1967-04-20

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 15A, I made the proposal that the question of allocation of time for the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill No. C-243, being item No. 107 on the order paper, be referred to the business committee.
The members of the business committee had discussions for three days on this matter, in accordance with the provisions of that standing order, and on Tuesday, April 18 I reported to the house that the committee had been unable to reach unanimous agreement on the question referred to it. On Tuesday, April 18 I also gave notice that on the next Thursday I would move for an order providing for the allocation of time. All this appears in Votes and Proceedings of that day. I now propose to make that motion.
As hon. members know, standing order 15A provides for a business committee which has the task of setting up a timetable for debate on a bill. The two-fold assumption behind that order is that all parties will want debate and discussion so that the thinking of the house and the country will develop and mature, and also that all parties will want the house to do its duty by rendering a decision regardless of what individual members may think that decision should be. It is inevitable that there will be differences of opinion. To devise an allocation of time balancing these differences is precisely the task assigned to the business committee. That task it sought to perform, but it was unable to reach the necessary unanimous agreement.
Therefore it now becomes the right and indeed the responsibility of the government under standing order 15A to take the step of providing the opportunity for the house to make a decision on the additional time the house should take in further discussion of the remaining stages of this bill.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. What stage are we at now in the proceedings of the house? I understand that Your Honour called motions. I do not see anything on the order paper to indicate that the minister has an opportunity to speak at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. I have been expecting the minister to make a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What has the minister been talking about?


George James McIlraith: It has become clear-


Mr. Starr:: Order.


Mr. Monieilh:: Make your motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that he make a motion. I understand there may be a debate on the motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -and perhaps the minister can leave his comments until then.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
That an order be made allocating the time on the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended), being government order No. 107 on the order paper, and that the motion will provide that two days shall be allocated for the completion of discussion on the committee of the whole stage on Bill C-243, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended), and that one day shall be allotted for the completion of the third reading stage on the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I understand fully that last Tuesday the minister gave notice of this particular motion, and that it appeared in Votes and Proceedings to which I drew attention yesterday. However, it does not appear on today's order paper. I wonder, sir, whether you would give a ruling on this question. Is it permissible simply to give notice of motion
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation and then, without following the normal custom of the house, to move the motion verbally the next day or some subsequent day without anything appearing on the order paper for the information of members? I am not sure there is any rule governing this procedure, but the custom of the house over the years has prevented members of the house from being taken by surprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has been the practice to disclose the government's intentions in the order paper, and the same has applied to private members. Private members who give notice of motion with regard to the introduction of a bill place that notice in Votes and Proceedings, then the order paper brings it to the attention of the house on some subsequent day. Is some special dispensation being granted to the Minister of Public Works or to any member of the government, because in the past we have been accustomed to another procedure than that followed by the minister today? I would ask Your Honour's ruling on this important point; because if Your Honour reaches a decision that this may happen, then in future any of us will be free to give notice of motion, have it appear in Votes and Proceedings and then, at our choice, raise it orally when motions are called.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre I should like to read standing order 15A (5), as follows:
If the chairman of the business committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement-
Which was the case in this instance.
-or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by section (3) of this standing order, a minister of the crown, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 41, may give notice of motion that at the next sitting of the house, provided that day is not a Wednesday, he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
As I indicated when I first rose, notice of motion was given on Tuesday. The motion was to be made on Thursday because the standing order provides it cannot be moved on a Wednesday. Paragraph 6 of the standing order reads:
A motion of which a minister has given notice under section (5) of this standing order shall be made during routine proceedings.
Then the order goes on with other matters not relevant to the point at issue. In the light

of the standing order it will be seen that I have followed exactly the procedure set out in it. This being so, I respectfully suggest that the procedure envisaged by standing order 41, which is specifically exempted from applicability to this motion, has no bearing and I am in order.


Mr. Speaker:: In so far as the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is concerned, I have been giving some thought to this problem which I felt might be raised. Standing order 41 reads:
Forty eight hours notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction-
I will not read the whole of the standing order. We should remember that the provisional standing order suspends the provisions of standing order 41. Section 5 of standing order 15A not only dispenses with the requirement for 48 hours' notice with respect to a motion for time allocation; it also renders inoperative the ordinary machinery for putting a notice on the order paper. Hon. members will note that a similar procedure with respect to notice will be found in standing order 33.
Section 6 of standing order 15A reads in part as follows:
A motion of which a minister has given notice under section (5) of this standing order shall be made during routine proceedings.
I suggest to hon. members and I believe there is doubt about the interpretation of these words "routine proceedings". They must be interpreted in the light of the recommendation made by the special committee on procedure in 1955, which was concurred in by the house and recorded at page 944 of the Journals for July 12, 1955, as follows:
That motions for concurrence in reports of any standing or special committee, for the suspension of any standing order, or such other motions made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observances of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment shall be listed, when notice is required, called and disposed of under "motions".
In view, therefore, of the provision of the standing order and the interpretation which I think is the only one possible, I cannot accept the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
April 20, 1967


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of what use is the order paper, then?


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I am not too clear on the other point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and if my impression is wrong perhaps he will correct me. I believe he suggested the motion is irregular inasmuch as there is no specific reference to those days on which the matter is to be considered-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; with deference, Mr. Speaker, I think my second question was overlooked because of the diversionary tactics of the Minister of Public Works. What I should like a ruling on is this. I quite agree that proper notice has been given, and I am not arguing that point at all. The rule has been followed. What I am asking a ruling on is this. After notice has been given and has appeared in Votes and Proceedings, has it not been the custom of the house, a custom which should be observed, that the motion for presentation to the house should appear on the order paper so that everybody is informed rather than have this oral reference back to an item in Votes and Proceedings'!


Mr. Speaker:: I was under the impression I had covered this particular point. I believe it is more than a custom that is involved here; this notice is given by virtue of standing order 41. However, this provisional standing order was specifically exempted from the provisions of standing order 41.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: As I have indicated, the business committee has been entrusted by the house with trying to find a balance that would provide a timetable that would cover the two elements which must enter into the operations of the House of Commons if it is to perform the duty for which it is here. One of these elements is the opportunity for full and adequate discussion of proposals submitted by the government; the other is the taking of decisions upon proposals submitted by the government. The business committee having been unable to reach a unanimous agreement, it is now the responsibility of the government -as I have said, I think there is an obligation upon the government-to put before the house the amount of time the government thinks would be appropriate to provide adequately for the completion of the discussion of the measure, and to permit a decision to be taken on the measure consistent with the responsibilities of parliament.
Proposal for Time Allocation
I am not going to develop the argument further, because it must be apparent to hon. members on all sides that this measure has been very thoroughly discussed. Yesterday was the thirteenth day of debate on the committee of the whole stage of the bill; that is, the clause by clause discussion of the bill. Those 13 days of debate did not bring even clause 2 of the bill to a decision of the house, and it began to be readily apparent that the purpose of the official opposition was to inordinately delay this measure or to prevent a decision being taken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is imputing motives to the official opposition. He said it was evident that our purpose was simply to delay. Our purpose was to bring to the attention of this house, to the attention of the minister who has attended none of the debate during the last 13 days, and to the attention of the general public the weaknesses of this bill. Point after point was brought forward during the course of the debate, and new points entered into the argument during the last two days which have not been answered. The minister must withdraw his accusation.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the minister is not imputing motives. I think all members realize that nobody is trying to impute motives, and I am sure this is not what the minister is doing now.


George James McIlraith: If the sensitivities of the hon. member induce him to feel that I was imputing motives to him I would very happily withdraw the part of my remarks that caused him such offence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was the general feeling over here, not only my feeling.


George James McIlraith: My remarks were not of such import as to cause him any offence. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the record of the discussion on this bill during the last 13 days is in cold print to be studied by all, not only by those who have been present to hear the debate. It is clear that a very long time indeed was being taken in the discussion of one clause of this bill. It seemed to the government in the exercise of its responsibility that such an inordinately long time was being taken to discuss this clause that it had a duty to give parliament the opportunity of deciding whether or not the House of Commons should take a decision on this bill. Under the British system-
15122	COMMONS
Proposal for Time Allocation


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister answer a question at this point?


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Speaker I should like to put at least part of my remarks before the house without interruption. At the conclusion of my remarks I will be happy to answer any questions the hon. member may have; indeed, sometimes I enjoy his questions. In any event the truth of the matter is that under the Canadian parliamentary system, based as it is on the British system, the government is given the responsibility of governing. That implies the right to have a decision taken by parliament, or in this instance by the House of Commons, on the proposals laid by it before the house. That right, of course, in controlled by the full right of discussion by the elected representatives of the people sent here to consider these proposals and to take decisions on them. Any other arrangement would be intolerable, for the separation of authority and responsibility is the first definition of tyranny. I respectfully suggest that an overextension of either right would lead to the development of anarchy. To find the correct balance between debate and decision must ever be the task of responsible conduct in the House of Commons.
We in this parliament have chosen the procedure under temporary standing order 15A, but we must, in choosing that responsibility, exercise it in a way that will be consistent with our concept of parliament and not permit an abuse to arise that is the first step toward tyranny.
Holding those views, believing that the stage has now come when this house must pass on the proposal for the allocation of time which we have submitted, I have made my motion providing for two further days of discussion in the committee of the whole house on the individual clauses of the bill and one day for the third reading stage of the bill. With those words, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my motion for the consideration of this house and ask the house to pass on it in accordance with the views of individual members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I now ask my question, Mr. Speaker. I would now ask the government house leader whether, in discussing the length of time spent on clause 2, he will disclose, first, there was the suggestion that clause 2 is the most important clause of the bill; second, on behalf of this party I proposed to him on Monday that we were prepared to pass all clauses of the bill except clauses 2

DEBATES	April 20, 1967
and 6 which we asked to have deferred until the fall. Nevertheless, the rest of the bill would have been passed on Monday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -without further debate. In addition we were prepared to pass the bill on adult training, the report of the rules committee and interim supply by Friday of this week. That offer was rejected by the government.


George James McIlraith: I shall be very happy to answer that rather lengthy question as fully as I can. In assessing the important clauses of the bill, undoubtedly clause 2 is very important, going to the root of the bill. Whether it is the most important of the 65 clauses I cannot say, but certainly it is a very important clause going to the very root of the bill.
I do not want to go into details of what was said by each person in the business committee because I have always taken the position that the confidentiality of house leaders' meetings or business committee meetings should not be broken, but I would be happy to confirm that a proposal was made by the hon. member, not that we pass the bill as he suggested in his question, but that we let clauses 2 and 6 stand and that we then call the other clauses of the bill and carry them in the committee of the whole stage, and that the whole bill then stand, with the result that there would be no legislative effect, no legislative result to what was done.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The whole bill would then stand over for four or five months-I think that was the term he used-or, anyway, until the fall of this year, without having been passed. In addition, if the proposal not to proceed further with the bill at this stage of the session was acceptable, they would agree to winding up the other business for this session of parliament, that is the manpower training bill, interim supply and the report of the rules committee. They would do this within three or four days, or in any event within a very short period of time.
That proposal was rejected after careful consideration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: It did get careful consideration, and it was rejected for the following reasons. First, the bill would have been stopped completely. I should add that as part of the proposal the hon. member had agreed
April 20, 1987	COMMONS
on behalf of his party that in the new session, that is in the fall, the stages up to the committee stage of the bill would be dealt with without debate or vote.
These proposals were rejected for the following reasons. They would, in effect, amount to a complete stopping of the bill at this time. This would leave the Department of National Defence and the armed forces in a position of uncertainty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: After careful consideration and examination it was felt this would lead to a material deterioration of morale in the department and armed forces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: It would mean also there would be no authority in the department to continue any steps forward in connection with this subject until the bill was passed. It would, in effect, be similar to the six months' hoist, because it would end the bill as far as this session was concerned though giving us the right, of course, to bring it forward in the new session of parliament and make progress next fall. This seemed to me and to others to be a wholly unrealistic approach to this question, although, as I have said, it did get very thorough consideration, notwithstanding interjections by some of the backbenchers opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Are hon. members rising to ask further questions? We should determine in the first instance whether the minister has completed his remarks or whether he wishes to reply to further questions at this time.


Mr. Webb:: A point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, do I gather that the minister is relinquishing the floor to the Leader of the Opposition?


George James McIlraith: No, I have indicated that I would accept a question from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the question is asked I believe the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac has a point of order to raise.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The minister was kind enough to say he would answer all questions.


George James McIlraith: I did not say that.
Proposal for Time Allocation


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question? The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has been recognized first for that purpose.


Mr. Challerion:: May I ask the leader of the house to tell us the reasons which prompted the government to set two days for the committee stage? If the purpose was to bring an end to the debate why was a period of two days chosen rather than five or six days, for instance?


George James McIlraith: I can answer that question very simply. Notice was given on Thursday, one week ago today, that this procedure would be used. After that notice had been given the discussion continued, and in those intervening days it became quite clear from the lack of progress that there would be no disposition to dispose of the various clauses within any given length of time. Moreover, I had borne in mind that the committee had already spent 13 days in clause by clause consideration of the bill. I had also borne in mind intimations that no allocation of time however long would be agreeable to the opposition. It had been made very clear that it did not matter what length of time was proposed, whether weeks or months; they would not agree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Since the government is today introducing closure in connection with a bill which concerns Canada's future defence, I would ask the minister whether it is significant that today is also the anniversary of Hitler's birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: But for a reference which was made at the beginning of the hon. member's question I would not answer it. This is not a closure procedure. A closure procedure is an arbitrary procedure taken to shut off debate. This procedure is based on the premise that there is a responsibility upon the house to permit a decision to be taken. It is a method of trying to make those groups which, without responsibility, would seek to impose their will on parliament, to negotiate and try to come to an agreement or arrangement consistent with their responsibilities in parliament. And it provides, in the event of failure to bring this about, that after due notice the house itself shall pass on the matter. That is not closure. That is the antithesis of closure procedure.
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation


Mr. Nasserden:: I have a question for the leader of the house. Is he insinuating that the intervention of Liberal speakers in the debate represented an encroachment upon the decision-making process?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we are making any progress at this point.


Mr. Forreslall:: I should like to ask the distinguished house leader whether, in the light of the evidence given before the committee by Brigadier Lawson and confirmed in this house that in any case from four to six months would elapse before the government could move to the promulgation of this bill, because of the regulations which have to be drawn up, he would comment on the position of the discussion on clauses 2 and 6 of this bill if we ask to have them stood over until the fall.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member seems to be under a misapprehension with regard to the process followed in what he calls the promulgation of the bill. I presume he has in mind certain regulations which have to be made and certain steps which have to be taken once the bill is passed and has become an act. Then the proclaiming of the bill becomes a procedure which does not need the concurrence of parliament; either the House of Commons or the Senate. It is an act by the executive on a different procedure, and in the interval between the passage of the act and its promulgation there is the authority in the Interpretation Act providing for those responsible, once it has been passed and approved by the parliament of this country, to pass the regulations under it. This is the essential difference. The hon. member seems to have missed the whole essence of it.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the house leader to explain why, since as late as Tuesday of this week, when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre moved that we go on to other business and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) said "We are going to continue with the unification debate in order to give you every opportunity'" now in defiance of the express promise of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence that every opportunity would be given for a thorough examination of this bill, they are bringing in this closure.


