I am quite confident that it will. I sincerely believe that Members will like it much more than the present system under which they are actually forced to neglect that part of their work which involves their being back in their constituencies, in that through circumstances, not through any will of their own, they are kept here throughout the whole of the year. I think that much better results would be achieved by Parliament and in Members serving their own constituencies if our work was programmed so as to make it possible for Members to expect to be at home in their constituencies at least for certain periods of the year. For that reason I would ask the House to reject the amendment of the hon. Member and to try the proposition put forward.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the President of the Privy Council a question. What additional staff is contemplated to provide for these extra hours that the House will sit? Have these arrangements been put in motion?


George James McIlraith: The short answer is yes. I cannot give precise numbers but, for instance, additional Hansard reporters have been authorized, and an additional editor, and the same applies to the committee and other staffs. There is no doubt that it will take a little time to work out and perfect the system. That is perhaps the strongest reason of all for a trial basis for these rules, but the steps have been taken. Authority for the expenditure has been granted, and so on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise to ask a rather similar question of the President of the Privy Council. When I was speaking a few minutes ago I said I felt, and I still feel, that we should have in somewhat greater detail than the President of the Privy Council has yet indicated what plans are afoot. He mentioned the Hansard reporters, but he made no reference to the translators or to what provision will be made in respect of the protective staff, the page boys, the officers at the table and so on. I feel quite seriously that even those who are prepared to oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre are entitled to know what the situation is, because generally
House of Commons Procedures speaking I think they are concerned about the matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I well understand the hon. gentleman's concern about the question. I am in some difficulty in answering it for two reasons. One is that under our system it is the responsibility of Mr. Speaker to provide the necessary staff to carry out whatever clerical and other tasks are needed by the House, but I think that answer is somewhat legalistic and is not sufficient to allay any fears in this regard.
The other difficulty is that if we were to engage staff permanently and start paying them before the changes were authorized this would, I am sure, bring a charge from the benches opposite of arrogant action on the part of the Ministers comprising the Internal Economy Commission. So for these two reasons it is not possible to give the kind of information the hon. Member wants. But it is possible for me to tell him that from the time these rules were put forward some tentative arrangements were developed, in conjunction with those responsible for the administrative services of the House of Commons. Working arrangements, if you like, were made with them to provide the organization and staff to service the changed requirements. Full cognizance has been taken of that factor.
There is no thought at all that we can extend the number of hours of sitting by 30 per cent and not increase the staff and rearrange the organization. There is no such thought at all. All these steps have been taken, the kind of steps that are preliminary to authorizing the expenditure and securing the establishment. In some cases additional prospective members of the staff have in fact been interviewed and have indicated their readiness to come. For instance, I might tell hon. Members that I asked this afternoon whether certain arrangements having to do with the ceremonial part of servicing the House between six and eight p.m. had been provided for. But it is impossible for me to go through the administration section by section and say what the staffs are. Speaking only from recollection, I rather think that three Hansard reporters and another Hansard editor are involved, and the same thing is true of other staffs.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has mentioned that authority will be granted for additional staff.


George James McIlraith: It has been.
June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures


Robert William Prittie: It may be possible to get extra page boys or Hansard reporters, but on Monday of this week the Secretary of State made a statement to the House in reply to questions I and the hon. Member for Quebec East had asked concerning interpreters, and the fact of the matter is that there are really not enough to do the work in Parliament and in its committees, as well as other jobs outside of Parliament. Furthermore, such people are simply not available in the country at the present time and even if authority is granted to hire more it will be quite some time before they can be secured. I do not know how this staff is going to cope with the problem of the hours of sitting when the staff is already spread very thin at the present time.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the Committee ready for the question?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about the proposed amendment of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
For many days we have been discussing parliamentary procedure. It is needless to say that a reform of our parliamentary procedure is essential. However, I should say that our procedure and standing orders were not so bad, but when you make ill use of them, you are forced to amend the standing orders and to impose more severe restrictions. As some took an unfair advantage of our parliamentary procedure, we are forced to accept reforms.
Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house are ready to agree to those reforms inasmuch as they are respectful of democracy and of the privileges of each member of this house.
No privilege of hon. members must be infringed upon and that is why we are ready to shorten the debate and even the time allocated for each speech. We are willing to accept reforms in several fields, as long as they respect democracy and the freedom of each member.
Hon. members should have the right to vote orally at any time. In ten or fifteen minutes, much can be said, provided that only the important and relevant matters are dealt with. We must not wander too far from the subject. In fact, we are ready to accept reforms under those conditions.
Mr. Chairman, if Canadian industries managed their business as we administer those of the state, many of them would be on

the verge of bankruptcy within 15 days, if not sooner, because we do nothing for the country. We waste the country's money and when we return to our ridings, people ask us what we are doing here-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to interrupt to remind him that we are now considering paragraph 1 of Resolution No. 15. I would advise him to restrict his remarks to that part of the resolution.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again I revert to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre on the question of sitting during meal hours.
As a businessman of the twentieth century I find that everything has been reformed, that our great reformers, our great economists are reforming everything throughout the country, except the standing orders of the House of Commons, which have practically not been changed since confederation.
With regard to the motion, I feel that we must take enough time to eat, as businessmen would do. We must adjourn our debates at mealtime to allow everyone to live like human beings. We must also give all employees of the house, as well as the restaurant employees, time to live because we are no longer in 1914 or 1887; we are in 1965, in a country which has known progress not only in the field of science but in all fields. We have accepted all kinds of changes in all fields and we must do as much in the house.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, hon. members' privileges must be preserved to the utmost; time allowed for debate can be shortened while giving every member the chance to express himself freely.
As far as the matter of a permanent Speaker is concerned, I fail to see what would be the use of changing the existing situation. We have our standing orders and the Speaker enforces them.
Personally, I have been satisfied with the successive Speakers we had since I have been a member of Parliament. I think that the Speakers have done their duty and I fail to see what purpose would be served by the appointment of a permanent Speaker.
We must take the Speakers as they are, we must select them from our membership and I believe that every Speaker considered it his duty to enforce standing orders. The Speakers who followed one another have enforced the rules and it is to the credit of the
June 10, 1SS5	COMMONS
House to have appointed Speakers such as those I have known since I came here. I am satisfied with the way Speakers are appointed.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest once more that parliamentary procedure in the house should have been improved a long time ago, but it was not done. In fact, we have no time to do anything nowadays.
There is the unemployment problem which should certainly take part of the time of the house, so that we may find a solution. There is also the problem of agriculture-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Henry P. Latulippe: -there is the problem of finance-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he should limit his remarks to paragraph 1 of the resolution now before us.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat to the House that we must take time out for meals at the proper hours.
I think that we are able to do a man's job within the regular sitting hours. We should be able to work and represent the Canadian people honourably during reasonable hours, without doing away with mealtime recesses.
Nowadays, we do not have time for anything in this House. When we must take our responsibilities, we are no longer able to do so. All matters are submitted to independent House committees for consideration, large sums of money are spent to set up committees and to pay employees outside the regular government staff.
It seems that members no longer have time to work; they do not want to take their responsibilities. We have great responsibilities; let us face up to them. We are paid to take our responsibilities; let us take them. We do not take them because a great number of committees have been created; the work is done by independent men, outside ranks of the citizens who are elected by the people.
We are the ones elected and paid by the people and, consequently, we must do our work. We do not do our work because we do not want to face up to our responsibilities. Great responsibilities rest on our shoulders; let us accept them. We have been elected because of our promises to the people to represent them with dignity. Therefore, let us abide by our oath of office.
22620-143i
DEBATES	2233
House of Commons Procedures
I conclude my remarks in that vein and, again, I would like to have dinner at six o'clock and lunch at noon.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the Committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: yeas 17; nays 74.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude the discussion on clause 1?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the President of the Privy Council a question before we conclude discussion on paragraph 1, but first may I say I am glad to note we can count on 74 hon. Members being here between seven and eight o'clock.
In view of the Minister's statement that plans have been made to engage extra staff, but in view of his further statement that this extra staff cannot be engaged until after the House passes the order, is it the intention to bring this fully into effect on Monday of next week, or will there not be a few days or a week of grace so that the necessary adjustments can be made?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the necessary arrangements have been made to bring this fully into effect on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean there will be engaged by Monday sufficient extra Hansard reporters, Hansard editors, page boys, interpreters, translators, protective staff and all the rest?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not keep track of the individual staff Members and which one is on duty for each day. As the hon. Member probably well knows, it will be done by a combination of circumstances, some by having extra hours of work, some by working on their normal days off, some by extra staff, and by various other arrangements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you handle the complaints?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council?
Would he take down the names of all the Liberal members who voted in favour of
2234	COMMONS DEBATES	June 10, 1965
House of Commons Procedures the house sitting between seven and eight o'clock, so we may know when they are not here, they did not vote in earnest? For instance, the Members for Levis (Mr. Guay), Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger), Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), Dollard, (Mr. Rouleau)-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: None the less, it would be interesting to know those who will respect their vote.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Clause 3.