George James McIlraith: I would be very happy to explain. I joined completely with the Minister
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
of National Defence, and I am happy to note we were in such total accord, in going contrary to the official opposition's effort to prevent this bill from being discussed in the house on Tuesday, when we had given notice to resort to the procedure under standing order 15A. He, like myself, did not wish to deny the House of Commons the opportunity to discuss this bill that day and make progress with it. As to the second point, the misuse by the hon. member of the word closure, I have already dealt with that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the play on words by the Minister of Public Works is clear and apparent. This isn't closure, he says, when in point of fact it is nothing else; and by simply saying that it isn't what it is, he in no way meets the argument that the guillotine is to be used in place of the axe.
I listened with interest to his dissertation on parliamentary debate and the manner in which it should be carried on, and I could not but be reminded of the words of Lewis Carroll when he said-and this describes the attitude of the minister.
"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
''I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief Before his streaming eyes.
Oh, what an idea, to think parliament would ever consider that these paragons of parliamentary practice who sit opposite would do anything wrong and shock those sensibilities of which the minister spoke. I quote to him the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the great democrats of this nation, one of the parliamentary giants of all time. Apparently the minister has not read what Laurier said. A moment ago he was complaining about the number of days that had been taken up in this debate. If my estimate is correct, in the days that have gone by 30 members other than members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have spoken.


Michael Starr: On the second clause.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course on the second clause, as the hon. gentleman says. By way of an answer, let me read what Laurier said to those people sitting opposite who in 1967 are revealing that they have forgotten 1956.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They said the same thing then. I could quote one and all, the Minister
April 20, 1967	COMMONS
of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), but I restrict myself to the latter. These were the words of ridicule that he heaped on us in 1956:
The opposition, of course, claim, and they claim very often, to be gagged. If that is true, Mr. Speaker, they are the noisiest group of gagged men in history.
Those words came back to destroy the government of which the right hon. gentleman was then secretary of state for external affairs. The Minister of Public Works says the debate has gone on for so many days. Let me read what Laurier said in regard to debate. I refer to the 1912-13 Hansard at page 7431:
It has been charged against us that we have delayed the business of the house, that we have prevented it from going on. Sir, I deny the charge altogether; there is not a word of foundation for it.
Further on he said this:
It is true, sir, that we opposed a certain measure. It is true that we opposed the bill for naval aid. We did that with all the might at our command; we did it with all the means at our command under the rules of the house. Am I to be told that in the exercise of this power of strenuous opposition we did anything which is not in accordance with the best traditions of parliamentary government?
Then he went on to deal with the length of time, and in reply to an interruption he pointed out this fact, as recorded at page 9454 of Hansard for the same session, and I quote the interruption first:
My right hon. friend would surely be disposed to admit that in nineteen or twenty days we ought to be able to make sufficient progress to enable every amendment to be considered.


Sir Wilfrid Laurier:: I do not admit anything of the kind. I can show precedents of bills of less importance that have taken the house more than thirty days in committee of the whole-
The minister referred to British parliamentary practice. As recorded at page 9534 of the same Hansard Sir Wilfrid Laurier said it is quite common in the United Kingdom to have lengthy discussion in committee on important bills, for one, two or three weeks. Then he went on and dealt in general with the situation in this regard.
Why has there been this debate, Mr. Speaker? Because we have not been able to get the answers to those questions we have asked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am now going to refer to words that will become immortal as an
Proposal for Time Allocation example of non-egotism on the part of the Minister of National Defence. Before I do that I say this, what we have been treated to in this country in the last few weeks is a plethora of press releases issued by the visible presence of the representative of the minister

organized nonsense.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I cannot pass up the opportunity to refer to one thing that took place in the United States, because it is of interest today. In 1942 the father of the United States airborne forces and the first officer to command one of the divisions was William M. Lee. He had the rank of major general, which of course we must not bring up at all for consideration at this time. It was the custom then as a man jumped from the transport plane to shout "Geronimo". Geronimo was an Apache rebel who caused the Americans a lot of trouble. Major General Lee was transferred to another unit and his place was taken by General Maxwell Taylor. He issued orders that instead of shouting "Geronimo" each paratrooper of the division should shout "Bill Lee" as he jumped out. History is a magnificent study. It is probably only a coincidence that there was so much disorganization, confusion and a complete mix-up when that name was substituted for the former. Let me bring this up to date. The Minister of National Defence and this government are so disorganized and unprepared they might well shout the same cry.
What has happened at this time is that generals, admirals, and air marshals have been swept aside. Their views mean nothing. As the minister said in the course of his remarks "We have to use our own God-given intelligence" to make decisions. I ask the Prime Minister when he speaks-


Mr. Pearson:: I am not going to bother.


John George Diefenbaker: Is he not going to speak?


Michael Starr: He is not going to bother.


John George Diefenbaker: He is not going to bother. That is the best indication of the utter disregard the Prime Minister has for parliament; he is not going to bother to speak. Is that because he has adopted that unusually unattractive position he took in Vancouver when he was asked about the subject of abortion? He was asked where he stood in this regard and his answer was "I stand firmly". The next question was "where"? His answer was "On the fence". He is not going to bother. No wonder we are faced with closure. The Prime Minister does not want to answer. He does
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation not want to take the position he should take as the leader of this nation and tell the House of Commons what this government intends to do in respect of unification.
What are the government's plans? In the last 24 hours we have been told-and it is interesting to note that the newspapers are now reporting these things-that plans are being made against the eventuality that a peace keeping force will be sent to Viet Nam. Surely this is part of the propaganda program. In the last few days there has been debate on this question, and suddenly now there is a deliberate leak by a defence department source while parliament is in the throes of a debate on this subject. I have said, and the minister has denied this, that it is generally accepted that this government intends to produce a kind of faceless organization, once it gets these men into green jumpers, to be used as a special force for peace keeping. I think that is one of the pivotal reasons for this measure. This suggestion has already been turned down by the United Nations, yet the government proceeds with this idea. A government spokesman has said that plans have been drawn up to send a thousand man force to Viet Nam. I asked the Prime Minister to give us this information, not that minister who refuses to answer questions and substitutes abuse for arguments.
Has there been any discussion about this with the United Nations? Has there been any indication of such a request forthcoming, or is this just another of these publicity blurbs that regularly fill the wastepaper baskets of the press? What indication has there been of any acceptance by Hanoi of a cease fire and withdrawal, without which there can be no peace keeping? These are questions we want answered, yet they remain unanswered. What is the government's attitude in respect of renewal or rejection of NORAD? Surely if this house ever had a right to information, it has a right in this regard.
What is the government going to do with these green uniformed representatives in the armed forces of Canada? What is the government's policy in respect of NORAD? What is the attitude of the government regarding our commitments to NATO? I read the diaphanous explanation given by the minister. I can only say to him that in my experience no man is his equal, if that is his general manner of answering. He conceals so little thought in so many words.
What is the government's policy in respect of NATO? Is there any foundation for the

suggestion that the number of men will be reduced? We have a right to this information. This debate would have concluded long ago had we received answers to these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. I am not speaking about the 22 Liberal members, if that is the number, who have spoken. They would have spoken in any event. I am speaking about Her Majesty's opposition. We have no right to let this government sell Canada a pig in a poke, and that is what is being done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What amazes me is that the Prime Minister says he has nothing to say. Shades of Laurier. Shades of King. Shades of St. Laurent. The only time Mr. St. Laurent did not take part in a debate to reply to suggestions or questions was in 1956, and we all know what happened to the St. Laurent government in 1957 after that government trampled on parliament. This government ridicules us now. This is the same old bunch.


Michael Starr: You have been integrated up to your necks.


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that this is an arid integration in so far as answers are concerned.


Mr. Prud'homme:: What about integration within your own party?


John George Diefenbaker: I heard a voice. As a cuckoo in June, heard, but not recorded.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the "voice" heard was mine, and I should like to repeat the suggestion I made in my speech yesterday, that there should perhaps be a bill for the unification and integration of the Progressive Conservative party. That was all I said.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question of privilege.
April 20, 1967	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: After reading what Walter Gordon said yesterday, if I may use his name, I would say that you do not want to talk about integration when you face extinction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already risen on a question of privilege which was out of order. I hope his question this time is more justified than the last.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I could perhaps send him the notes he forgot on the articles written by the hon. Minister of Justice which appeared in the magazine Cite Libre.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Gordon:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to the right hon. gentleman for saying that he has mellowed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted that while he does not speak much in the house, when he gets outside he has strong opinions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: After this happy interlude I now quote from a newspaper that worships at the altar of Liberalism. I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press. Some of its subsidiary newspapers are also doing a good job in that connection. I am going to deal with them on a later occasion. There are two of them in eastern Canada, if I may put it that way, that used to be independent Conservative newspapers but now belong to F.P. Publications and reflect so often the general views of the Free Press. On this occasion I want to quote from the Free Press:
The federal government could be making a mistake-
That is the first time in the history of this government that the Free Press has ever admitted even the possibility or likelihood of a mistake having been made by the government.
-if, in its determination to impose unification on Canada's armed services, it should resort to some form of closure on parliament.
Proposal for Time Allocation
The government can argue that the unification bill has been through the legislative mill, including the defence committee, and that there is nothing of value to be gained by prolonging the discussion. In fact, not all witnesses who should have been heard were called before the committee. And in spite of all the talking that has been done, some major questions remain unanswered-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is why I suggested that the Prime Minister cancel his temporary vow of silence in this debate. The article continues:
*-in spite of all the talking that has been done, some major questions remain unanswered-notably those concerning the effect that unification may have on Canada's military commitments under NATO and under NORAD.
That is what I am asking for. That is what we have been asking for for days. What is the minister going to do with these people? You put them in a uniform, you march them up the hill, you change the present uniform to one that is green, and march them down the hill again. What are you going to do? What are your plans? The article goes on to say:
The suspicion has grown that the reason these questions have not been answered is that the government does not know the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a surprising thing that all the ministers have such a hiatus in their thinking and speaking when it comes to dealing with these questions. Then the article says:
If closure is resorted to, this suspicion will be strengthened.
Unification is government policy, but it is a policy that has met vigorous opposition from many members of parliament who must feel that they represent a substantial body of opinion. The government can press on-
I realize that. All they have to do is look at the battalions they have to our left in this chamber. The leader of the Creditistes says, "I march with you. Away with the uniforms of the past and all the traditions of the forces." Social Credit has not yet spoken with definiteness but I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), with his infinite capacity for turning somersaults in the house, will be able to explain, with that clarity that always characterizes his utterances, why it is that while he does not agree with the principle of closure in this case he is going to vote with the government. There is also a possibility that he will vote against them, because now that he knows closure will be voted for
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation
by the Creditistes it is safe for him and those associated with him to vote against it.
The article in the Winnipeg Free Press goes on to say:
The government can press on; that appears to be its intention. But if it does so at the expense of cutting further debate, it cannot help but leave the same kind of impression that the St. Laurent government left when it used closure in 1956-that here is a government which has failed to convince the majority of the population.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, they can gag us by brute force with the assistance of third parties, but they cannot gag our belief and that of millions of Canadians that what is being destroyed here is tradition, which the minister sweeps aside. He said, "What does it matter what your uniform is?" I am going to refer to his words in a moment when he gave his views on the processes that brought about this situation.
I now come to the explanation of the minister. From the beginning he has pursued a tortuous course. 1 have always had a rather warm feeling for him. While we sit opposite one another and express ourselves strongly in debate, there is still something within us that admires ability and capacity, and above all willingness, to do one's best for one's country. If I may make a diversion at this moment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring a simple example to the attention of the house. This happened in 1961. My wife and I were in London. We were invited to a dinner given in our honour by the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Sir Winston Churchill came that night. My wife sat between the prime minister and Sir Winston. I was on the other side of the table, away down. I had been introduced to all who were present there but I did not realize who the lady was next to me. Her name was Mrs. Chamberlain. I did not associate her in any way with the prime minister of the United Kingdom of the late 1930's and the early months of 1940. Sir Winston was in unusually good humour that night. I turned to her at one point and said: "Is it not wonderful the way he enjoys life at his age? He is happy tonight." She said: "Yes, if it weren't for him we wouldn't be here."
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Habel:: That is a bedtime story.


John George Diefenbaker: I know it registered nothing in the mind of the hon. gentleman. That is my idea of public life. Mrs. Chamberlain's 
late husband was driven out but she maintained that tradition which is the essence of the British parliamentary system. The interference opposite indicates that the hon. members do not know parliament.
I have followed the minister's course with a great deal of interest but the manner in which he has given explanations to the house indicates that when he is faced with arguments he takes up another position. His first statement was that all the experts and all the servicemen were on his side.


Mr. Hellyer:: I never said that.


John George Diefenbaker: That was proven to be completely without foundation. His second position was-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman gave the impression he was quoting from something I said. Would he give the source and the time and place so I can find it?


John George Diefenbaker: It has been said over and over again. Those who did not agree were retired, so naturally he must have felt he had the unanimous support of those who were permitted to remain.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You paraphrased it.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister can name me one high officer who dared say he did not agree with unification and is not yet out of the services, I will give him the opportunity.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: This is Hitler's birthday.


John George Diefenbaker: There is an expression which I cannot repeat here but, to paraphrase, it means that when you advance an argument you should stand by it.
That was the minister's first position. There was the case of an admiral of the fleet who was condemned and denigrated by the minister. Six months later the minister said: "I really did not mean it". I wish he had developed the same epidermis with regard to the comment made by the member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona. But no, the minister was going to sue. He had no case because only what was said in the house was repeated outside it.
I wonder when legal action will be taken? Never since General Currie in the Port Hope trial has there been anything like the reaction of Hellyer versus Nugent. I know him as Terry. When is the minister going to start the action? He must start it within a certain
April 20, 1967	COMMONS
number of days. He will lose the right unless he acts soon.
Then the minister said: "Well, what they said really did not matter because after all they did not know". Let us read his words. They could not have been unprepared. They have every appearance of having been sent from above. They could have come from nowhere else. He said:
Having listened to all of the points of view which have been expressed, I think it is incumbent on members and ministers to make up their minds on this matter. We have to use our own God-given intelligence to take a decision instead of simply relying on evidence of people in favour or the evidence of people not in favour.
As long as these generals, admirals and air marshals said they believed in a measure of integration their evidence was sound. But when they said they did not believe in unification they ceased to have that God-given intelligence which apparently is the monopoly of the minister and those associated with him. Farther on he went on to say:
-believe me, Mr. Chairman, this is all I have done and it is what the associate minister has done.
Then he said:
All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that we use our own God-given intelligence and examine all of the
changes in technology which have taken place during the last 20 years.
This is one of the strangest doctrines I have ever heard. Everybody is wrong but the minister and the associate minister who possess something that is denied to other members of parliament and which apparently has been arrogated to the minister and those associated with him, namely, God-given intelligence.
I ask the minister, where was this God-given intelligence in 1961 and 1962 when the minister said that the whole idea of having any nuclear arms is wrong? He said, "we will have nothing to do with it; it is pouring money down the drain." In January of 1963 the God-given intelligence received intelligence from another country.


Mr. Pilon:: From NATO.


An hon. Member:: God giveth, God taketh away.


John George Diefenbaker: This issue cannot be determined by this government. No doubt the other parties will say that the rights of parliament have not been trampled upon. I say to my friends in the New Democratic party: Your predecessors, the C.C.F. party, were wrong in every policy on national defence from 1938 onward. I have the record here.
Proposal for Time Allocation
I would like to know where Canada's contributions would have been if it had followed the policies of the New Democratic party. Unless it becomes necessary to elucidate I will leave the subject there, but the record stands. I repeat that in 1938, in September, 1939, and in 1941, the party which claimed so often to have a monopoly of humanitarian intelligence was wrong. I hope the passage of years has brought them a new capacity to judge on questions of defence.


Mr. Winch:: Where is the Conservative party's God-given intelligence?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member wants quotations, I can furnish them without any difficulty at all. I would ask him to read the record and I will be glad to discuss the matter with him now. Let him read the record of the declaration of his party's policy in 1937. Let him read the record of his party's policy in 1939 when there was complete agreement in the socialist party that not one man should be sent overseas and that Canada's aid should be solely economic. They say that parliament's rights have not been trampled on. But, sir, we in this party have taken our stand on this subject. They can trample on our views but if the correspondence that is coming in means anything, it is clear that this government has embarked on a policy that is not acceptable.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Someone criticized me for having said that General Allard has political ambitions. I think it was the Ottawa Journal, which used to be independent Conservative too. I was simply referring to a fact that the press had reported. I know also that in 1951, if I am correct in the year, General Allard was offered a portfolio but felt he ought to stay with the armed forces for a while longer. On the one hand we have the chief of staff and on the other we have a number of gentlemen whose names I am going to read. This list reads like a Who's Who in Canada's glorious record of service. They are: General Charles Foulkes; Lieutenant General Robert Moncel; Vice Admiral H. S. Rayner; Air Vice Marshal M. M. Hendrick; Admiral Brock; Admiral Pullen; Admiral Stirling; Lieutenant General Fleury; Air Marshal Curtis; Air Marshal Clare Annis; Lieutenant General Guy Simonds; Air Chief Marshal F. R. Miller, and the man who stood, Read Admiral W. M. Landymore.
There is the list of some of those who spoke out. Do not these men possess that God-given
15130	COMMONS DEBATES	April 20, 1967
Proposal for Time Allocation
intelligence of which the minister has spoken? Are these men endeavouring to bring this nation to a position of degradation by their stand? What has happened here has been that this government, and more particularly the minister, has been playing politics with the defence of this nation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Absolutely untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: As I said before, and I repeat, defence is being used as a platform for personal ambition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Absolutely untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: It is easy to say this is untrue but the facts tell the story. No amount of denial can get away from it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You tell the story but you don't know the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the admission. Those who tell the story don't know the facts. If you can equal that for a statement of positive self-satisfaction and egotism, it is your move. What manner of person is this? The minister has a divine right. Who are these people who do not know the facts?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I said you do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: Look at me, the minister says; I have them but I am not going to tell parliament. This has been his attitude and when finally he found himself in an impossible position he attempted the strategic course of bringing about closure. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) says it is not closure; we have changed the name. It will have the same result, but let us be careful about the use of that word. It may be a synonym but it is not closure. Sir, never could a minister equal the vacuity of that last statement the minister made in his interruption. They do not know the facts.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not what I said; I said you do not know. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it more specific, I do not want a general statement-


John George Diefenbaker: But I am saying what they have said. I am not one who glorifies my position, as the hon. gentleman does, by setting myself apart. Oh, what a statement that was. Everybody else has lost his intelligence but he has his own God-given intelligence. Today he says "they do not know the facts". Then, he amends the statement and says "I do

not know the facts". All I know is what I read in the evidence. Every solitary bit of the evidence that was given, I have read. If ever there was a case made completely against what is being produced here for the political deification of the hon. gentleman, this is that case.
What is being done is this: Here is what we are going to do, he says, and he submits his case without argument. You have got to take it because if you do not, then with the assistance of my colleagues I am going to bring about a vile repetition of 1956. I am going to push this measure through. I am going to push it down the throats of Canadians regardless of their feelings because I have the God-given intelligence that is denied to the generals, admirals and air vice marshals as well as to the men and women who serve in the armed forces and who write me daily saying that they hope the opposition presses on. They do not want their names mentioned or they will be destroyed. This is what is happening in this nation. They have every reason to be afraid because after all they only occupy the ranks of private, lance corporal, corporal or sergeant or equivalent ranks in the other services. What has taken place in this nation as a result of the manipulations of the government in this connection is that men and women in the armed forces are full of fear and foreboding. They do not dare speak out. They have been overwhelmed with the 48,000 copies of the speech of the minister duly annotated, decorated and engrossed. Each one of them knows what will happen if he dares to speak out.
On June 7, 1965, the minister put out another press statement reading in part as follows:
The command structure of the Canadian armed forces has been redesigned on a functional basis, in keeping with the principles and objectives outlined in the white paper on defence of March, 1964.
He has done nothing of the kind. The white paper never envisaged the tinkering and interference that have taken place or the results that are today flowing from that action. The press statement ended in this way:
The new command structure, which reflects the major commitments assigned to the forces by the government is the product of careful study by the defence staff. Major field commanders of all services have been consulted in detail on the plan which is four months ahead of schedule.
This statement, sir, is not true. If this government tramples on the right of parliament to information about why this change is being made, what our international commitments
April 20, 1967

are and how they are going to be met under this neutralized scheme, and bulldozes this measure through, then Canadians everywhere will have the same feeling they had in 1956. They will feel that the rights of parliament have been trampled on. As far as the people in the armed forces are concerned, while they are now silenced by fear, the day will ultimately come when they will be able to speak out, by which time their morale will have sunk to unheard of levels, I am afraid.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, I could hardly resist the persuasive invitation of the right hon. gentleman opposite to take part in this discussion, so I should like to say a few words on the motion before the house. I am not speaking to the defence bill. There are three more days to discuss that measure and if I have a statement to make on it I will make it during that debate and not during this one which does not deal with the defence bill itself.
The right hon. gentleman did say that we on this side were attempting to bulldoze this bill through parliament. He is suggesting we are bulldozing it when, Mr. Speaker, we are in a minority position in this house and when the motion before us will not pass unless it gets the support of the majority of the members of this house. This is a queer kind of minority bulldozing.
A proposal was made a short time ago that was apparently designed to avoid this discussion. The effect of it was that we give the two clauses of this bill which are controversial, the two clauses that matter, the six months' hoist. That proposal was put before us. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is at least one tempting aspect to this proposal, and that is that if the six months' hoist were given, this matter would not come before this house again until next October. After listening to the right hon. gentleman this afternoon it is tempting to think that perhaps by that time we would be spared another speech by him on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you have desired for years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not my desire. I hope that my right hon. friend will be sitting in that seat for a long, long time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Proposal for Time Allocation


Lester Bowles Pearson: And I am not being entirely unselfish in that wish, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman, with his customary scatter-gun approach, dealt with a great many things which had nothing whatever to do with this motion. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I noticed something that he has done before, and I say this in no critical way. He redoubled his energy every time he lost his aim.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I help out the Prime Minister. That was first said in 1862 by Disraeli.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; that was first said-and I should put it in quotes- in 1853 by William Ewart Gladstone. I should like to plagiarize some other observations but perhaps I had better begin to make my own speech.
The right hon. gentleman did talk about closure, and that is pertinent to the motion. He was against closure. He said he did not like it and that he could see no distinction between closure and time allocation. I suggest it should be obvious to anybody that closure can be imposed on the House of Commons without the consent of the House of Commons having been sought whereas time allocations cannot. Parliament has its opportunity and its duty to decide whether there will be time allocations, and parliament will decide this evening at a quarter to ten whether there should be an allocation of time to discuss this particular bill.
In support of his bitter attack on closure this afternoon the right hon. gentleman quoted some newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Press. The Winnipeg Free Press, in commenting about closure in connection with the flag discussion, had this to say-and this is now one of the right hon. gentleman's favourite newspapers:
Mr. Diefenbaker must therefore answer this question: If closure is the terrible thing which Conservatives pretend, why did he force it upon Mr. Pearson?
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is what the Winnipeg Free Press had to say in connection with the flag debate.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date of that article?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the issue of December 14, 1964. It goes on to say:
If the rule itself is wrong-
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation
That is the closure rule.
-Mr. Diefenbaker must explain why he gave repeal of that rule such low priority that, even with a large majority-
The largest majority in our history, Mr. Speaker.
-and, as it turned out, with the assent of the Liberals-
Because we asked him to do this.
-he failed in six years to remove it.


John George Diefenbaker: But we never imposed it at any time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was mentioned during the campaign, and in the first speech from the throne of my right hon. friend's government there was included the sentence: "We will abolish closure". That was in 1957.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A broken promise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was never used and it was never abolished, and it is part of our procedure now.
Closure, of course, can be a very arbitrary action. The right hon. gentleman referred this afternoon to Sir Winston Churchill in terms of admiration and respect which we all feel for a great democrat and lover of parliament. But Sir Winston Churchill did not hesitate in government to use closure when he felt it was necessary to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: With the consent of the Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But in order to avoid closure, Mr. Speaker, we have by agreement-and this is part of the rules and procedures of this house-worked out a system of time allocation for legislative and other proposals that come before this house. We hope that agreement on allocation of time can be reached voluntarily. However, if it cannot be reached voluntarily it can then be made the subject of a motion put to the house by the government of the day for its acceptance or its rejection. Is there any fairer way than that to bring debate to an end when the time has come for a decision to be made after due debate? That is what we are asking to do today, Mr. Speaker.
I want to discuss this procedure because I think this is the first time in our parliamentary history that any government has asked parliament to allocate time for a piece of legislation. We are here to consider this procedure, and I think we must consider it in light of the present parliamentary situation


and the debate that has taken place on this bill. We must consider whether there has been time for adequate consideration and discussion in the light of the present situation of parliament, in the light of the important developments in our country which require parliamentary intervention and action, and in the light of the necessity for getting on with the business of parliament and the business of the House of Commons that requires us to take action in regard to these important matters.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I shall examine this resolution in the terms and context of our parliamentary program and the functioning of parliament under the present rules and in existing political circumstances. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is the context in which we should be discussing this matter and not in the context chosen for the most part by my right hon. friend, which would be more appropriate for the debate on the defence bill, a debate that has been going on for days and days and days. I shall ask the house, Mr. Speaker, to look at the basic situation we face today in the light of parliamentary and legislative action. When that is done I suggest that it will not be difficult to justify in the minds of the majority of this house and in the minds of the majority of people in this country that the time has come to bring this debate, important as it has been, to a conclusion so that we may get on with other important pieces of legislation.
Our country is developing. It is changing at a pace and in a way that is unprecedented in our history. New problems are constantly emerging because of these changes. Because of increased organization, because of the need of people to shift from areas of less than full employment to areas of labour shortage and because with our complex industrial economy it is essential to make adjustments constantly to ensure the continuance of the high rate of growth in this country, increasing prosperity and the high standard of living, we must adopt our living to new conditions.


John George Diefenbaker: Half a million unemployed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are half a million unemployed and that is a deplorable situation, but only half as deplorable as when there were a million unemployed under my right hon. friend. Half a million is bad but one million is worse. We want the kind of legislative changes put into effect
April 20, 1967	COMMONS
which will reduce the half a million unemployed to the irreducible minimum in this country.
All these complex changes in our society require changes in our law and in our legislative processes to keep pace with them. If the laws are not adjusted in accordance with the requirements of our new life they can impede the development of Canada and reduce our capacity to provide the standards and levels which we would otherwise be capable of maintaining. That means, Mr. Speaker, that more legislation is required on more subjects in this country than ever before in our history. I hope to be able to indicate the evidence of this shortly. If our parliamentary institutions are unable to cope effectively with these legislative requirements, people will lose faith in parliament and its processes and they will lose faith in democracy also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Apart from the rapidly changing material circumstances of our society we are experiencing, as other countries are, a rapid change in values and popular attitudes. This has been reflected in this session of parliament in discussion of the laws relating to divorce, capital punishment, penal reform and other social problems. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is of fundamental importance that the legal fabric of our society lag not too far behind these changes in values and attitudes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely it is important and essential that parliamentary procedure adapt itself to these new requirements.
If our laws are to be changed, they have to be changed by parliament. That is one of the main reasons for parliament's existence. Let us have discussion, of course, but discussion leading to decision after a reasonable time has been given for that discussion. Discussion, yes-but discussion leading to legislation, to approval or rejection of the proposals put before parliament. If parliament is not capable of dealing quickly and effectively with the needs of the country, it fails in its essential purpose. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, and I would not like it to be interpreted as meaning, that this parliament has not accomplished a great deal.


John George Diefenbaker: Ha.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This parliament has passed and is passing more legislation than has ever been passed before in our history.
Proposal for Time Allocation


John George Diefenbaker: Ha.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In a similar period of time.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought we were obstructing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But that is not the proper standard of measurement we must apply to our parliamentary procedures. The standard is not measured against the record of the past but against the needs of the present and the future. The standard is not what has been done in previous sessions or, indeed, earlier in this session. The standard must be the needs of Canada and the Canadian people in the weeks, months and years ahead. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is in this context that we must view the present situation in which parliament finds itself, and it is in this context, I suggest, that we must consider the decision of the government that there should be an opportunity for the House of Commons to allocate time as provided by our rules and to draw to a close this debate on defence unification and defence matters-by agreement, if possible. That agreement has not been possible. It was not possible because the official opposition made no proposal of any kind, as I understand it, for such allocation.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They made no proposal about any time that might be sufficient to dispose of this bill. Their view was that this bill is wrong-


An hon. Member:: What about Tuesday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that the government of the day does not accept their position that this bill is wrong, that it should not be proceeded with, and that they would continue to use the rules to discuss the bill in the hope of breaking our will so that we would abandon this bill at this time and go on with something else. Their position was, in other words, that we surrender to the opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Postpone the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Postpone the bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the advice of the senior officers.
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says: "Postpone the bill." Postpone consideration of unification which was first put before members of the House of Commons in March 1964.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When did the bill come before us?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not understand that. We think we would be derelict in our duty toward all the other things we ought to be doing in this house if we added to the time that has already been given in this house for the consideration of this bill. It has been said this afternoon and it has been said previously that the allocation of time and the way this motion is being put before the house are an undue limitation on the rights of parliament for free discussion of an important and controversial issue, as undoubtedly this one is, and very strong views are genuinely held by those against and those in favour of this bill. The charge, I think, is legitimate in the sense that it must be met.
How long has discussion gone on concerning this important measure? The figures have been put on the record before and I do not apologize for putting them on the record now. This bill, or this question, has been before the house in this session in one form or another for 27 days and the standing committee on national defence met on the bill on 26 days. This amounts, Mr. Speaker, to 53 days of discussion on this question in this session. I do not include in my total the three days spent largely on this subject on supply in February, 1966, nor will I include the 14 days on which this subject was discussed with varying degrees of intensity when the standing committee on national defence was considering the estimates for 1966-67 in May and June, 1966.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In case anyone should wish to examine my analysis of these statistics it is as follows: in the House of Commons, second reading, five days; in committee of the whole, 13 days; in interim supply, nine days, making a total of 27 days; in the standing committee on national defence on Bill C-243, 26 days. That seems to me to be an adequate time for consideration to be given even to a bill as important as this one.