Mr. Baldwin:: May I ask the President of the Privy Council whether, in the setting up of the new daily routine, he has taken into consideration the terms of a provisional standing order agreed to previously by which the term "oral questions" was placed on the daily routine of business? It may be that this has been taken care of elsewhere, but I note that no provision for oral questions is provided under the proposed Standing Order 15.
While I am dealing with this matter may I recall to his attention a discussion which took place earlier, and this compels me to refer to proposed Standing Order 43 which states:
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.
When we were having a general discussion at the beginning of this debate several Members, myself included, drew to the attention of the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Transport that if this were adhered to without any change at all, on a rigid compliance with the changed wording it would mean that motions for concurrence in committee reports would be transferred to Government Orders and might not be given the freedom which the House would desire.
At that time I suggested we might consider adding a new item to the daily routine, namely, motion for concurrence in committee reports. If the Government intends following that suggestion I suggest this is the place in which it might be effected.


George James McIlraith: Both points have been dealt with, Mr. Chairman. I notice the hon. Member referring to the small green publication. I think if he will check he will find that oral questions are covered in Standing Order 39(5). I have not checked this at the moment, but my understanding is that no change was made in Standing Order 15 to provide for the term

"oral questions" where it appears on page 8 of the small green book. There are some changes in this small green book that were never authorized through changes made by the House. The point, however, is adequately covered by Standing Order 39, which is contained in clause 5 of the order before us, where the right for oral questions is quite clearly established. Incidentally, I will be moving an amendment to provide for the length of time allowed for them.
The other point raised by the hon. Member is dealt with in an amendment which I have undertaken to move when we reach clause 7. It is taken care of, not by amending Standing Order 15, but by adding a provision to Standing Order 43 which will provide that when the debate on any motion under Standing Order 15(2) is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and ordered for consideration as the first order of business under Government Orders.
Then, to protect the right of the private Member to priority, it is proposed to change Standing Order 18 by adding a subparagraph stating that except as provided for in Standing Orders 43 and 56 the Government shall have the choice to arrange the business of the House under Government Orders.


Robert William Prittie: All of these changes are of great benefit to the Government but no provision has been made for an extension of private Members hour, which is to be given a change in time. Many Members feel dissatisfied with private Members hour at present. Some are dissatisfied because it is an hour and because nothing is ever decided, and invariably everything is talked out.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It is unfortunate that when the House is taking so much time to change the rules this matter has not been gone into and some suggestions made by the Government. Some Members suggest that the private Members hour as it exists at the present time is quite useless. I would not go that far. It has certainly some value; there is a chance to air certain ideas, they are reported in the press and some useful public discussion takes place. It has also some value from the point of view of the individual Member, I suppose, because it provides him with some publicity. But it can certainly be improved in many ways.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that more time should be made available for the discussion of a bill. I do not expect that we
June 10. 1965	COMMONS
can get any time away from the Government to add to that hour, but I suggest there might be some type of consolidation of the private Members hour, bringing it forward once every two weeks, with possibly fewer bills, allowing more time for each bill to be discussed. As it is, three Members can take up the whole hour. We have some very interesting bills on the Order Paper. There are bills dealing with the freedom of the press. The hon. Member for Port Arthur has one about disclosure of news sources; the hon. Member for Leeds has one about the age of marriage; there are bills on the question of divorce, on lotteries and bingo. These are subjects on which many Members would like to express themselves and they are subjects which are of very much interest to people in the country. But, as I said, three Members can take up the whole hour at the present time and at the end of that hour the bill simply dies, and that is all there is to it.
I think we should be considering some change along this line. I have suggested that at least a minimum of two hours be provided for private Members bills, even if it means that we discuss fewer of them during each session. I should also like to suggest that a vote be required at the end of that time. This would not inconvenience anybody, in my opinion, except possibly the Government Whip. But if we believe in good attendance in the House of Commons, this should be no particular problem. Government Members talk these bills out so that the Government will perhaps not be embarrassed; but I do not think the situation is any different from ordinary legislation, when Opposition Members may move amendments, and if the Government does not want to accept them they simply have to get their forces out. I think it would be more satisfying to the private Members of this House if some type of decision could be taken on their measures after a proper form of discussion.
It may be that all these bills do not need to be talked out. It seems to me that the Government is not using the private Members hour enough as a vehicle for passing certain legislation. During the last session we did pass one such bill, which obviously had the blessing of the Government. I refer to the bill to change the name of Trans-Canada Air Lines. There is some suspicion that a private Members bill would be the vehicle for the discussion of the question of the abolition of the death penalty. It seems to me that measures of social reform could come forward
DEBATES	2235
House of Commons Procedures this way and in many cases pass. But as it is now, I have spoken to Members of all parties, including the Government party, and they are not at all satisfied with the private Members hour. I would certainly urge on the President of the Privy Council that a committee on the rules be constituted to carry on a continuing type of study of the rules of the House, and the reform of the private Members hour should have a very important place in any study by such a committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude the discussion on paragraph 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Paragraph 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Paragraph 5?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, with regard to paragraph 5, I did give, as a result of some discussion the other day, an undertaking that I would move an amendment to paragraph 5 to provide that there would be one day a week when the question period would be one hour in length. Before formally moving that motion I wanted to ask the Committee for a little guidance on one point. I had indicated that I would put forward certain other amendments to different paragraphs. Since we are working under an allocated time proposition, I wonder if it would be in order if I moved these amendments now; or what method does the Committee wish me to adopt to make sure that the amendments I have undertaken to put forward are put forward before the expiry of the time allocated?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since we have agreed that we are taking a paragraph at a time, we should stick to each paragraph; but perhaps the Committee would consent to the Minister reading at this time each of the amendments he proposes to move as we go through this resolution.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, the only thing is this. We shall be entering into a rule perhaps later on, the so-called allocation of time rule, or closure by compartment. Let us follow that course now, because that is what it will be in the future. We will get accustomed to it.