Donald MacInnis: Would the Prime Minister permit a question? He has indicated the time taken to consider this measure. Would he explain why the Minister

of National Defence found it regrettable that more witnesses were not called before the committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am indicating the amount of time which was made available to hon. members of the house and the committee for discussion of this bill and producing witnesses to take part in that discussion.


Donald MacInnis: Would the Prime Minister answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister has the floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to pass now to another aspect of this question, one to which I alluded at the beginning of my remarks. I should like to make as clear as I can the stark reality of our parliamentary situation in regard to the time we have already spent on legislation and on other proposals this year and the time which will be needed to do the things which should be done, some of which are already on the order paper and others of which have been announced.
Before each session of parliament, as the right hon. gentleman knows, having been head of the government, all departments are asked to indicate what legislative measures are required together with an opinion as to their importance and priority. When this was done for the opening of this present session so long ago in January, 1966, a larger number of proposals than usual were put forward as being important and urgent because it had not been possible to deal with them in earlier sessions.
At the beginning of this session the cabinet reduced the list to those items of which parliamentary approval might reasonably be expected and which in our view warranted the highest priority. These appeared in the Speech from the Throne on January 10, 1966. The list did not by any means include all the legislation which was considered to be urgent or important or both. For instance, that particular list did not include amendments to the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, amendments to the National Parks Act, revision of the Expropriation Act, revision of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act, amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, amendments to the Immigration Act and over 15 other pieces of legislation which were considered at that time to be desirable. These were all bills which in our view were needed to meet the national requirements and improve national life. Yet, as
April 20, 1967

I have mentioned, we felt it was impossible even to list them with any hope of parliamentary action-and we were shown to be right.


An hon. Member:: Why fool around with this measure then?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of the legislation which was listed in the speech from the throne, parliament has by no means dealt with all of it even after sitting for 244 days, as of yesterday. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has a question on the order paper in which he asks:
What are the intentions of the government at this session of parliament with respect to the following measures forecast in the Speech from the Throne but not yet introduced:
The question goes on to set out those proposals. The intentions of the government are to get these measures dealt with. But what are the intentions, or the possibilities, of the House of Commons? By including these measures in the speech from the throne the government indicated its intention that they should be acted upon. But there is a second part to the hon. gentleman's question. Why, he asks, has action not been taken to date with respect to each of those measures promised in the speech from the throne. If the hon. member would consider what has happened in connection with the defence unification bill and other proposals, including interim supply, he might be able to answer his own question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Apart from the important pieces of legislation which the hon. member for Carleton has mentioned there are others of importance which he has not mentioned and which equally clearly cannot be passed at this session of parliament, though we would like to see them introduced and dealt with as soon as possible. Perhaps I should mention some of these. I do not think there is any possibility of getting them through this session though it is possible we can do so during the rest of the year: amendments to the Area Development Incentives Act; recapitalization of the C.N.R., visiting armed forces act; amendments to the Canada Corporations Act; Canada manpower and immigration council bill; national museums of Canada bill; bill respecting the Cape Breton coal industry; amendments to the National Housing Act; broadcasting legislation.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the
Proposal for Time Allocation statement by the Prime Minister that possibly the Cape Breton coal legislation could be dealt with this session.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald MacInnis: The
point of order arises from the fact that the minister of mines has already announced that it will not be dealt with during the present session.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Had the hon. member been listening closely he would have realized that this was a list of proposals which cannot be dealt with during the present session but which we hope to deal with during the rest of this year. With the items I have mentioned and one or two others of less importance which I have omitted, including a proposal for the appointment of six more parliamentary secretaries-


John George Diefenbaker: May I put a question to the right hon. gentleman? A little earlier in his remarks he said that capital punishment might be discussed. In view of the uncertainty which hangs over those who are today awaiting death, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at the present session in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I mentioned this as one of the
problems which the government has been considering. It is not a matter which can be dealt with this session but I would hope it could be dealt with this year in a responsible way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: With the items I have mentioned-I have left out a few of the less important ones-and with those listed by the hon. member for Carleton we have 21 items of legislation which were considered to be important enough to warrant our trying to get them through in this session of parliament but which we shall not now be able to deal with, though I still say we hope to deal with them later in the year.
Nor is this the total measure of our inability as a parliament to meet the needs of the country, though it is certainly evidence of our failure to measure up to the standards which Canadians might reasonably expect in terms of parliamentary action. Let us consider the session we are trying to bring to an end, and I am sure all hon. members will be glad when that can be done.
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggested how it could be done six weeks ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It could be done this week with respect to three items provided we gave up the defence bill, and we are not going to do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just postpone it.


John George Diefenbaker: Just postpone the disintegration of the armed forces.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are some things of such urgent importance that because of the requirements of the situation they must be done before we prorogue. They must be done this session. There is interim supply. Supply has been voted for April only and we must have finances for May to enable the business of the country to go on. Then there is the occupational training of adults bill. This must be dealt with as the old program expired on March 31. Interim action under the provision for interim supply cannot cover the full field.
There are the rules of the House of Commons. The interim rules, inadequate as I believe them to be for our present requirements, must be extended for the new session if we are to measure up even as badly as we have done in this session to the current needs. I would hope that the rules committee when it meets in the next session will be able to bring in some very far-reaching changes that will commend themselves to all hon. members.
Then there are amendments to the Wheat Board Act. These should be passed or essential provisions of the act will expire at the end of July. There are also amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act. Surely we are going to pass this legislation so that by our one hundredth birthday we shall have established equality between naturalized and native born Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are amendments to the Income Tax Act, to repeal the 5 per cent tax on business profits. There is revision of the Interpretation Act. This bill has been introduced in three parliaments, in 1962, in 1965 and in the present parliament. It has never been passed and because it has not been passed the whole process of statute law revision is being held up. The list I have given does not include action on the report on Mr. Justice Landreville or, indeed, the question of capital punishment.


How long will it take parliament to deal with these urgent items if there is no allocation of time in respect of the current debate? I would go further than that. In the light of these legislative requirements and the problems they pose to the House of Commons, surely it would be possible for the business committee to get together and allocate time to all these things I have mentioned-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -because if we cannot do something like that, if we cannot plan-and it takes agreement by all parties to bring about this kind of planning-what will be the situation when we face our new session, our centennial session of parliament? When is it going to start? Well, we don't know. How much will it be able to do? Well, we don't know. That will depend on how we can plan the work by allocation of time to this and the various other measures we should put through before the centennial session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not closure because I hope it can be done by agreement as it is done in the United Kingdom each week by agreement between the whips, and done so successfully that there never has to be a government order planning time except on rare occasions. When such a government order is made in the United Kingdom-and I point out that we like to follow British parliamentary practice or at least we hear this said so often-when the government makes an order for allocation of time it becomes an order of the house once it is introduced by the government.
By contrast we are presenting the House of Commons with a procedure under which, by agreement, we can allocate time to all these important matters, and the priority and importance of these legislative proposals can be agreed on by representatives of all parties, not merely by the government. Surely that would be a step forward in the conduct of parliamentary business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But if that cannot be done and if a new session begins say on May 8-I have no grounds for believing that that can happen, but let us for the sake of argument say we can end this session on May 5 and begin the new one on May 8-there are certain things that should be done, some that have to be done, before we can even consider
April 20, 1967	COMMONS
a summer adjournment when hon. members may like to take part in at least some of the centennial celebrations.
With the maximum number of days they require for debate under our present rules, these things that in the government's view have to be done are the debate on the address, for which eight sitting days are provided; supply, 30 sitting days; supply motions, eight sitting days; the budget, six sitting days, or a total of 52 sitting days for those particular items.
Her Majesty the Queen, Mr. Speaker, will arrive for her centennial visit on June 29. From May 8 to June 28 there will be 38 sitting days to deal with proposals which could require, if we do not agree, 52 sitting days. In other words, we cannot possibly, unless parliament changes its approach to these problems, accomplish even the basic essential requirements to maintain the business of the country before the arrival of the Queen. That visit will require a parliamentary adjournment of a week or so around July 1, with the session resuming in the second week of July to cover the essential business. By the end of the second week in July, by which time I would hope that essential business would be completed, we shall not have passed one single item of legislation in the centennial session that I have been talking about. We can stay on all summer or we can come back in September or October.
The legislation that will be facing us at that time-I hope I am wrong but I do not think I am because it is not likely that the legislation will be facing us before then-will be legislation that is important to the country and which ought to be passed this year. It includes the Broadcasting Act, the Immigration Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canadian Development Corporation Act, the Cape Breton coal and development legislation, amendments to the National Housing Act, major social legislation including changes in the legislation regarding divorce, penal legislation, juvenile delinquency legislation and other social reforms, and a new corporations act to provide for better information by corporations and better protection for investors.
It also includes amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, amendments to the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, amendments to the Criminal Code, amendments to the Parole Act, the budget bills, legislation which is ready or will be ready soon on manpower mobility, amendments to the Indian Act, amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Fishery Improvement Loans Act,
Proposal for Time Allocation revision of the Customs Act to take into account the results of the Kennedy round of tariff discussions, which I hope will be good, amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, a new Canada water act, amendments to the Financial Administration Act, amendments to the Canada Elections Act on election expenses-perhaps we can agree on cutting down the time for general elections-legislation to control pollution in interprovincial waters, amendments to the Post Office Act, amendments to the National Energy Board Act, legislation on educational television unless it has been previously dealt with by estimates-


Mr. Knowles:: It won't be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and a resolution covering the words of the national anthem.
These, Mr. Speaker, are not all the items of legislation that should be dealt with if the laws of Canada are to be made consonant with the needs of Canada, but this would be a good program for the rest of 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we are going to be able to do this as a House of Commons, and I am speaking as a member of the House of Commons and one who has a very special responsibility in these matters, we do have to work out procedures not only in respect of the critical situation which we have now, something which has been building up, but procedures which will anticipate these difficulties and allocate time to bring in proposals before the discussion on those bills and proposals. If we can do that then we will be able as a House of Commons to plan a legislative program for the years ahead which will show that we are aware of the needs and the requirements of this new country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss the defence bill but to confine my remarks to the motion for time allocation which is now before us. It is unfortunate that it was necessary to move this motion to allocate the amount of time which will be made available for the debate on unification of the armed forces as set out in Bill C-243. I feel certain that had there been greater foresight and had less adamant positions been taken at the earlier stages it probably would not have been necessary to bring in the motion now before us. However, I am glad that the government
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation did not act under standing order 33 which provides tor closure and was invoked in 1956 during the pipe line debate. By acting under provisional standing order 15A oi which notice was given a week ago today, the government has at least provided an opportunity tor consultation and has given fairly adequate notice. If this motion passes tonight those who wish to discuss the bill further will still have three more days in which to do so.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there comes a time when in respect of any piece of legislation, no matter how important, a decision must be made. The matter of the unification of the armed services, which is extremely important, was discussed at some length during interim supply, for four or five days on second reading, during 55 sittings of the defence committee and now 13 days on clause 2 in committee of the whole.
There is value in having a fairly prolonged debate on something which is controversial because a prolonged debate provides an opportunity for the public to become aware of the issues at stake. It also gives an opportunity for parliament to obtain a reaction from the public, particularly those sections concerned about the principles at stake in the legislation in question. However, this matter has been before the house at various stages since last October and the question of integration and the white paper since 1964. It would certainly seem to me that the public is now fully aware of all the ramifications of this legislation. Certainly parliament has had an opportunity during the sittings of the defence committee to hear expert opinion. We have now heard from both sides of the house and from all available parties with reference to their reaction to the proposed legislation. It seems to me that all points of view having been expressed, parliament now has a responsibility and a duty to make a decision on this matter.
Whether a member agrees with the unification legislation or whether he disagrees, surely the time has come in a democratic forum to allow the majority of members to register their opinion either for or against it. Not only have we a responsibility to do this but it seems to me we must give some regard to the fact that unnecessarily prolonged debate on one measure of necessity precludes discussion on other matters which may be of equally vital importance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would prefer if the hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre would defer his question until I have finished so I can keep some coherence of thought in the case I am trying to present.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: That is pretty difficult.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, it is when I get silly remarks from people who do not even get up when they want to object. I am trying to make a cohesive statement, and I am sure that during the last 13 days a coherent line of thought would have been strange in this house.
1 am not only concerned about bringing the debate on the unification of the armed services to a decision. I am concerned about the fact that the present impasse in which parliament finds itself focuses attention on the serious deficiency of our parliamentary procedures. There is little value now in trying to apportion blame as to who is responsible for the fact that now we must adopt the extraordinary procedure provided by provisional standing order 15A in order to bring this debate to a close. There is not much point in saying that the minister of defence is arrogant, that the government is bull-headed, or that the official opposition is obstructive and repetitive. What we have to do in all seriousness is accept the fact that all of us who are members of this house must assume some of the responsibility for the manner in which we have conducted the affairs of parliament. We must recognize that parliament has now become a full-time job and that the matters which concern parliament are much more complex and far reaching than they have ever been in the past. There is hardly an aspect of the daily lives of men and women that is not reflected in some matter we discuss in this parliament.
Parliament in this country, as in nearly all democratic countries, has reached out to touch areas of human endeavour that were not subjects of governmental concern 25 or 30 years ago. Because of that it seems to me that the old method of conducting the affairs of parliament will no longer suffice to meet the demands of the present situation. In this regard we have only to look at what has happened this session, which we hope is now nearing its end. The 1966-67 session will be the longest in our history. The previous record was set by the session of 1964-65 when the famous flag debate took place. That session lasted 248 sitting days. By next Tuesday, April 25, we will have equalled this record for
April 20, 1967

sitting days, but since parliament sits longer hours we will actually have sat more hours. If this session of parliament extends beyond next Tuesday, which it undoubtedly will, it will have the record as being the longest parliamentary session in our history.
How much longer can we continue to operate under a series of archaic procedures when, after 14 months, we still find ourselves with a great many important items which have not been dealt with and will have to be passed over until the next session? There are many important questions which should be dealt with during this session and which, in the opinion of members of this party, must be dealt with at the next session and during this calendar year, 1967.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Assuming that a new session of parliament begins in the next week or two, it will take from then until July 1 just to deal with the speech from the throne, the budget and the estimates. What have we left? The Prime Minister has already indicated a whole host of things that he would like to see dealt with in the next session.


Mr. Lewis:: This year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, he wants to see them dealt with this year. I must say that while the Prime Minister wants them dealt with this year, I think it is a great pity that many of them were not introduced this session. While the government has not full responsibility for how long debates take, nobody prevents the government putting legislation on the order paper. Many of the things the Prime Minister has been dangling in front of us today like Christmas packages could have been on the order paper and they were not. Some of them are of long standing, but there are some items which in the opinion of this party must be considered and adequately dealt with in the present year.
One of these is the housing situation, which has now reached the proportions of a national crisis. There is the report of the broadcasting committee to be dealt with. Broadcasting in this country and the operations of the C.B.C. are almost in a state of suspended animation until we receive some direction and a clearcut policy is laid down. Then there are the social measures that members in all parts of the house have been discussing and to which the Prime Minister has indicated he is favourably disposed. These include such matters as divorce legislation, amendments to the Criminal Code regarding the dissemination of birth
Proposal for Time Allocation control information, and legislation regarding the legalizing of abortions where the health of the mother is in danger.
We need to deal with the manpower policy, which is not in a happy state at the present time. With 400,000 unemployed this country will need a manpower policy that is much more aggressive and far reaching than anything we have had to date. There is also the Canada-United States auto pact, which the government has now indicated it would be willing to have discussed by a committee of the house. If it is to be the pattern for future rationalization of the industries of Canada and the United States, this pact has to be examined to see how it has affected our economy, what benefits we have received from it and what disadvantages we have suffered. Then there is the legislation regarding the Canada Development Corporation which must be dealt with. This measure was first introduced in resolution form as far back as 1963 and has been put off year after year by the government. There is no legislation before us in this respect.
In my opinion the defence committee of the house and the house itself must in 1967 discuss NORAD. This treaty is subject to renegotiation in 1968. We do not want to be discussing it the way we discussed Bomarc missiles, that is, after the government has signed an agreement. The defence committee first and then the house ought to undertake the fullest possible investigation and examination of this problem, particularly with reference to the anti-ballistic missile program which could involve this country in tremendous expenditure.
We must also deal with unemployment insurance legislation. We are still waiting for some action on the Gill report. The benefit rates and ceilings are still those established eight years ago and they are completely inadequate today. We have not yet been able to deal with the report of the public accounts committee. This is a serious matter. Some of the comments of the Auditor General are disturbing. This house ought to have the opportunity to discuss fully the report of the Auditor General and that of the public accounts committee.
The Prime Minister in a speech yesterday referred to communications satellites. This whole matter is of vital importance to Canada if we are not to be dependent upon another country for our communications systems in the future. I am hoping the Prime Minister will agree to send this matter fairly soon after the
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation new session starts to a committee of the house so we may know what type of research work is being carried out and whether we are taking adequate steps, and taking them quickly enough, to safeguard Canada's interests in the field of communications.
The Prime Minister has mentioned the matter of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deal with the report of the committee on election expenses. There is the question of capital punishment, the matter of the Cape Breton coal mines, anti-pollution of water and air, and a whole host of other things. We will not be able to deal with these matters in 1967 unless we are prepared to examine the procedures of the House of Commons. In the opinion of the members of this party parliament must plan its business if we are to adequately discharge our responsibilities and grapple courageously and effectively with the vital problems that are confronting the people we represent.
The Prime Minister has given us a long list of items that he would like to have had discussed in this session and which he hopes will be discussed in the next session. He says that parliament has not been able to organize its business in a way which would have permitted these matters to be dealt with. I say to the Prime Minister that he must accept a very major share of the responsibility for this situation. One of the responsibilities of government is to give leadership in arranging the affairs of parliament. What attempt has the government made to plan the work of parliament? We set up a business committee with great hopes that it would effect the planning and conduct of our work in this house. I think that with the exception of the redistribution legislation, and now the unification of the armed services legislation, this committee has never been called into session.
The government has simply drifted from one little crisis to another and has made no real attempt to plan the work of the session or to get the co-operation of the parties in planning that work. It is true, as the Prime Minister says, that it takes all parties to do this. Of course it does. But it requires leadership, and that leadership must come from the government and the Prime Minister. It has not been forthcoming; the house has not been getting that kind of leadership. I am convinced that we have now such a backlog of legislative items that we will not be able in this calendar year to cope with them unless we begin almost immediately to use the business committee of the house to plan the

work of the session one or two weeks in advance, to obtain where possible agreement as to the amount of time that will be allocated for each debate, and if we cannot reach agreement the majority of the members of the house will have to decide what that allocation shall be.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
All of us are for free speech. All of us want to have the right to express our opinion. If that right is monopolized by a few and on a selective number of items, this automatically excludes other hon. members from discussing other items which they consider to be of equal importance. Unless we allocate time in the 1967 session of parliament we will wind up next Christmas or early next winter in exactly the same position we are in now, with a backlog of legislative items and programs untouched.
I am not suggesting for a moment that parliament can become a sort of board of directors. I recognize that parliament is also a forum for dialogue and for a confrontation of ideas. But even in a forum there must be some fair allocation of time so that various ideas have an opportunity to be expressed and various items can be debated. Therefore I am suggesting to the house on behalf of this party that if we have any hope at all that the items to which the Prime Minister has referred, those which 1 have enumerated, and many others for which the Canadian people are asking, are going to be dealt with during this session, then we must be prepared to exercise some self-discipline and to reorganize our procedures so that we can do the job we were sent here to do.
I want to make it clear that if there is going to be an allocation of time for debates, it has to be done in advance. It is not good enough when the government, dawdling along, allows itself to get into an impasse, calls the business committee together and tries to secure some unanimity, and then comes before the house asking that a debate be curtailed after strong emotions have been aroused and a certain degree of acrimony displayed. The only way we can really have planned debates is to plan them a week or two in advance so that we know what items are going to come up, so that we can agree among the parties that a certain debate will take two or three days or a week depending on the importance of the subject, and so that when we begin the debate we know how much time there is and therefore how many speakers each party will be entitled to have
April 20, 1967
and thus will be able to plan our work accordingly. Those members who cannot take part in that debate can be preparing for another debate. In this way we could hope to deal effectively with the very large program which the Prime Minister has outlined.
But if we do not do that, if the government continues to drift as it has been doing, if it will not give any leadership-certainly the opposition parties cannot take the initiative in this matter-then I warn the government that it had better not try at the end of this year, when all kinds of items have not been passed and in some cases not even been introduced, to lay the responsibility at the door of the opposition. I can say to the government that if it is prepared to give some leadership and to use the business committee as a planning committee to organize the work of the house and the work of the committees, it will have our full and complete co-operation.
I do not need to tell the members of this house, who are just as close to the public as I am, that we are living in a very critical age when men, women and particularly young people are reassessing our institutions and customs. Things that were accepted as sacrosanct for generations are now being taken out and examined. We are now in the presence of a generation which is stripping off the irrelevant and outworn and which recognizes that if society is to move forward it can only be done by retaining the things that have relevance for life.
This is going on in every field of thought and endeavour. Parliament is not immune. People today are examining democratic procedures and testing democratic government, not on the basis of cliches but on the basis of its ability to perform, its ability to put on the statute books and to put into effect programs which will enhance human life, raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life for the ordinary citizen. If we are not able to do that, then the day will come in this country when men will begin to question the value of parliamentary government and will begin to think in terms of other kinds of government. That is why I think it is important that in this debate we avoid recriminations and seriously try to face up to this problem, which is the responsibility of all of us, that is, how we can organize the work of parliament so as to do the job that we were sent here to do? If we are not successful in doing that, then the people of this country will hold us responsible, and justly so.
15141
Proposal for Time Allocation
Some two and a half years ago the members of the New Democratic party first called for a series of reforms in our parliamentary procedure. In closing I want to put on the record eight proposals which I have just released as being what we think is a reasonable basis for approaching this whole question of reorganizing the work of parliament. These eight procedures are as follows:
1.	The annual session of parliament should be divided into sections, with provision for periods of time between such sections, when committees can meet and deal with matters referred to them by the house. This proposal calls for the planning of the parliamentary year and for arrangements to deal with all categories of business in a definite order. This will also enable the country to know the time of the year when various items will be considered. The government has a responsibility for giving leadership in an orderly planning of the business of the house.
2.	There should be instituted a practice of prior allocation, by all-party agreement, of a maximum time for each stage of debate.
3.	The role of parliamentary committees must be strengthened by giving them time to meet when parliament is not sitting, by appointing small, effective committees related to the present-day business of parliament, by providing them with the means and staff to do their work properly and by providing for their reports to be considered by parliament. Final decisions would have to remain with the house. But committees should be enabled to do their work and to make their reports in such a way that the ground covered in committee would not have to be covered again.
4.	The present method of entering departmental estimates in committee of supply by a fixed number of motions at times determined by the government should be replaced by one such motion early in the session, and provision made for a maximum of six special debates per session, when such debates are asked for, on notice, by ten or more members.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
5.	Speeches made while Mr. Speaker is in the chair should be limited as follows: The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and any other speakers who now have unlimited time, to be allowed not more than 60 minutes for any one speech; The leader of a party other than the government or official opposition, or the first speaker for any such party, to be allowed 40 minutes; all other speeches to be limited to 30 minutes.
6.	The resolution preceding a money bill should be eliminated. This would still leave three stages of debate on all bills, namely, second reading and third reading, together with the committee stage, during which the details of the bill should be discussed.
7.	Arrangements should be made to provide the caucus of each recognized party in parliament with adequate research and other staff, the cost to be related to the number of members in the caucus. This new measure would involve a modest total cost and would give members of parliament a much better understanding of the business coming before parliament and thus enable them to

April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation serve more effectively their country and their constituents.
8.	The quorum of the House of Commons should be increased. The present figure of 20, established on a temporary basis in 1867, is far too low.
We are not wedded to these proposals, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Has he managed to get the support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for all these proposals?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad to say that not only do they have the support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but he was chairman of the caucus committee which drafted these proposals. I feel the government will have no difficulty in getting his support as well as the support of all members in this group with regard to the proposals I have outlined.
I am not saying these proposals are the final word. There are others who will have other proposals, some of which may be better than these. All we are suggesting is that the committee on procedure, which has already suggested to the house in a report with which we shall be dealing in a few days that the provisional standing orders carry over to the next session, ought to be convened as soon as the next session starts. I suppose it could begin its work now and could look at these questions in order to bring in proposals as early as possible in the new session. In this way we could overhaul our antiquated procedure so that we would have some hope that in the new session we will be able to complete the legislation which I am sure all members are agreed is absolutely essential for the welfare of this country.
It had been assumed early in the year that probably we would get a long holiday because of the centennial celebrations. However, anyone who takes a look at the list of legislation the Prime Minister read a short time ago, and who adds to it the legislation he did not enumerate, will recognize that the likelihood of a long holiday is most remote. I say that I cannot think of any better centennial project for the Canadian parliament than the overhaul of its rules in 1967 in order to deal with the largest legislative program that has ever been dealt with by any parliament in the history of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member said he would accept a question when he finished. Will he do so now?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While the Prime Minister is here I should like to ask this question. Would the hon. member support the proposal I put forward with regard to postponing the present bill on unification, which cannot go into effect as we have been told by the minister, by General Allard, and by the adjutant general, until the regulations are completed in about four to six months? Would he support the postponement of clauses 2 and 6 on the suggestion that the department go ahead and draft the regulations?
While the hon. member is thinking that over, may I ask him a second question? Would he support me in proposing that this debate come to an immediate conclusion, that we postpone clauses 2 and 6 of the unification bill but pass all the rest of the bill between now and six o'clock, go on with adult training tonight, complete the adult training bill, the rules committee report and interim supply by tomorrow night? Will he support me in those proposals because of the tremendous program of work that faces us this year?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With regard to the proposals made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), we must deal with the first one because the second is contingent on the first. I would support the hon. member's proposal for postponing the debate on clauses 2 and 6 if I were convinced the hon. member would agree to an allocation of time when clauses 2 and 6 came up for consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do agree, and you can reduce the consideration to two days instead of three.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member is prepared to accept an allocation of two days next October, then I cannot see what value there is in the postponement of this debate from now until October. If after all this discussion the hon. member wants two days for debate, then it seems to me we will not be any more ready for a vote after those two days of discussion next October. I really suspect my hon. friend wants to wait until next October to get his second wind. If the length of time that has been taken on the first wind is any criterion, I would hate to think what would happen with his second wind.


Mr. Baldwin:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question with regard to an alternative proposal which he might consider and which I should say is my own proposal? Would the hon. member give consideration, provided
April 20, 1967
clauses 2 and 6 were passed, to agreeing that they should not be proclaimed until the minister and the government have had an opportunity of preparing these regulations? These proposals would then be brought back into the house for debate at a future time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My understanding is that the government has indicated already it has no intention of proclaiming the act for about six months. It seems to me that if the official opposition or other opposition parties want to ask the government during those six months to prepare regulations so we will have a chance to see them prior to proclamation, then this is something for the government to decide. However, I understand the proposal has already been rejected by the official opposition.


David Lewis: The proposal of the hon. member has been rejected by his own party.


Gerald William Baldwin: I indicated I was putting this forward as my own suggestion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can see no objection to it, but it is a matter on which the government should express an opinion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether I could ask one question? Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that seven out of the eight points of his very interesting proposals to amend the business of the house have already appeared before Mr. Speaker's committee on procedure and it was not possible to get them adopted?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All eight of them have appeared.


Mr. Brewin:: Why doesn't the government put them through?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the Prime Minister has put this in the form of a question, may I say that merely putting words into the rules does not necessarily change procedures unless some action is taken. We have already altered the rules to provide for the establishment of a business committee. If the government does not make use of the business committee and the business committee does not function, and if there is no allocation of time or planning of debates, no matter how many proposals are made by the committee or how many proposals the house adopts the procedures of the house will not be any more efficient than they have been in the past.
Proposal for Time Allocation
(5:20 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit another question? Is the leader of the New Democratic party aware that the defence committee evidence, which was not objected to by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) at the time, shows that the government will not have any decision whatever to make about proclaiming this bill. It is not their decision to make.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: Perhaps I should clarify my question for the leader of the New Democratic party.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Order. You do not have the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All I can say is that I am not aware of it, and I do not think anybody else is except the hon. member.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the time comes for the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) to make his contribution to the debate, Mr. Speaker, he can raise this matter at that time. The first point I want to deal with is the eight very interesting proposals which have now been advanced by the leader of the New Democratic party. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) pointed out, they are not new because every one of them was presented to the committee on procedure not only this year but at meetings in the past and some of them were partially accepted.
The point that must be made is that these ideas did not originate solely from the N.D.P. Many of them were put forward by members of all parties in this house. I am a little surprised to hear them advanced at this time on the floor of the House of Commons because I was under the impression that the meetings held were in camera and that the proposals to be made by the committee would be in the form of either a majority or a unanimous report. I am a little disturbed, if nothing else, that all of these suggestions, or many of them, about certain aspects of parliamentary procedure should be advanced at this time as being policies of the New Democratic party.