George James McIlraith: I think that technically I have the right to move them all now.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures


George James McIlraith: It is just a matter of which way is most convenient to the Committee. I am quite satisfied to do it whatever way the Committee wishes; I would just like their guidance on the point. I do not want to be in the position of being accused of not moving an amendment to the resolution that I have undertaken to move.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Unless the amendments are moved the guillotine may fall later on and prevent them.


George James McIlraith: This is why we were very careful before we started this discussion to point out that there is one resolution only before the Committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could have had them all read by now.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can read them, but not move them.


George James McIlraith: Then I would be out of order. Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Solicitor General:-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't need a seconder.


George James McIlraith: That Section (5) of the proposed Standing Order 39 be amended by adding after the words "not exceeding 30 minutes", where they appear at the end of the first paragraph thereof, the words "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".


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, the amendment here-I do not mean the one about the question period of one hour on Monday, but the whole philosophy behind curtailing the question period-is really not a very bad step on the part of the Government and will only cut in half the time that is now largely a period of questions of questionable order. I do not think it is going to sharpen question time. I had hoped that the Government would really take a bold step here and move to the British system, where notice of all questions is given, and where Parliament does not expect the chief minister, the Prime Minister, to be there each day. I think he is on duty, so to speak, on Tuesdays only. I really think it is a tragedy that we have been so timid about this.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Unless there is a drastic bringing to order of the type of questions asked, it is my submission that all we are going to do is to cut in half, or if today is any example cut

by two thirds, a period which has largely been spent on asking questions of local interest which have no national importance. I am as guilty, I confess, as anybody else in this; we all become accustomed to bad habits and share in breaching the rules.
I think this is one place where we might pay tribute, as was done yesterday, to the former Speaker, the hon. Member for Edmonton West. A lot of people thought he was very tough. I thought he ran a very good show here, as a matter of fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: We would expect you to applaud that one.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have never felt I had to applaud all Tories; that would be of no particular advantage. But I urge the Government to re-establish the Committee on Organization and Procedure and reform the question period. This measure will not do that at all.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have spoken in this debate on procedure to any large extent because I recognize, as do most hon. Members of the House, that as the business of parliament becomes more involved and parliament is called upon by circumstances to take a more active role in directing the affairs of the country, unless Members of Parliament are to spend 12 months a year here we must have a great deal more direction in the work of parliament and a great deal more allocation of time than we have had in previous years.
The fact is, of course, that more time spent here will be taken up by Ministers of the Crown and the frontbenchers of each of the parties. Those of us who are backbenchers will take up less time and will have less opportunity to express our points of view. I think that anyone who thought about this change realized this from the beginning, but I think we accepted it because we realized there was no alternative if the business of parliament is to be done.
I have no objection to a limitation of the time devoted to question period, although 1 am skeptical that we will save very much time. I am not going to make any specific proposals for more changes to the rules because it seems to me there comes a time when you reach a point of diminishing returns; but it does seem to me that unless there is a different approach to the question period, with a half hour question period there
June 10, 1965

will be no time at all for questions other than those from Members on the front bench.
In this regard I am not blaming the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of our party or the hon. Member for Lapointe, to name just three examples, who are on their feet a number of times every day. I am not going to be too critical of the present Speaker because I know it is a difficult job. But I know that if I want to ask a question, or if any Member of the back benches on the Opposition side, or even backbenchers on the Government side, want to ask questions, I presume we will all have some difficulty.
Today was a good example. I wanted to ask a question which the President of the Privy Council did not think was a proper question for orders of the day. But the Speaker could not decide this until I had asked my question. I stood up when the question period started at three o'clock. At four o'clock the Speaker -and I am not blaming him-wanted to end the question period. I was still trying to ask my first question. The Leader of the Opposition and a number of other Members had been on their feet five, six, eight times.


Mr. McIntosh:: You should sit down here.


David Orlikow: It may be worse for those who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition, although I do not think so.


Michael Starr: Your leader was up four times too.


David Orlikow: I included my leader. I am not blaming the Leader of the Opposition alone; I did say that. There was a time though when there were at least 10 or 12 questions in a row from Members of the Official Opposition. I do not question their right to ask questions, but Members in this group and other groups could not get the floor at all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are 93 of us.


David Orlikow: If we are going to restrict time and be fair to all Members, the Speaker -whoever he is; I am not thinking only of this session-must exercise a good deal more authority and judgment than he has up till now. It seems to me that if we are going to restrict the question period to half an hour a day, then I would agree with the hon. Member for Royal and others who have said that the Speaker will have to rule a large number of questions, including possibly the question I tried to ask today, as not of an urgent nature and therefore permissible. But aside from that it seems to me that the Speaker will have to use some judgment in restricting
House of Commons Procedures Members so that no Member will be able to dominate the whole half hour.
I would suggest here that no Member be permitted to ask more than two questions on any day when other Members want to ask questions, and that a series of supplemental questions should not be permitted. As the Speaker has said on so many occasions, what we really get is not a series of supplemental questions but in fact a debate. We now have the period after ten o'clock for Members who are not satisfied with answers they receive, and surely that is the place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are going to make it awfully hard for your colleagues in your party.


David Orlikow: I am not concerned with my colleagues in my party; we can look after ourselves. I am concerned with the rights of all backbenchers regardless of party. We are all supposed to be equal here. It seems to me that the Members of this House are going to be like the animals in George Orwell's novel "Animal Farm", where he said that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. It seems to me that unless the Speaker is going to tighten up the whole question period, when many Members of Parliament- and all of us are elected from constituencies and theoretically are equal-and especially those on the back benches, will be a good deal less equal than other Members. I hope the Speaker will give some consideration to this problem if and when we adopt these rules.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am really speaking for the benefit of the Speaker, particularly the Speaker who is in the Chair during the question period. It seems to me from my own experience that one way of cutting down oral questions is to have a much speedier reply to written questions, and especially starred questions. One of the things I hoped would be considered by the President of the Privy Council and House Leader is that we get together, somewhat along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Carleton the other day, when he introduced his motion, and have a complete review of the whole subject of written questions, including starred questions, and the various rules in connection therewith.
I have been here long enough to have heard Speaker Michener, Speaker Lambert and the present Speaker-you find entries in Votes and Proceedings to confirm this-read off all the different rules regarding questions.
June 10, 1965