Mr. Barneit:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will when I have finished my speech. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a disservice to the purpose and intent of these

15144	COMMONS
Proposal for Time Allocation in camera meetings, which were conducted in an informal way, to have one party come along with practically all of the ideas advanced by various members and lay claim to them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is suggesting that the proposals which I enumerated were purloined from the committee and that somebody on the committee representing our party transmitted confidential information, then I want to say that such a suggestion is completely inaccurate and fallacious. As a matter of fact, the eight points that I enumerated today I outlined at a press conference two and a half years ago, and they were advocated by our representative on the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they could hardly have been purloined from the committee because we took them to the committee. Members of other parties may also have taken them to the committee, but I resent any suggestion that there has been some breach of confidence on the part of our representative on the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: After having the leader of the New Democratic party remind us that he did in fact present most of these points some two and a half years ago, Mr. Speaker, an even more serious question of privilege arises so far as I am concerned. If my memory serves me correctly, these eight points-I believe that in fact there were 11 put forward at the time-were contained in a press release which was issued between the time the subcommittee discussed them and the time the report was to be brought to the whole committee for further consideration. Therefore there is some kind of breach of propriety so far as I am concerned in the hon. member advancing these points now, and there was an even more serious breach of propriety at the time because almost all of them were in fact discussed by a subcommittee of the procedure committee. As I say, they were issued in a press release by the New Democratic party even before they had been discussed by the whole committee.


Francis Andrew Brewin: And why not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member asks why not. It seems that that is all the regard the hon. member has for the confidentiality of in camera meetings. I respect the nature of such meetings. It is useful to hold informal meetings conducted on a basis of confidentiality

DEBATES	April 20, 1967
and without press releases being issued, because I happen to believe that far more gets done in that way.


Mr.   Bameil@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am speaking now as a member of the New Democratic party caucus.
I want to tell the hon. member that to my own knowledge the proposals which we put forward publicly through our leader two and a half years ago and which he has again presented today were hammered out in good faith by the members of this party meeting together. I point out that the ideas that were set forth were ideas that we individually and collectively put forward in our own caucus and about which we reached certain conclusions. As I understand it, that is the manner in which they were again put forward by my leader today. He put them forward as a proposal in good faith, with the honest hope that putting them forward in the context of this debate might improve the procedures of this house. I must say I am surprised that a member such as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) should suggest that these proposals were put forward in any other context. As my leader has said, we certainly do not claim exclusive parenthood for any or all of the ideas contained therein.
In concluding my question of privilege, may I say that we regard these proposals as being worthy of serious consideration by the members of this house no matter in which part of the chamber they happen to sit. We only hope that the hon. member for Medicine Hat and other members will consider them worthy of support.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the question of privilege but I would remind the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that his remarks were out of order because he is not in his own seat.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am in my own seat.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I should like to make one or two comments, perhaps in a rather obtuse way. I realize that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has the floor, but since the question of privilege has been raised, and in view of some of the things said by the hon. member about honesty, I should like to make a few comments.
April 20. 19S7

The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam talked about obstruction and repetitive speeches in the nice fashion in which he usually delivers his remarks. However, one of the things he said was that free expression cannot be monopolized by a select few. I should like to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to comment in all honesty on what he feels about the self-discipline of the hon. members for Skeena and Timis-kaming who for over two years, by means of obstruction and repetitive procedures, prevented the subject of divorce being considered in this house and caused a great deal of concern to the people affected. I should like to ask the leader of the N.D.P. what his reaction is to two of his own members who made a goodly number of repetitive speeches because of a principle they believed in. Does he think that the time then was monopolized by a pretty select few?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the house is now getting beyond the limits of the question of privilege that has been raised. I would point out that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has the floor.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings will contribute to this debate later. The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni is not valid. The hon. member suggests that his party is advancing proposals which might be accepted by other members. Most of his proposals, however, were advanced in the business committee by hon. members not of the New Democratic party on an occasion more than two years ago. There needs to be no more discussion on the point.
Having disagreed with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on one point, I now wish to agree with him on another. The hon. member suggests that the business committee should have been set up a long time ago to consider the allocation of reasonable times for many items of government business. It is unfortunate that under provisional standing order 15A the business committee should have been convened only at a critical stage of a controversial issue. It is unfortunate that other matters have not been referred to that committee.
It can be argued that when the house leaders meet their informal discussions are much the same as those that would be carried on in the business committee. Nevertheless, as far as I know no other item of legislation has been referred to that committee and then

Proposal for Time Allocation been the subject of a motion. Techniques ought to be developed for sending matters to that committee so they may be discussed and unanimous agreement on allocation of time for various matters may be reached. I say that because when there is a filibuster and debate continues for a long time with arguments being advanced not once but four or five times by the same speaker, an effective means of closure is implemented.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) complains that his group has not had an opportunity to discuss all the clauses in Bill C-243. That may be true. Yet his party has taken 13 days to discuss clause 2 without discussing any other clause. The hon. member says that we ought to stand clause 2, not pass it and go on with something else.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit me to say something, because I think he has been most unfair? The time the house has spent discussing the bill has not been solely taken up by members of the Conservative party. More than 30 members of other parties have spoken, including members of the hon. member's party.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is correct. We made one speech.


An hon. Member:: Two.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am referring to the 13 days spent in discussing clause 2. I have observed that for several days on end only members of the Progressive Conservative party have spoken. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre gave an undertaking, though he had no right to give it, that there would be no discussion later on clauses 2 and 6 provided parliament could reach the stage where only those two clauses would be left for the next session. He had no right to make such undertaking on behalf of the opposition or even on behalf of his own party. The hon. member's position is false. No member of the house knows better than the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that if clauses 2 and 6 are not passed during this session they die, that if the bill does not pass it also dies.
There are rules that may restore a bill to the position it once held on the order paper. Should clauses 2 and 6 not be passed, that would be the end of them. Should the bill not be passed, the hon. member knows that that would be the end of it. The hon. member is pretending to be magnanimous by saying that the other clauses will be allowed to pass by
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation six o'clock if clauses 2 and 6 are stood. It is magnanimous of the hon. member's party which has spent 13 days discussing one clause to offer to pass all other clauses in so short a time. The hon. member offered also to put all stages of other bills through within a few hours. Yet always the hon. member advances conditions that must be acquiesced in, his attitude being that he is acting with a spirit of genuine concern-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is imputing motives. The suggestion I made, and I will repeat what I said to the government house leader, was that if clauses 2 and 6 were stood we would by agreement put the unification bill back on the order paper and it would occupy the position on the order paper it now occupies. Things like that can be done by agreement in the house and frequently are done.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The chairman of the business committee, the Minister of Public Works, said that it was impossible to obtain any kind of agreement relevant to the motion before the house. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre denying that?


An hon. Member:: South Centre.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I beg your pardon. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre denying that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have already answered the hon. member.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member now says that he will do this, that and everything else provided clauses 2 and 6 are stood. He knows full well that that portion of the bill would die once the session is prorogued. It is easy for the hon. member to be generous when he has included a hooker in his offer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is very unfair.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Our party believes that careful consideration was given to including provisional standing order 15A in the rules. We believe that this provisional standing order should be used from time to time. This session began 16 months ago on January 18, 1966, and still important legislative items remain. It is unreasonable for the official opposition to attempt to usurp the responsibility of the order of the business of the house. That is the government's responsibility, and it should call legislation on the order paper as it sees fit. After all, the government party is the largest 
of the minority parties in the house and it has the right to govern and to assume the responsibilities and privileges of government. One of those rights is to say when each item of business shall be brought before the house.
[DOT] ( 5:40 p.m.)
I believe the right of the majority of the members of this house to make a decision is as important as the right to be heard-and both are important. Surely we have spent enough time in committee of the whole on the clauses of this bill, taking into account the time which was spent discussing the same subject in the standing committee and in various other debates this session. Therefore I say we have reached the stage when a vote should be taken. The majority of members indicated by their actions in this house several days ago that they are ready to reach a decision.
I am not criticizing hon. members for attempting to persuade not only members of the government but others in this house into thinking as they do with regard to Bill C-243. But there has to be some time limit placed on this process of persuasion. The most decisive way in which the members of any party can indicate their opinions on Bill C-243 is by voting on it. Several speeches each having been made on the same subject by many hon. members, I suggest we should now give members who have taken part in the discussion the opportunity to record their votes.
It seems to me there is something wrong and that a change is taking place in the practices of this house as can be seen by looking at the record over the past two years. Unless and until a minority is persuaded that it is going to win a vote, those belonging to it seek to prevent everybody else from voting. In my view this is a wrong interpretation of the parliamentary process. The government may be judged, and in most cases is judged, by the application of the policies it has brought in, and the majority in parliament should not be prevented from bringing in the policies they desire to bring in provided there has been a reasonable period for discussion. I do not believe a small minority has the right to frustrate the government and a majority of those in parliament in their desire to implement a legislative program.
Surely the point has long since been reached when anything further could usefully be said about clause 2. It is therefore my hope that this proposal will be approved before 9.45 p.m.-certainly by that time-and that we shall then conclude our deliberations on
April 20, 19S7	COMMONS
this bill and proceed to deal with other measures which are also of great importance to Canada and to Canadians.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a representative of a small minority in this house lecture the house and tell us that parliamentary business should not be prevented from going through because of the actions of a small minority. He himself is one of the best examples of the delay which sometimes characterizes this house, representing as he does only five members or possibly just himself.
Time and time again the hon. member who has just spoken rises to take part in debates in this house. He should be heard from on a proportionate basis, about once a week. Yet the house very kindly permits him to stand up and give lectures on the rules, to speak on points of order, to participate in debates. He has spoken twice during the debate on unification, though without adding anything to it. In my party of 96 members-it is not a small minority in the house-we never take the time which should be allotted to us. It is distributed. I am surprised that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), representing this rump of a party-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he consider he has any greater right to speak in this house than I have? I believe he has spoken five times in the unification debate thus far.


An hon. Member:: Six.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I believe I have a little more knowledge of the subject than the hon. member has. In any case., there are 96 members of this party who have a right to speak before the hon. member is heard. But that is not the way we operate. We are more charitable. We allow him to rise and speak and we suffer, generally in silence.
I will make one comment with regard to another remark of the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He attempted to leave it on record that when I made certain proposals with regard to the unification bill I was concealing the fact that it could not be placed on the order paper again in the same position it had formerly occupied and that I was being hypocritical in the offer I made. This, I deny. When I made my offer last Friday and when I repeated it on Monday to the house leader I said to him that part of the package deal would be an agreement as far as our party
Proposal for Time Allocation was concerned to put the unification bill back on the order paper in exactly the same position as it is now, in committee of the whole house. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
I raised this matter in a further question today. I referred to it again in a question to the leader of the New Democratic party while the Prime Minister was here. I extended the offer in the interest of getting on with the business of the house, impressed by my knowledge of what is to be done and impressed by that enormous list of two years' work that the Prime Minister read, being just as keen to get on with the business of the country as anyone else but opposed to having parliament subjected to pressure in connection with a bill which is not urgent. There is no urgency at all about the unification bill.
The Minister of National Defence has told us it will be several years before Bill C-243 becomes fully operative. The real reason for the proposal I put forward with regard to its postponement was contained in the evidence given by General Allard and by the adjutant general before the defence committee as well as the answers given by the Minister of National Defence himself in the committee and here in this house, namely, that this bill will not be proclaimed until the regulations have been written and approved and that these regulations will not be ready for some four to six months. Then we should also consider the fact that until the bill is proclaimed it is not law. General Allard assured us in the defence committee that not one single step with regard to unification other than planning would be undertaken before the bill is proclaimed. That is the whole basis of the proposition I have put forward for the postponement of the bill. There is absolutely no urgency with regard to it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The adjutant general made it very clear that it would be impossible to draft the regulations until the precise wording of the act was known. The hon. gentleman wanted to allow clauses 2 and 6 to stand. Let us hypothecate for a moment. If there was suddenly some change in clauses 2 and 6, of what relevancy then would regulations be which had been prepared on the basis of the original draft? It was primarily for this reason that the legal branch of the department and all responsible officers of the department have
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation insisted that we require parliamentary approval now, before regulations are drafted, so that they can be based on the parliamentary bill rather than on merely a draft which could be changed subsequently, which would have the effect of undoing any work done in the meantime.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I heard the adjutant general state that case and the minister repeated it briefly on April 14. That is a good point. It is a technical point. The assumption is that the House of Commons might alter the wording in clause 2 and clause 6. But the Minister of National Defence has disclosed to us over months and years that he will not alter a single thing, and with regard to this bill I think it incredible that he will effect some alteration in line with our suggestion on clause 2. In other words, if we suggest that he rewrite into that clause the Royal Canadian Navy, The Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army, is he going to accept our suggestion? We are not so stupid as to believe that. The adjutant general raised a straw man and the minister has made use of it. There will not be one word changed in clause 2 or clause 6 unless the minister says that there shall be a change.
The minister has his supporters in his own party. He has the N.D.P., the Social Credit rump, and the Creditistes marching along led by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who announced publicly-it is in a newspaper headline today-that he will support the Liberal government. He might just as well join the Liberal party. This is a straw man which has been raised. In any case, let us not be ridiculous about this, although the minister is being ridiculous.
Members of the departmental staff are accustomed to drafting bills and regulations and making subsequent alterations when they find they have made a mistake. It so happens that in the defence committee when the bill was under study the adjutant general brought forward half a dozen changes which he himself had discovered, and one or two were made in response to questions that we raised. There is nothing unusual about making a draft and having it changed. I have suffered the penalty of drafting material and having it not only changed but thrown out. But you survive, and I think the adjutant general could quite safely go ahead with his drafting.
As a matter of fact, if we pass, as I have suggested, all the other clauses of the bill, even if they are passed on division, there will 
be an inference that the bill as a whole will go through unchanged by parliament, and with the declared intention of most of the New Democratic Party to vote for it, plus the Social Credit rump and the Creditistes, the government is relaxing and the adjutant general might also relax. That, sir, is the reason I have made this proposal.
The bill does not become law until the regulations are approved. They will not be approved for four to six months. Until they are approved the bill will not be proclaimed and until the bill is proclaimed unification cannot take effect. So I say, postpone it. We will let parliament make a gesture by passing 99 per cent of the bill and we can postpone clauses 2 and 6 until the fall. The government can then bring the bill back into the house in the same position as it is now, and we publicly consent to that being done without raising any objections, points of order, or anything else. If the government then insists upon imposing its allocation of time closure procedure, let it go ahead.
I suggested in the Prime Minister's presence that so far as our party was concerned-and I am pretty sure my colleagues will support me-that an allocation of two day's time might be made next fall instead of three. I also suggested that we go ahead with these other matters of business and wind up this session on Friday of this week, starting the new session at the convenience of the government but certainly by May 1.
May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday I introduced a motion that we move from the unification bill to the adult training bill. Technically it was out of order and the Speaker so ruled, but he did say that by unanimous consent that motion could have been adopted. Had the government agreed we could have discontinued discussion of the unification bill and we could have spent Tuesday and Wednesday on the adult training bill.
I did not do that as a trick. I did it seriously and responsibly because we had received notification then that we would be under allocation of time and it had been intimated to us that the allocated time would run through Friday, Monday and Tuesday. In those circumstances we said among ourselves, "Why then continue the debate on unification on Tuesday and Wednesday?" The house could have gone ahead with the adult training bill. But the government is only concerned about introducing this method of closure and imposing a restraint on freedom of speech.
April 20, 1967

Motions for Papers
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the government has twice made a very serious error. On the very day that closure was imposed in the flag debate we had reached the conclusion in our caucus to terminate the debate. But the government stupidly imposed closure.