House of Commons Procedures
[DOT] (9:20 pjn.)
Every week there are dozens of examples of questions which do not meet these requirements. I do not think this holds so true with regard to written questions, but I am sure a number of these should not be accepted. I personally prefer to put starred questions and to get oral answers in most cases. But if you put down a starred question and it stays on the order paper for five or six weeks, it is hopeless. I make a practice of splitting up my questions so that they do not relate to more than one department, and then there is no excuse for making them an order for return.
On the whole I think this Government has done fairly well in answering written questions. But could we not get some rule or procedural arrangement which would, in a sense, allow for something like an adjournment debate if within a certain period of time a department had not answered a particular question? This would place a degree of pressure on the department, prompting a reply as soon as possible. It would also be a means of giving some satisfaction to individual Members. My suggestion is, I repeat, that with regard to written questions and particularly with regard to starred questions to be answered orally, a committee should examine the situation, having in mind the possibility of introducing a procedure as a means by which an hon. Member whose question has not been answered within a certain time would get some redress-for example, the equivalent of an adjournment debate during which he could raise the issue in which he was interested. I realize that no one in the Government is likely to speak on this subject: I am really addressing my remarks to Mr. Speaker.
This brings me to the position of Government Members during the question period.
I have no objection to the younger Member for Halifax, or the Member for Lotbiniere or the Member for York-Humber rising to ask questions from time to time. From my experience in this Parliament no more than ten or 15 Members supporting the Government have made a practice of asking questions on the Orders of the Day. But when we have a situation where the question period is limited to half an hour on four days a week, and an hour on the other day, it seems to me there will be some block against the asking of questions by Government supporters in terms of the umbrage likely to be caused among Members of the Opposition. There is also the onus which is placed on the Speaker.


After all, it is the Speaker who has to recognize hon. Members. I noticed my friend from Winnipeg North standing up for an hour today; the hon. Member for Carleton was bobbing up and down for a long time before he was recognized. Being recognized by the Speaker is one of the factors which is involved during this question period. I put it to Mr. Speaker that he will need to handle this whole question of the recognition of Government Members very carefully. People get to their feet to raise a question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. Member allow me to ask him a question? Does he not think it would be a good idea if we were to restore the old practice which prevailed two or three Parliaments ago when Ministers were generally given notice of these questions before they were asked in he House? Instead of having a daily quiz program we followed this practice. Does the hon. Member not think its revival would result in far better answers and a far speedier operation of the whole business? I think this is the only Parliament in the world where questions are asked without notice first being given.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Really, the hon. Member for Royal put his finger on it there. The British practice is, of course, to give notice. Over there they take their questions and make a list of them. The real spice during the British question hour comes from the supplementary questions. In this field my hon. friend from Kootenay West is an old practitioner. He does this. I do not say this is the reason why the Speaker, in recent months, has been anticipating his questions and declaring them out of order. Sometimes I think my hon. friend is not unhappy when this occurs because he is given the opportunity of dealing with the subject at ten o'clock. When I first came here he told me this was the practice, and I followed this practice. Then I noticed that very often, if a Minister was given four or five hours warning, his assistant would prepare a long answer which, very often was evasive. He would then read this in the House, and the Member asking the question faced an embarrassing situation. After such a long reply, what should he do?
There is another practice-and I am talking about what really happens, not about formalities. I can recall one occasion when I gave notice of a question concerning a strike in progress against the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation. I received a telephone call
June 10, 1965	COMMONS
from the Minister in the course of which he gave me a great deal of information, very useful information indeed. Then he suggested, in a sense, that since I had got the information I wanted it was hardly necessary for me to ask the question. Of course, I was embarrassed. I had obtained the information that I wanted, it was true. But I also wished to bring the question to the attention of the House and, as a consequence, to the wire services and so on.
I see the Chairman holding up his finger as an admonition to me. All I can say is that the suggestion which the Minister made a few minutes ago should be taken up by whichever group considers this question. I certainly hope that should we get a committee to review the question process, backbenchers from both sides of the House will be well represented on it.
I sometimes think that Ministers and others who have been here for many years have lost sight of the urgency which prompts backbenchers or younger Members when they ask questions. Another point I wish to make in connection with Mr. Speaker and the recognition he gives to Members is this: The Chair recognizes seniority in the House during the question period in two ways, it seems to me. One type of recognition is recognition in terms of priority, and I have no quarrel with this. The assumption is that the Leader of the Official Opposition, as an official of the House, is entitled to catch the Speaker's eye first. The pattern seems to continue from there and, as I say, I am not quarrelling with that.
But there is a tendency for Speakers to recognize seniority in another and less desirable way, that is, by allowing a latitude to senior Members of the House which is not allowed to others. This applies both to the questions they ask and to the arguments they introduce. Backbenchers, particularly the newer ones, are not allowed this latitude. When it comes to an abuse of the form and the type of question, the Speaker must in all fairness be as severe in dealing with the most senior Members of this House as he is in regard to the most junior Members.


Norman Platt Lambert: Do they include the hon. Member for Kootenay West?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not consider that the hon. Member of the Conservative Party who made that interjection is one of those in the Opposition who abuses the form of questions and turns them into argument. But he has been here long enough and he has been con-
DEBATES	2239
House of Commons Procedures stant enough in his attendance to know that in all Opposition groups there are Members who get away with arguments and debate and nastiness, if I may use that term, during the question period, though the same latitude is not allowed to more junior Members. On the particular question of fairness and equity I suggest that what is fair for a junior Member of the House or one far back in the rows is also fair and should be applied to the senior Members of the House. I cannot leave this point without mentioning the fact that seniority is not recognized in the question period in so far as the Government and its Ministers are concerned, but there is a parallel in the abuse with regard to questions put and answers given that is just as serious.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Here again I make the point that much of the argument, much of the illegality, if you want, of questions is occasioned by the kind of answers given. Usually you get what tends toward a debate, particularly with supplemen-taries when you get smart-Aleck or terribly evasive answers, or answers that are completely designed either for a laugh or, in a sense, to throw a punch back. There is no dividing or appraising of guilt in this regard, but again it is a question for the Speaker to decide and the Speaker to control.
I cannot think of a better way in this particular Parliament to restore to the question period that kind of edge that the hon. Member for Royal and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North, my colleague, were talking about than to call to order some Ministers and some senior Members of the Opposition when they do put questions which they extend with argument beyond what is permitted to other Members of the House. In other words, I think what is fair for some Members of the House should be fair to all other Members of the House.
There is one other point I want to make in connection with the question period. It has been made before and it relates to ministerial answers. Members will be able to hark back to a number of occasions when really exciting questions have been brewing in the House and its environs. I can think of two in particular. I think of the time when the whole question of Rivard and the Dorion inquiry was in embryo or developing. I also think back to the time that the Minister of Finance was having difficulties immediately after his first budget. As hon. Members will recall, the question period was very important in developing the issue, the conflict
June 10. 1965

House of Commons Procedures and the response of the Government to the situation.
It is conceivable, of course, that such situations will develop again that will seem as crucial and as critical to the Opposition. With the half hour question period and the possibility of Government backbenchers asking questions and getting answers or Ministers being able to give long, prepared answers, it is quite obvious that Members of the Opposition could be left with a sense of tremendous frustration. It will take only a bit of masterminding on the part of the Government to reduce the effective question period on any occasion to a fairly small amount of time. Again, all I can suggest is that it will be the responsibility of the Speaker to recognize when this kind of prearranged defence mechanism created by the Government and its schemers is at work, and it will be then that the Speaker will have to come to the rescue of Members of the Opposition and the whole idea of the question period in the House of Commons.
I hope my friends on the Government side will not think that these remarks reveal too great a scepticism or suspicion with regard to their intentions. It seems to me that they would have the same feeling if they were on this side of the House, no matter what Government was in power. Since I have noticed the Acting Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council nodding their heads at the idea of a review of the whole matter of questions, I wonder whether they would take a couple of minutes to tell us just what they have in mind in order to carry this particular point a bit further, and how quickly we may get to work on the whole business of correlating all the precedents of the past, and our present practices, into some kind of more simplified code that we could all honour much more easily than the present code with regard to questions.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, because of the short time to deal with the many rules remaining I will only touch on one or two aspects of the speech made by the hon. Member for Port Arthur. One that I want to pick out and deal with very quickly has to do with not only the oral question period, which certainly concerns me greatly, but with written questions both from the point of view of the length of time taken to get replies and the nature of the questions permitted to appear on the Order Paper. I have had occasion recently to look at an Order Paper with a former employee of

the House, and to go over some of the changes over the years. I must say I was rather appalled when I looked critically at the form of written questions on the Order Paper.
Since that time I have had occasion to look at the time taken for replies to such questions. I noticed that some questions were put asking if the Government had done certain things when, if the Members had put their questions in a different form and had addressed them to a particular Minister, thus indicating one department, there would have been a great deal of time saved in providing the answers. All I want to point out is that the form of both oral and written questions and the time taken to get replies to written questions is a subject that I think needs attention.
The state of the law as to what is permissible is, I think, clear enough in the textbooks if you have the time to dig up the various rulings of Speakers over a great number of years. However, it is quite impractical for a Member to do that, and I think we should, among all parties, find some method of gathering together what are the proper criteria to be applied to the form of questions, what types of questions are permissible and possibly codifying our findings. Quite frankly I had not thought of doing that, but I am rather interested in the suggestion. It might be helpful to codify our findings in such a way that the code could be distributed to all Members and would also serve as a guide to the officials receiving questions because, without some apparent authority, it is very difficult for them to reject a question brought to them by an hon. Member. It is quite a responsibility for an employee to take, but I am quite interested in the idea of a code. Just in what way this subject should be followed up I am not prepared to say at the moment.
There is one other matter I might mention. I refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Royal a few minutes ago when he spoke about the abnormal demand made on the Prime Minister to be here during the whole of the question period every day, inasmuch as the interests of the House and of all hon. Members opposite would probably be equally well served if he were available at better designated periods. This is an idea that I think is deserving of attention in due course. I think I will conclude my remarks at this point. I should like to dwell on the subject at greater length but will refrain from doing so.
June 10, 1965	COMMONS
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I ought to make a sort of confession to the House. Perhaps what I did was wrong, but it could be changed. When we formed the Government and I was chosen House Leader,
I had been very irritated while I was in the Opposition by the great many questions which were, quite properly according to the rules, made orders for returns because they affected two departments. It was quite clear the Members who put the questions on the Order Paper wanted to have them printed in Hansard. I suggested to my colleagues that, by reason of leaving them on the Order Paper longer, we should try to get the information gathered together, so instead of their being made orders for return and the answers never being printed, the answers would be printed in Hansard. I am therefore to some degree to blame for the fact that some of these questions have stayed on the Order Paper so long. If it would suit hon. Members better to have them made orders for returns and taken off the order paper, it would cause less criticism for the Government, but I do not really believe it would serve the purposes Members have in putting the questions on the Order Paper.
I do agree with what my colleague says about trying to direct a question to one department, and another one to another Minister, and thus the two questions would get more effective answers. No one likes to have someone coming to the House later and saying one department has been overlooked. Once you phrase a question, is the Government doing so and so, there is a tremendous search goes on and in many cases this is a waste of the taxpayers' money to no purpose whatever.


Michael Starr: I was very much taken with the argument, but if that argument is factual why is it that we look at question No. 43 and find it has been standing since April 6, which is about nine weeks. It could have been answered in 15 minutes, and yet it is unanswered in nine weeks.


George Louis Chatterton: I was interested in the comment of the President of the Privy Council that the problem of oral questions and questions on the Order Paper might be considered. I put this suggestion forward briefly. The reduction in time for oral questions is on a trial basis. If that proposal is successful or acceptable, it will depend upon the extent to which backbenchers feel their questions are being answered. In the interest of keeping
DEBATES	2241
House of Commons Procedures the oral question period short, may I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that questions placed on the Order Paper should be answered within a certain period of time, and after the expiry of that time the appropriate Minister would either give the answer or give an explanation to the House for the cause of the delay. I know that in many cases questions require lengthy periods for answers to be obtained. If a Minister were required, after a period of seven or ten days, to give an answer or else an explanation, this would satisfy the Member putting forward the question. If such a practice were followed, questions which would normally be put during the oral question period would be put on the Order Paper, thus reserving the oral question period for more appropriate questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order to save time, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might make a suggestion now to the President of the Privy Council? I recognize we are not going to be able to cover the whole field in the time we have left. If I remember correctly, one of the recommendations of the Speaker's Committee last year was that we might set up a Standing Committee on Procedure to discuss some of these matters we have been discussing tonight, such as trying to work out some equitable arrangement on the question period and the matter we were discussing yesterday concerning some technique for written appeals of Speakers' rulings, for the purposes of establishing a precedent rather than dealing with the immediate matter before the House. Both these items could be referred to such a Standing Committee if it were set up.
I wonder if the President of the Privy Council, between now and the time this matter is going to be wound up tomorrow, might consider providing in paragraph 10 that a Standing Committee on Procedure be established. If the House is going to be asked, after this trial period ends at the end of the next session, to review these changes it would seem useful to have a Standing Committee which had been studying the whole matter of the extent to which these new rules have been satisfactory to all concerned. Then if these new rules were brought up for ratification or amendment, we would have some concrete proposals to place before the House. I believe such a Standing Committee might well be set up and could have plenty to employ itself with in the next year.
2242	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is it the intention of the Government to set up such a Committee? If it is not a Standing Committee, will the Committee on Procedure and Organization be reconstituted in the next few months?


George James McIlraith: I do not want to give a categorical answer at the moment. 1 will take under consideration the suggestion that there be a Standing Committee. One of the difficulties of the last Committee on Procedure, when you consider the matter of answers to written questions which we have been discussing, was that there was no Minister on it from the Government side, no person who had Ministerial experience. I prefer to leave the question asked by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam unanswered at the moment, and I will take it into consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I might just offer the Minister an alternative. If he feels there are obstacles, which I cannot think about at the moment, to making it a Standing Committee I think we would be prepared to settle for an undertaking that the Government would set up again the Committee we had last year.