Mr. Maiheson:: The country did not think so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It stupidly imposed closure. It thought that would gain it a victory in the next election but here it is, still sitting as a minority government. Once again in this debate, instead of coming to an agreement as could have been done the government rushes ahead with closure, so keen is it to impose its will on the house.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to state I shall have a few other things to say because I want to discuss allocation of time. I want to say something about the business committee and deal with a few other matters with respect to parliament. May I call it six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:	the hon. member for York-
Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), Housing- Toronto-inquiry as to action to relieve shortage; the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), Veterans Affairs-Camp Hill, N.S.-reported lack of hospital accommodation.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


Mr. McNuliy:: Mr. Speaker, may we by unanimous consent stand notices of motions 145, 137, and 128 and resume the debate on No. 200 in the same of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
PAYMENTS MADE TO JOHN T. SAYWELL AND/OR JOHN C. RICKER
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 9, consideration of motion of Mr. Cowan:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other correspondence dated since January 1, 1961, exchanged between the Secretary of State or any agency or department of the government of Canada relating to payments made to John T. Saywell and/or John C. Ricker by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a list setting out in detail each such payment to each such person.
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I made a few remarks in support of the motion of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) when this matter was previously before the house. At this time I should like to refer to a specific situation in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In view of the fact we will have other opportunities to discuss this whole question I shall confine my remarks to this specific matter.
Since the matter was discussed last I have seen a number of articles in newspapers regarding the amounts of money paid to various people employed on a permanent or temporary basis by the C.B.C. One article to which I wish to refer appeared in a number of newspapers in the Thomson chain. The author is Mr. Patrick Nicholson, a member of the press gallery. The article pointed out that one telecaster for the C.B.C. receives the large sum of $35,000 per year. It also gave more detail in respect of other salaries and amounts paid by the C.B.C. to various individuals.
It seems strange to me that when we as the elected representatives of the people request information regarding money paid by the C.B.C. we are inevitably informed that this is none of our business and such disclosures would not be in the public interest. After all, we are only the people who established this creature of parliament. We are not permitted to obtain these facts but the newspaper media, the fourth estate, obviously has access to this information. Obviously the information is obtained from the corporation. I am glad it is provided because at least in this way we can find out indirectly how much is being paid to various permanent or temporary employees.
I should like to know why we as members of this house cannot obtain this information by placing questions on the order paper. Whenever the estimates of the C.B.C. are

April 20, 19S7
Motions for Papers
placed before the house, and this is the case in respect of the estimates of other departments as well, we are asked to push them through. I think we are entitled to this information and I support the motion of the hon. member for York-Humber. I hope other hon. members will also support this motion. The disclosure of such information will not damage the C.B.C., although it might embarrass those people who authorize the payment of these excessive amounts.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under a democratic system of government such as ours, I feel that members of parliament should be able to obtain all the necessary papers for their information, so as to be in a position to play their role properly as legislators and representatives of the people. This is a general rule.
At the point where we resume this debate, I deem it necessary, even though the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) concluded his speech started in early March, to restate the problem, to set the situation in its true light, to put forward the present policy of the government and of the C.B.C. and to comment that policy.
Last January, the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) moved the following motion:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents, dated since January 1, 1961, exchanged between the Secretary of State or any agency or department of the government of Canada relating to payments made to John T. Saywell and/or John C. Ricker by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a list setting out in detail each such payment to each such person.
On February 1 last, the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), minister responsible for the C.B.C. to the government and parliament, in her answer to the hon. member for York-Humber, said that there was no correspondence between the Department of the Secretary of State or any other agency or department of the government with respect to that matter, and asked him to withdraw his motion.
The hon. member for York-Humber asked that the matter be transferred for debate, adding that he had asked not only for the tabling of correspondence and telegrams but also other papers.
For my part, I assume that the Secretary of State, in saying that there was no correspondence, meant also that there were no telegrams or other papers. Had there been telegrams or

other papers, I am of the opinion, knowing her frankness and integrity, that she would have admitted it simply, specifying, if necessary, the reasons of her refusal to table them.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
On the other hand, if the services of Messrs. Saywell and Riker were retained by the C.B.C. either for talks or news commentaries or historical research, there must be somewhere in the C.B.C. files correspondence, telegrams or at least papers such as contracts, agreements or the like on fees or honorarium, etc.
However, going back to the text of the motion, I wonder if the member for York-Humber was explicit enough under the circumstances. Especially in view of the facts that he will mention in the course of the debate, and his numerous experiences to which he will allude:
In the motion, he mentions:
-the Secretary of State or any agency or department of the government of Canada-
Why did the hon. member not mention also the C.B.C. as possible holder of the papers he was interested in?
Perhaps the minister's answer would then have been quite different. Perhaps also he would have had an answer along the lines of the words from the C.B.C. which he quoted in the debate. Here are those words:
We don't give out information. Such information is not in the public interest. Such information is not divulged to parliament.
These personal comments which came to my mind, first after the response of the hon. member for York-Humber to the minister's answer, give a great deal of support to my remarks at this point.
Mr. Speaker, the debate requested by the mover of this motion began last March 9. Contributions have been made by the hon. member for York-Humber, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who concluded his remarks a few moments ago.
When re-reading the mover's speech, I note that, right at the beginning, he answers the question I had asked myself, namely: Why did he not mention the C.B.C. in the text of his motion?
In fact, he said and I quote:
I would not have had the temerity to move a motion asking for information from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation having had many years' experience of requesting information, which requests have been met with the bland answer: "We don't give out information. Such information
April 20, 1967

is not in the public interest. Such information is not divulged to parliament".
The mover's argument could be summed up as follows: the C.B.C. will continue to ask for money but will not give us any information. And he stressed a statement made by Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, president of the C.B.C., about the von Thadden incident:
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate-
I am quoting Mr. Ouimet-
-its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
That statement seems at first to be inconsistent with the usual policy of the C.B.C.
In short, the hon. member is questioning the impartiality of Messrs. Saywell and Ricker.
He has pointed out with sincerity, I think, why he disagrees with them, when those gentlemen criticize the tendency to centralization, that is the centralization of our press, but why does he disagree with them, when they praise the C.B.C.? And in order to control the situation, he asks that the said papers be tabled in the house.
The member for Timiskaming supported the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), insisting on the fact that the hon. Secretary of State should have a greater authority over the C.B.C. which would allow her to report more adequately to hon. members or to parliament.
Also, the member for Oxford felt that certain government organizations, among which the C.B.C., had avoided the control of parliament, although their funds were provided by taxpayers, that it seems nobody has any authority over them, that they are responsible to themselves only and that they are neither responsible to the public nor to the house.
Moreover, when the hon. member for Oxford concluded his speech a while ago, he drew a parallel between the means of information for reporters at large and for members of parliament.
It appears, however, that the subject matter of the present debate on the policies of the C.B.C., as concerns information given to members or to parliament, has always been within the purview of the internal policy of the corporation.
Generally speaking, every personal and confidential paper must remain so, whether it be at the level of governments, public corporations, private companies or private individuals.
Motions for Papers
If the necessary papers really exist in the records of the C.B.C., but if they are of a confidential nature, we understand that we would not have access to them.
Furthermore, since the C.B.C. is a public corporation and, therefore, under the same system, as I understand it, as any other crown agency, such as the Canadian National Railways for instance, it is appropriate that it should pattern itself, in some respects, on the behaviour of private companies in general, and especilaly private radio and television companies, so that unfair competition may be avoided.
Besides, complex problems might arise if, in some cases, a person who takes part in a television program-a television star, for instance, who will be paid, let us say $1,000 for a show-realized that another who, in his opinion, is not more qualified-which can be a moot point between people of the trade- gets two or three times more money than he does.
It seems that, under existing legislation, when a question of bias within the C.B.C. or any other aspect of internal policy is involved, the minister, who is only the spokesman for the corporation in parliament, must leave any other authority to the governors of the corporation.
It has been said that, since the corporation is, for a major part, financed by the taxpayers, parliament should obtain all the necessary information to control the activities of the corporation.
In fact, this national radio and television service is financed by parliamentary appropriation and by business revenues. For instance, for the year ended March 31, 1965, business revenues accounted for about 27.5 per cent of the corporation's income, while the appropriation voted by parliament in 1964-1965 for our national broadcasting service amounted to about $85,900,000.
Therefore, this means that hon. members have every reason to make sure that the public, in short the taxpayers, are fully protected.
The administration of radio and television seems a very complex question, at least as far as I am concerned.
Ever since I came to this house, I have found that the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, was most active. On the other hand, a white paper on broadcasting was brought out by the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) as regards the passing of new legislation I believe, and

April 20, 1967
Motions for Papers
a special committee of the house tabled a report on that white paper on March 21 last.
I noticed that the hon. member for York-Humber sat on those two committees. Knowing how outspoken he is, I suppose that he must have put forward, at times, some good reasons for granting the minister more control over the C.B.C.
In the present situation, I think I understand why the hon. member failed to obtain the required papers, if they are available at the C.B.C.
However, following the thorough studies I mentioned earlier, I do not doubt that the present government will make sure that the public interest and the interest of our fellow-citizens are always protected and will avail itself-I mean the government-of every opportunity to amend or improve the legislation to that effect for the specific purpose of always safeguarding the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member who has just addressed the house whether he does not consider a cheque to be a document.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I feel that cheques-I have always considered cheques as papers.


Mr. Andrew Chaiwood (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) for the production of correspondence, telegrams or other documents relating to payments by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to Professors John T. Saywell and John C. Ricker is very interesting in that it concerns the rights of so many people. It concerns the rights of the individual member of parliament, the rights of parliament as a whole, the rights of the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh), the rights of the C.B.C., the rights of Professors Saywell and Ricker, and the rights of other people who work for the C.B.C. and who from time to time appear on television or are heard on radio. In this debate we must decide whether or not it is right and proper that these documents should be produced at this time. I am assuming that what the hon. member for York-Humber is seeking to obtain is information as to the

amounts paid to Professors Saywell and Ricker, thereby making this information available to the public as a whole.
The hon. member for York-Humber, in speaking on his motion, quoted from the book "Nation and Province" which was, I believe, circulated at one time among the schools of Ontario and in which, he said, sharp attacks were made on the printed word. In the course of my speech I should like to quote from other books written by Professors Saywell and Ricker. In two of these books these gentlemen collaborated with other authors. In this way I hope to give some indication of the type of people these gentlemen are, which will give us some background with which to consider whether or not the payments made to them by the C.B.C. should be made public. The first is a book entitled "Canada, A Modern Study" by Ramsay Cook in collaboration with John T. Saywell and John C. Ricker. This book is basically a history of Canada. I quote from it briefly.
The successful defence of British North America in the war of 1812 brightened the future prospects of the British North American colonies. Moreover, the war once more confirmed the direction that the economic and commercial development of the area would follow. The Treaty of Versailles in 1783 had cut Canada off from the rich lands of the Ohio valley. While furtrading posts had been retained in the area south of the Great Lakes for more than ten years after that, the merchants of Montreal were beginning to look more carefully at the lands north of the lakes. Then Jay's Treaty in 1794 and, more emphatically still, the hostilities of 1812-14 made it clear that the United States had no intention of allowing British and Canadian traders to ply their trade south of the lakes. It was to the west and north that the merchants of Canada, who were mostly based in Montreal, now had to look.
On page 41, speaking of the Liberal ministry which Laurier formed in 1896, the author writes:
Macdonald had laid the framework for the Canadian nation. Laurier knew that to complete the structure he would have to heal the sectional and racial conflicts that had divided and weakened the country. His main aim was always to bind French and English speaking Canadians together in a common nationality, by following a path that was neither narrowly English nor French, Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but broad enough to win the acceptance of all groups. As he told a friend:
"My object is to consolidate Confederation and to bring our people, long estranged from each other, gradually to become a nation. This is the supreme issue. Everything else is subordinate to that idea."
Sometimes the way in which the C.B.C. appears to spend its money puzzles me at least a little. I do not think it would be
April 20, 1967

irrelevant at this time to comment on certain other expenditures made by the C.B.C. which perhaps would give us a point of reference from which to consider the payments made to these professors concerning which papers are being asked for. Later I shall deal with the question of whether or not 1 feel the papers should be produced.
At times it is easy to agree with the hon. member for York-Humber but at other times it is perhaps a little more difficult. Concerning the question of the C.B.C's expenditures, I feel it would be impossible to expect any given program presented by the C.B.C. to delight or excite all the people of Canada. A sports program is of interest to some while others prefer the news. Some prefer one type of music, others prefer another. It would be unreasonable to expect all programs to please all people. Even if we take people with similar tastes in that they prefer sports, we may find that some may consider a particular television sports program to be very good while others find it to be of no interest or even distasteful.
The C.B.C. spends what would appear to be considerable amounts of money on television and radio programs. It brings in controversial figures over long distances and in some cases pays them for their appearance. Yet there are vast areas of Canada, particularly in the Canadian north, where the people rely for English language broadcasts on Radio Moscow in order to receive world news. There are also vast areas in Canada which are not covered by any Canadian radio service, nor are they covered by Canadian or any other television.
I suppose that the evaluation of the amounts paid to these two professors who appeared on the C.B.C., and who of course could not be heard in the areas which the C.B.C. does not reach, is to assist us in considering whether or not it is right that many Canadians do not have the privilege of receiving C.B.C. broadcasts, whether we consider the content good or bad. One sometimes wonders whether, if we did not have the C.B.C., we would not have to create it.
The question which comes to my mind is whether, if we do make public the amount paid to these individuals, we will really be in a position to say that it was too little or too much. Of course these amounts will have to be compared with the amounts paid the same people for other services in other areas. They will also have to be compared with the amounts paid to other people appearing on or performing services for the C.B.C. To decide
Motions for Papers
whether or not these amounts are justified we would have to consider the opinions of the people who have seen or heard the performances of these two gentlemen and perhaps get an evaluation of whether they were overpaid or underpaid. Of course there is always the possibility they were not paid at all.
[DOT] (6:30 p.ra.)
I should like to quote from another book in which these two gentlemen took a part in the authorship. The book is entitled, "The Modern Era" and was written by John C. Ricker, M.A., John T. Saywell, Ph.D. and Elliot E. Rose, M.A. It is a historical book and I give this reference so that hon. members who may wish to pursue their interest in these particular authors can consider some of the points which have been raised by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) concerning their attitude toward the communications media. The introduction to this book reads, in part, as follows:
The years from 1900 to 1914 form a distinct period in the history of Great Britain, the United States and Canada. In its own way, each country passed during these years from the old world of the nineteenth century to the modern era. At the beginning of the period, Great Britain was a mature industrial nation with a vast empire; yet she had passed the peak of her power and faced "a time of troubles" at home and abroad. The United States was just emerging as a powerful industrial nation, young and confident, rough and untamed, and was embarking on an empirebuilding experiment of her own. In 1900, Canada first began to develop her rich heritage of natural resources in real earnest. Although still a colony, she was becoming conscious of herself as a nation. When the twentieth century began, each country had reached a different stage of national development. As a result, the specific problems each faced in the new century were different.
I turn now to page 379, where I read:
History is an unending process; today's newspaper headlines may be history tomorrow. At the same time many of today's headlines will never be important historically, while events that have been hidden in the back pages of our paper might be. In other words, many of the events that seem so important today may not be considered important ten years from now. It is difficult to determine the historical importance of events that have occurred close to our own times; yet looking back at the years between 1900 and 1960, it is possible to see some evidence of tasks completed, as well as of problems unsolved that remain for this generation.
One of the most striking developments in the modern era has been the alliance of the three English speaking democracies that border on the Atlantic Ocean. At the beginning of the century, the United States and Britain were divided. Canada was beginning to assert her independence of Great Britain and, during the Alaska boundary dispute and the election of 1911 on the reciprocity issue, showed her resentment against the United States. Yet in the face of dangers common to