George James McIlraith: I must correct myself. I said a moment ago there was no Ministerial representation from the Government side on that Committee. There was the Minister of Labour, who was the Government representative. I regret my inadvertence. 1 do not want to give a commitment that a Committee will be set up in the form it was last year. I want to consider the matter. We may have some kind of party conference about it, but I am not prepared at the moment to give a commitment as to how we should approach it. I am prepared to say that I will follow it up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister, when he introduced these rule changes, suggested that one of the reasons it was possible to bring forward changes of this kind was that there had been a Committee of the House studying the matter for a couple of years. Does that not lend weight to the point made by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam? In view of the importance of the changes we are now making, would it not be a good idea to have a Committee continuously studying the subject?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I am aware the Prime Minister said that. I am aware also of where the suggestion that he say this came from.


Reid Scott: I have a short amendment upon which I wanted to test the Committee.

DEBATES	June 10. 1965


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please; there is an amendment before the Committee at the moment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Reid Scott: I am sorry; I should have said subamendment. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman the effect of the half hour question period is really going to be that the private Member is virtually going to be cut out of that period. It seems to me this will follow almost automatically because of the practice of recognizing the senior Members of the House during the question period. I am not sure we can particularly complain, as that practice has been followed for some time; but the net effect of this will be that private Members from now on will have virtually no part at all in the question period, because in the half hour there will not be enough time for them to participate, due to supplemen-taries, etc., from the front benches.
We recognize the need to shorten the question period, but the hon. Member for Royal hit it on the head when he said shortening the time will not improve its quality. In fairness to private Members, they should have at least one opportunity a week to participate in the question period and for that reason I suggest to the Government House Leader that the question period on Mondays, at least, be without time limit. It may be private Members will not take advantage of the opportunity but it will be there for them if they wish to avail themselves of it.
Therefore I propose that the amendment be amended by deleting the words, "exceed one hour" and substituting therefor "be so limited." This may sound confusing but on reading the amendment it can be seen it ends with the words shall not exceed one hour.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Scott) negatived: yeas 37; nays 41.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does this conclude the discussion on clause 5?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in considering clause 6 of the resolution I would like to make some comments with regard to questions of privilege, inasmuch as direct reference was made to me on Tuesday during
June 10, 1965

discussion of the rules, regulations and procedures of the House.
I had not intended to take any part in the discussion on the proposed rule changes, as I am quite satisfied with their content and import, but I take my cue from the Prime Minister who, speaking in the House on Tuesday last, said he was speaking on an amendment to the resolution before the House and pointed out it gave him an opportunity to speak, and so dwell at some length on matters not strictly within the ambit of the amendment.
This clause of the resolution will undoubtedly limit the raising of questions of privilege in future, and remembering what the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert said this afternoon when he stated he was asking a question because hereafter the time might be cut so short that he would not be able to, I am rising on a question of privilege as the opportunity to do so will be somewhat curtailed by clause 6, with which I am in hearty accord.
On May 28 I asked a question in the House, and in it I stated a personal conviction. I asked the Minister of Justice if his department or the Cabinet:
-have ever given consideration to making it illegal for mass communication media to mention names of accused before they are convicted. Personally I do not believe they should be mentioned by name until a conviction has been registered.
I asked the Minister had any consideration been given to such fair treatment, and in his reply, a very sane and solid reply, the Minister remarked:
1 must say, Mr. Speaker, that this...is one of the questions which I have under very serious consideration.
Immediately some people rose in the House and began to pillory the Minister as though this were a terrible statement for him to make, and the press of the country immediately picked it up and started to scream that the freedom of the press was being invaded- call out the army, call out the navy, call out the air force-freedom of the press was being attacked.
The Minister had given a straightforward answer and went on to say:
-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.
On Tuesday last the hon. Member for Prince Albert, who gave a worth-while speech
House o} Commons Procedures with regard to the function of parliament and its effectiveness, took occasion to wander afield and made direct reference to the suggestion I had made in the course of my question. At one point he said, and I quote from page 2106:
All over this country a howl went up. I was shocked by the suggestion.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that I was not sent here by the electors of York-Humber in order not to shock the hon. Member for Prince Albert.
May I call it ten o'clock?


George James McIlraith: Before it is called ten o'clock I wonder if I might put on record the amendments to the various clauses?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I move that section 2-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You mean you intend to move the amendments now?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the Minister simply reading the amendments for the purpose of the record at this time?


George James McIlraith: My understanding is that technically they could all be moved because it is only one resolution. I thought it would be desirable if Members had them all, but if I merely read them they will not appear in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Amendments made in committee do not go in Votes and Proceedings anyway.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Put them in Hansard.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Yes; but I do not want to recede from the position, which is the correct one, that there is one resolution before the Committee at this time, and we agreed to discuss it paragraph by paragraph and have proceeded in that way. I think that was the reasonable, correct and satisfactory way for the House to deal with this resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone is arguing about the point the President of the Privy Council is now making. But is it not a fact that if he has two, three or four amendments to make, they may be all amendments to one resolution but he cannot move them all at once? He has to move one amendment, get it carried and then move another. That is the reason I suggest he simply read them.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I can put them all into one amendment quite easily,

June 10, 1965
Business of the House
although they deal with different Standing PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT Orders. I will do it either way.	MOTION


Some hon. Members:: Let us do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We could put them in tonight so they will be printed in Votes and Proceedings tomorrow.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the only ones applicable are those that refer to this paragraph.


George James McIlraith: Since we are on paragraph 6 I will read the proposed amendment, if that will be more pleasing to Members opposite; but I would point out that they all come in answer to requests from Members opposite:
That Section (2) of the proposed Standing Order 43 be 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."
and in consequence of that proposal:
That Section (2) of Standing Order 18 be amended to read as follows:
"Except as provided in Standing Orders 43 and 56, Government Orders may be called in such sequence as the Government may think fit".
And the following:
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".
And a new Standing Order 68A:
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.
And also:
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.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider the report of the special committee dealing with the procedures of the House. When that is completed we will continue with the business we have been discussing today, and when that is completed we will deal with the banking legislation, and then the budget resolutions.


Michael Starr: You spoiled your whole speech by the last few words.
[Mr. Mcllraith.j
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR BETTER FACILITIES IN VANCOUVER

Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to bring to the attention of the House and the Government is the continuing problem of the television and radio facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at Vancouver. For many years the television production centre at Vancouver has been in a former garage, a building formerly used by an automobile dealer. It has been there since T.V. productions started in Vancouver in 1953.
"Barn-like", "cramped", "inadequate", "inefficient"-these are all adjectives which can be used to describe the C.B.C. television centre in Vancouver. Next to Toronto and Montreal, Vancouver is the principal production centre of the C.B.C. Year after year the local staff have worked in very cramped conditions, but in spite of this they have turned out some fairly good productions. One has only to think of the plays which come from Vancouver, particularly the Cariboo series last year or a variety program such as "Some of Those Days", to realize that they do turn out good programs, in spite of the fact that they have been working under the most trying conditions for many years.
The C.B.C. radio facilities in Vancouver are located in the Hotel Vancouver, but the premises are on a month to month basis and it is understood that they will have to leave the building before very long. Again, there have been some very high quality radio productions out of Vancouver.
I think it is disgraceful that neither the present Government nor the previous one authorized the C.B.C. to spend the capital for a new production centre in Vancouver. Over $100 million has been authorized for new centres in Montreal and Toronto-about $105 million altogether. There was an opportunity for the C.B.C. to acquire improved buildings on the West Coast. This was when the decision was made to close the former R.C.A.F. station at Kitsilano Park in Vancouver. A certain amount of land and some existing buildings were available. This would not have been as good as a new centre but
June 10. 1965

would certainly be infinitely superior to the present antiquated building which the Corporation has to use for its centre of operations.
It would have been quite possible to have given the City of Vancouver most of the site for park purposes and have retained a small part of the site for the C.B.C. However, after many months of negotiation-and these negotiations have been going on now for about 15 months-the Government has agreed to transfer the entire site to the City of Vancouver, without reservation. It is true that the government had hoped that the city would negotiate an agreement with the C.B.C. for the use by the Corporation of some of the buildings and part of the land. But just recently the majority of the City of Vancouver Council voted against this particular proposal. I maintain that the Government has a responsibility to ensure that the C.B.C. in Vancouver obtains better quarters.
There has been a constant movement of actors, directors and producers from Vancouver to Toronto. A very large number of the most talented people at C.B.C. Toronto came from Vancouver. I believe that if there were more opportunities for them on the West Coast, we could retain many of them there and further improve the type of production coming from Vancouver. More budget for production is part of the problem, and I have raised this in the House before. Better production and building facilities are also part of the answer. I agree that ideally the Kitsilano Park site should be used for park and recreational purposes and the C.B.C. should have a completely new building. I admit that putting the C.B.C. into Kitsilano is a second-best solution.
As I said before, the Corporation does need in Vancouver for its regional B.C. headquarters and for production purposes a new building. I would suggest that if no agreement is reached with the City of Vancouver the Government has a responsibility to provide such quarters elsewhere, perhaps a building unit which could house both the C.B.C. and a west coast unit of the National Film Board. I believe there is consideration being given to the possibility of establishing in Vancouver a unit of the National Film Board.
In this connection the Government and the C.B.C. should bear in mind the offer made by the Reeve of Burnaby to the C.B.C. of land for a broadcasting complex at Burnaby. This site is not far removed from the centre of population. It is near all the main high-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ways and roads serving the population, and indeed the private television station in that area is further from the centre of the City of Vancouver than the site proposed by Burnaby. There is no particular reason why the C.B.C. should be in downtown Vancouver. But wherever it may locate, the Government has a responsibility to make sure that the C.B.C. has new quarters soon if the negotiations with the City of Vancouver fail.
[DOT] (10.10 p.m.)
There have been repeated reports during the past week that the majority of the city council is firmly opposed to the C.B.C. obtaining part of Kitsilano Park.


Mr, J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: When the hon. Member referred to this matter on June 3 he spoke in the indicative mood. He stated that a majority on the Vancouver City Council had voted against allowing the C.B.C. to occupy part of the Kitsilano site and went on to ask a question based on this supposed fact.
Tonight he has based his comments-it was hardly a question-on a much more hypothetical approach to the matter. We find the word "if" appearing in at least two places in what he says. I think he now realizes that the city council has not come to a final conclusion. My understanding is that the C.B.C. will be making representations to the council shortly in connection with this matter.
Until the city council has concluded its examination of the subject and has communicated its decision, any action based on an assumption concerning that decision would clearly be premature. I think I should reassure the hon. Member by telling him that the hon. Member for Vancouver-Bur-rard is constantly interested in this very question.



PARLIAMENT HILL-PROVISION FOR PARKING FOR TOURIST BUSES

Cyril Lloyd Francis: I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a local crisis which has developed on Parliament Hill itself.
Each year, as we have all observed, the numbers of school children tourists, and others who come to visit Ottawa and Parliament Hill, is increasing at a rapid rate. When they come by chartered bus they get off the bus in front of the centre door and at that point it has unfortunately, this season, become necessary for the buses to be in-
June 10, 1965
2246	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion structed to leave Parliament Hill itself. There simply is not room enough to park them here while the school children and other visitors watch the proceedings of Parliament and inspect the beautiful facilities which are part of our national heritage.
This is most unfortunate because it has a number of consequences which I should like to outline to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary concerned. In the first place, some of the buses have stopped temporarily; they have gone on the grass. Last week when a driver was out of his bus one of them ran down and crashed into four cars which were parked. I do not know for which I have most sympathy. I sometimes think it would be to the credit of all of us if there were fewer cars parked on the Hill. But I do think a procedure by which these drivers are obliged to circulate in the streets of Ottawa while their passengers are visiting the Hill is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It has discouraged tourists and it creates a problem in the city.
Some of these buses used to park on the parking lot of one of the bus companies here, a company which operates our only major bus station. But they came in such numbers that they encumbered the operation of the station itself and the company was reluctantly obliged to ask them to park elsewhere.
I believe a solution is to be found in two suggestions. The first is of a temporary nature and I have put my idea in writing for the Minister of Public Works to see, namely that the site of the former Lauren-tian Terrace on Sussex Street be used as a temporary parking lot. This structure has been torn down and no reconstruction has taken place on the site. I see no reason to prevent buses parking on that site at least for the balance of the present season.
I should like to see the Government of Canada go to the expense of installing a telephone at that point so that bus drivers could telephone the constables in charge of tourists on Parliament Hill and inquire whether a particular party they had brought here had finished its tour. Then they would be able to return to the Hill at the appropriate time, pick up their passengers and leave.
For the longer period, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the plans for a parking garage to take all the automobiles and buses off Parliament Hill could be proceeded with. I know that the former Minister of Public Works, the hon. Member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont


(Mr. Deschatelets), had plans for a large parking garage at the rear of Parliament Hill on the edge of the Ottawa River. Such a parking garage could have been built in different stages. It could have been concealed very nicely within the cliff of Parliament Hill and it would have served a very good purpose in taking off the Hill some of the cars that now clutter the area in such vast numbers, thus changing Parliament Hill from what it is now, unfortunately, a glorified parking lot. I think this would be consistent with the purpose that the Canadian people would like to see served by the symbols which our Parliament Buildings and Parliament Hill represent to school children from coast to coast across Canada, a symbol of our sovereignty, a symbol of our nationhood, the place where our national government is conducted, a place which they could visit proudly but without inconvenience. I submit that the inconvenience now being suffered discourages the visit to Parliament that all school children in this country hope to make and which we hope they will be able to make.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis), particularly as they apply to those young students across Canada who are fortunate enough to be able to come to the capital, tour Parliament Hill and see Parliament at work.
When the hon. Member raised this question this afternoon I immediately made some inquiries as to where the responsibility actually lies with regard to parking on Parliament Hill. In the intervening time I was not able to get a concise statement as to exactly who is responsible for parking on Parliament Hill. I agree wiith the hon. Member that there are plans in the department for underground parking to get rid of the mess, if I may call it that, on Parliament Hill.
In late years the custom has been that parking permits are issued by the Sergeant-at-Arms under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker, and I am told that any ban on the parking of buses or other vehicles is issued by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am fairly sure that in most cases the Department of Public Works does not know anything about such bans unless they are brought to its attention.
As I said, we are very much interested in the situation. I am sure everybody is anxious
June 10, 1965	COMMONS
to see it cleared up. The hon. Member's remarks will be carefully noted, I am sure, by those who hold responsibility and jurisdiction in this matter, and I assure the hon. Member that his remarks will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). I trust that favourable action will be taken.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



LABOUR RELATIONS-HAL BANKS-DEPOSIT IN MONTREAL BANK TO COVER WAGES OF S.I.U. SEAMEN

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with questions I raised in the House, in relation to which I later found it necessary to take advantage of this fortunate period. My first question was:
Has the Minister any knowledge of an agreement between Harold Chamberlain Banks and the Government of Cuba for the deposit in trust in a Montreal bank of $400,000 to cover the cost of the wages of S.I.U. seamen that were intended to be employed on the ships purchased by the Government of Cuba from Canadian National Steamships?
Has the Minister any knowledge of negotiations being undertaken at the present time between the officers of the S.I.U. and the representatives of the Government of Cuba for the return of this money to the Government of Cuba on the understanding that $75,000 will be paid to the S.I.U. or Harold Chamberlain Banks?
Then, I followed that up with this question:
I wish to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Minister inform the House whether in his opinion the powers of the trustees of the Maritime Transportation Unions permit those trustees to approve any financial arrangement or agreement between the Seafarers International Union and a foreign power? Does the Minister consider this to be a correct constitutional procedure?
I brought these matters to the attention of the House as the result of correspondence from the members of the union and as a result of meeting members of some locals of the union. Now, I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that the motive power, as it were, behind this deal is Mr. Paul Hall. I am interested also that this is in the nature of a Kootenay evening in the House, both for and against. In view of what has been said about these gentlemen a good many of the union members and other persons are very suspicious as to what is going on in this respect. Dr. Harry S. Crowe said at one time when he was research director of the C.B.R.T. and General Workers Union:
The Seafarers International Union of North America and its President, Paul Hall, are every bit as undesirable as the Seafarers International Union of Canada, and its President, Hal Banks.
DEBATES	2247
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Then, I have a very interesting statement from Mr. Millard, who seems to have changed his tune in recent days. This is what Mr. Millard had to say on one occasion:
Though I too am a Canadian and trade unionist,
I do believe in industrial and international trade unionism and, therefore, deplore the cynical and irresponsible actions of men like Paul Hall and Hal C. Banks-they undermine the good name of unionism and defraud hard working and trusting workers. Thank goodness they are the exception and not the rule and I still believe that right will prevail. Some day we may be able to tell you what we are doing to activize the good elements in the U.S.A.-Canadian Trade Union movement.
Mr. Millard made the statement at the time he was a trustee of the Maritime Union.
I	am reliably informed that Mr. Paul Hall is the booming spirit behind this deal that is going on at the present time. Regardless of this statement, I have an official communique of a statement by Mr. Millard, and I quote:
I am pleased to report that discussions carried out between myself and Mr. Paul Hall, President, Seafarers International Union of North America have resulted in a number of basically important conclusions which hold promise for stability in the Great Lakes shipping industry.
Then, he goes on:
The confidence in Mr. Hall and the S.I.U. International demonstrated by the trusteeship in seeking these meetings has been amply justified.
I do want the Members of the House to compare that statement with the previous statement by Mr. Millard. Later on, he goes on to mention the question of the power of the trustees. Then I read from the official communique issued by the trustees on March
II	last:
Canada's five maritime unions under trusteeship were told today no collective agreement is to be put before union membership prior to receiving approval by the Board of Trustees of the Maritime Transportation Unions.
A directive to this effect was issued over the signature of Board Chairman Mr. Justice Victor L. Dryer and Trustees Judge Rene Lippe and Charles H. Millard.
An earlier directive stipulated in broad terms that "no agreement is to be finally concluded and signed before being approved by the trustees."
I have had some consultation with persons who know something about this question and my first query is, have the trustees any power under the Act passed by this Parliament to approve an agreement with a foreign power? Second, we want to know why there was this change in attitude. Why has Mr. Paul Hall suddenly become such a responsible person after the trustees indicated the type of person they thought he was?
The affidavits taken by employees of the maritime trustees, affidavits taken by members of the S.I.U. and affidavits taken by those
2248	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion who are directly concerned with this matter clearly indicate it is time the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations was established, that the trustees were called before it, and the employees of the trustees, plus the officers of the union and members of the union.
I look forward to the explanation to be given by my colleague from Kootenay East, and I might say I have no malice against him whatever, as I trust he is going to give me a very satisfactory answer.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since we have the House almost to ourselves perhaps I may speak practically intimately to my hon. friend. I fear that the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is possessed of an obsession with regard to the activities of Hal Banks.
In the interests of justice I, too, hope Mr. Banks will sooner or later be made to pay his debt to society. But even more important,
I feel this obsession of the hon. Member must be removed so that when he retires to the sandy beaches of the great Arrow Lakes and reclines there on the sand, he will not see an apparition of Mr. Banks in the window of every cabin cruiser that passes his palatial residence on that beautiful lake shore.
In respect of the hon. Member's concern that Hal Banks is going to receive an additional $75,000, I have been supplied with information by the Chairman of the Trustees as follows.
In order to prevent harassment the Cuban government undertook by a negotiated and
DEBATES	June 10, 1965
signed agreement some years ago to man certain ships it had recently purchased from the struck Canadian National Steamships (West Indies) Company with members of the S.I.U., for a period of at least two years after re-activation of the ships. Everyone knows that to date none of these ships have been re-activated. As an indication of good faith the representatives of the Cuban government are said to have posted a bond of $400,000, a sufficient amount to pay the wages of the S.I.U. seamen for the stipulated period.
Last fall Cuban representatives approached Mr. McLaughlin of the S.I.U. in connection with the manning of only two of these ships, which had been laid up on the East Coast. The Cubans proposed a deal for annulment- I emphasize annulment-of the agreement, for which they would pay $75,000 to the S.I.U. of Canada. It therefore follows that any moneys paid for the revocation of this agreement will become the asset of the S.I.U. of Canada, and the trustees will exercise their powers pursuant to section 13 of the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act.
In the light of these facts I think I can assure the hon. Member it is highly unlikely that any portion of such funds, if they do become available, will get into the hands of one Harold Chamberlain Banks. There was no indication that Mr. Paul Hall was implicated in these negotiations.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Friday, June 11, 1965