April 20, 1967
Motions for Papers
all three-the first world war, the second world war, and the threat posed by the communist world after 1945-the three countries have drawn together in arms and spirit. That alliance has in the past helped to preserve the democratic tradition in the modern world. We hope that it will continue to do so in the future.
The references to the press, Mr. Speaker, do not appear in this book. There are, however, references in another book to which I will refer later. In evaluating the expenditures the C.B.C. may or may not have made to these gentlemen, we are led to a consideration of the other expenditures the corporation may make. We are brought also to a consideration of whether or not it is desirable that we should consider the amounts the C.B.C. may have paid to individuals. Are we, in parliament, in a position to decide upon the individual wages due to these individual people? The indemnities paid to a member of parliament are of course a matter of public knowledge; but we are public servants. The people who know our indemnities are, in a general sense, our employers.
Comments are made from time to time on the size of the crews the C.B.C. sends out to cover a given story. It would appear to me that sometimes these crews are large. It would appear to me also that sometimes they do not go into all the areas of this country, and thus fail to give the whole picture. However, there are experts within the industry who perhaps can decide these things which are, in the large sense, too small to be debated fully in parliament.
It has been said that the C.B.C. can do a tremendous job with eight men in four days which could be done by other companies with a crew of four men in two days. I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of this statement. However, it does seem to me from time to time that some of the crews the C.B.C uses on special projects are excessive. I think it may be fair to say that the C.B.C. has no vision of the future of Canada. It has spent a given amount, we do not know how much, on this program. I do not say we should know the amount paid to these individuals. However, it does appear from the size of the program and the number of people the C.B.C. fits into this program, that the corporation is spending money which could more properly be spent on giving service to areas which at this moment do not have service at all, or have limited service from the C.B.C. and other stations.
The question of the C.B.C. paying or not paying is a matter of some interest. There is an area in my own riding where for many

years the news announcers and people appearing on special programs have not been paid at all. They are volunteers. Even today, there are only one or two programs on that particular station for which the C.B.C. pays wages. The station operates in collaboration with the United States Air Force.
However, the fact that the C.B.C. does not pay wages in an area does not mean that they should not pay to bring people on television in the larger areas. It will always be necessary to pay to get the type of people the corporation wants on these national programs. It comes back again to the question of evaluating the two things, one, the price that should be paid and, two, whether that payment should be made public. In order to establish the price that should be paid, I believe it would be necessary to ascertain what other people in the industry are being paid for a given time. It would be necessary to establish what these gentlemen are paid for other services. I cannot say that I envy the job of the C.B.C. in establishing the amount to pay those various people, especially guest stars. I am led to understand that at times they can become temperamental and want the same payment as another star, or possibly a better time for the program. I would not like to have to decide the amount to be paid to one star in relation to what is paid to another.
While I feel that from time to time the C.B.C. may be spending some of its money less efficiently than I should like, I do not believe the amounts paid to individuals should be announced publicly, any more than the wages paid an individual in private industry should be made public. The amount an employer pays to his employees is not generally a matter of public knowledge. He does not generally announce it to the other employees, nor does he publish it in the newspapers. This is something the employee of course knows, and the employer knows.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, a member of parliament's indemnity is known to him and his employer, which is the public. However, the people's earnings are a matter of concern to themselves alone and are not necessarily public information. I need mention only the secrecy of the income tax form. An individual taxpayer's income is not generally a matter for the rest of the world to know about, unless of course he wishes to make it known.
I suppose it could be said that the amount spent on producing a given program for a season or the total amount paid to performers
April 20, 1967

for a given number of programs is a matter to be considereti. However, the amount paid a particular individual concerns only him and his employer.
I would not want to have the responsibility of setting these rates, and I know that the C.B.C. has a difficult job in deciding upon rates for different people, depending upon how much they are in demand. For that reason I presume they would not want to release these individual figures. I believe these figures in question are too complex to establish the efficiency or otherwise of the operations of the C.B.C., though I concede it is the responsibility of parliament to ascertain that the taxpayer's money is well spent and that all Canadians receive at least minimum television and radio coverage.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit hesitant about entering this very lively debate on a most important subject because I happen, just by accident, to have a personal relationship with one of the two people who are mentioned in this request for documents that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is putting forth. I refer to Dr. John. T. Saywell.
When I was attending the University of Toronto between 1961 and 1963, Professor Saywell was my professor in Canadian history. He was also for a short period my thesis director. Unfortunately our relationship was broken off when he accepted a promotion and moved over to York University to become dean of arts, a position which he now holds. During the period when I was attending Professor Saywell's classes, I found him a very invigorating teacher, an excellent seminar leader, and a man with a most interesting knowledge of Canadian history. I should say, too, that he and I did not always agree. I can recall some very interesting conversations which took place in those seminars concerning the relative merits of various policies and ideas of the government during the period 1961-63. I suppose in retrospect, Mr. Speaker, that three year period was one of the most exciting politically that we have ever had in Canada.
The point at issue here is a motion for the production of certain papers, specifically documents outlining the amount of moneys paid to Professor Saywell and Mr. Ricker by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, documents that set out in detail the amount of such moneys paid these individuals over a period of time.
Motions for Papers
The position that some members of parliament have taken is that the C.B.C. should not have to provide parliament with this type of information. My understanding of the way parliament operates is that other crown corporations must provide information of this type to parliament, when it is requested. I have heard from officials of the C.B.C. that there is no objection to providing this kind of information to the House of Commons if the House of Commons asks for it. But these officials do have objection to providing this kind of information when it is asked for by an individual member. They make a distinction between the rights of the House of Commons as a whole and the rights of the private member.
It seems to me that some consideration could be given to this point of view. The justification for the stand of the C.B.C. or for its point of view is simply that if the C.B.C. were to give in and to provide this information at the request of a member of parliament, then because of the nature of the operations of the C.B.C., they would be completely inundated with requests for this type of information. We have only to recognize what happens to members of parliament when the C.B.C. comes up with a juicy bit of information which does not please members of parliament, or broadcasts a program which does not please them. We all know the type of reaction we get from members of parliament. The feeling of the C.B.C. is that if they were to provide this type of information to individual members, the C.B.C. would lose its freedom of expression. They would not dare to go into controversial areas; they would not try to illuminate the dark areas of our society; they would be nothing less than a sounding board for the preservation of the status quo in Canada.
To develop that argument a little further, Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties that we have in making a judgment of the C.B.C. is that we have precious little to measure it against; for the role that we have set out for the C.B.C. is quite different from the role the C.T.V. has taken unto itself, or the role in which the American networks function. Further, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a great deal of similarity between the operations of the C.B.C. and the operations of the B.B.C. in Great Britain.
One of the problems that we face is this:	How do we know we are getting
our money's worth in this particular example the hon. member for York-Humber has

April 20. 1967
Motions for Papers
put before us? For example, do we know that the C.B.C. is attempting to present all sides of the argument, and not just one side? When we are dealing with the media of broadcasting and television, what counts in getting a particular point of view across is not necessarily the words used, but the tone of voice, the particular stare or smirk of the person uttering the words, the particular type of background he may be outlined against, the type of music which is used in accompanying his remarks. All of these have an effect on the message that is received by the viewer or listener.
The use of the printed word, however, is quite different. It has a much different impact on the reader, for he is concerned with words and the choice of words. Printed material, too, can be twisted by the subtle use of words. Some write better than others. For example some newspaper stories coming out of Ottawa do not reflect what went on; some correspondents invent phrases that remain in the minds of the public.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
In 1962 or 1963, Charles Lynch or Charles King-and I may be wrong in this-invented the phrase "Diefenbucks".


An hon. Member:: That was the Winnipeg Free Press, with a cartoon.


John Mercer Reid: I believe a newspaper reporter started it. That phrase stuck more in the minds of the electorate than most of the logical and legitimate arguments against the government of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.
When the hon. member says that the C.B.C. is biased but that the printed word is not, I disagree with him. Bias takes many forms.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I rise on a point of order. If my hon. friend will read my remarks on this matter he will see that I said it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


John Mercer Reid: I read the hon. gentleman's remarks of March 9, 1967, when he introduced his motion. He talked about the bias of the C.B.C., and how its programs were biased. In effect he said that as members of parliament we wish to prevent bias and therefore we ought to exert our authority over the C.B.C. and obtain certain documents to gain greater control over the programming content of the corporation. I see the hon. member nodding his head in agreement.


An hon. Member:: He is falling asleep.


John Mercer Reid: I will agree that many C.B.C. programs are shoddy. Yet we in this house are not always first class. We have our good days and our bad days, and the C.B.C., as an organization, suffers from the same defect.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Speak for yourself.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member for York-Humber has elevated himself to a status above that of a mere member of parliament or of the human race. It is refreshing to see persons of such high calibre sitting here.
The hon. member implied that the bias of the printed word was minimal. That is true in part, yet it is not quite true. In reading old newspapers, during my historical researches, I saw how on the front page of a newspaper a political speech would be printed in full, and on the editorial page it would be torn apart. I suggest that that is good newspaper reporting. But that sort of thing seldom happens now. One may call the editorial page biased, but at least the newspapers of the past had the courtesy of announcing their bias on the front page; they were for the Grits or for the Tories. In the old days you got the facts; now you do not get them.
How often are the complete speeches of political leaders reprinted? Hardly ever, I suggest. Today journalists interpret what was said and the original words are seldom reported to the Canadian people. In that way the newspapers are biased, and modern newspapers are just as biased as our broadcasters.
I see the hon. member for Lotbiniere wishes to speak. To maintain my good relations with hon. members from Quebec I shall yield the floor to him. Those good relations will vanish, probably, after the start of tonight's game.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with the greatest interest to what was said this afternoon, and I understand the emotion of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) when deploring the C.B.C.'s temerity, often displayed in programs which we could very well do without.
I am thinking, for instance, of last Sunday's program "Sunday" where we saw the hon. member for York-Humber. There I understood how the C.B.C. had bold programs.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the request submitted by the hon. member is quite justified.
It is a fact recognized by a number of people that it is becoming increasingly difficult and well-nigh impossible to exercise any
April 20, 1867

control or any sort of authority over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is becoming altogether too bureaucratic an organization.
There is a lot of talk about democracy, but when some extremists attempt to put it into practice, democracy itself is destroyed. There are some flagrant cases, and this is where I understand the attitude of the hon. member for York-Humber. For example, the C.B.C. could be asked how a certain Rene Levesque, a member of the provincial legislature today and a former minister, came to take a trip to Paris at the expense of the C.B.C. to interview Prime Minister Pompidou, when there are C.B.C. correspondents in Montreal.
Who is paying for that, if not the taxpayers? The Paris correspondent is then sent to interview a French publisher in Montreal. Abuses of this kind justify motions like the one we have before us today, Mr. Speaker.
I can very well understand why the hon. member for York-Humber complains that the C.B.C. is always showing presumptuousness and even contempt, as regards the parliamentary institution.
Mr. Speaker, if I were to go to my constituency of Lotbiniere and tell the people there: "We are going to take the $123 million alloted to the C.B.C. and we are going to use them for family allowances-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order.


Auguste Choquette: the electors of the Lotbiniere constituency would vote as one man in favour of family allowances and against the C.B.C.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I deeply regret it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere for abiding by the clock and I also thank him for his co-operation with the Chair.
The hour for consideration of private members' business being over, the house resumes the debate interrupted at six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Pursuant to the order of the house of April 6, this sitting is suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
Proposal for Time Allocation BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith:
That an order be made allocating the time on the committee of the whole stage and all remaining stages of procedure on Bill C-243, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended), being government order No. 107 on the order paper and that the motion will provide that two days shall be allocated for the completion of discussion on the committee of the whole stage on Bill C-243, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts in consequence thereof (as amended), and that one day shall be allotted for the completion of the third reading stage on the bill.
Gordon Minto Churchill: You and I, Mr. Speaker, and a few hon. members will maintain a quorum in the house while the hockey match is in progress, and I will continue what I was saying before six o'clock.
I outlined then the proposition which I put forward to the leader of the house in order to speed up the business before us. In the presence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) I asked the leader of the New Democratic party for his support with regard to that proposition. So the Prime Minister, the leader of the New Democratic party, the minister of defence, the house leader and all members of the house who were present are now aware of the proposal that I put forward starting last Friday, repeated on Monday and repeated again today-a proposal designed to speed up and advance the pressing business which needs to be done by parliament. I quite agree that we should use our time in this house effectively and usefully. I regret very much that the leader of the New Democratic party failed to support the proposal that I put forward because with his support, and the support of his party, I am sure the government would have been persuaded to change its mind and postpone clauses 2 and 6 of the bill until next fall.
By that time the government would have the regulations ready and would be in a position to proclaim the bill immediately after its passage through this house. But the leader of the New Democratic party, who has not participated in the debates on the unification bill so far and who, like the Prime Minister, has rarely been present here during our discussions recently, failed to go along with my suggestion.
What I find strange about the New Democratic party as represented by their leader is that outside this chamber across the
15158	COMMONS
Proposal for Time Allocation country the pretence is made that that party is opposed to the Liberal party. The President ol the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) in his turn goes about the country, as do others ol his cabinet colleagues, putting up the pretence that they are against the N.D.P. Thus they confuse the people and fool them. Yet here in the House of Commons the Liberal party is consistently supported by the New Democratic party and sustained in office by that means. It is only on occasions when a rapid counting of heads is undertaken, and the N.D.P. group discover that it is safe for them to vote against the government, that they do so.
Today we were given an example of their support for the Liberal government. They are pretending they are a different party: They are the same. Mackenzie King, wrong in so many ways, was perfectly right when he said the C.C.F. was only the Liberal party in a hurry.


An hon. Member:: Mr. St. Laurent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. St. Laurent. That is the situation today. They are two parties with different names but the same ideas here in the House of Commons. The N.D.P. people go along with the Liberals.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask the new parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He knows that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The best example is what has happened in connection with this unification bill. The members of the N.D.P. know very well-and I recognize they are people of intelligence-that the advice of those military experts who gave evidence before the committee, almost all of whom have been thrown out of office, is better than the advice given to this house by the Minister of National Defence. Yet they are co-operating with the minister and sweeping aside all that evidence in their anxiety to support the government. That is another object. They like the idea.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certainly.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the hon. member discussing what he may think is the way we are going to vote on the issue of bringing this matter to a decision, or is he saying now how we are going to vote on clause 2 and on clause 6?


John George Diefenbaker: You have said it.

DEBATES	April 20, 1967


Harold Edward Winch: The question before the house now is the matter of bringing the issue to a vote. It is not a discussion on clause 2. If the hon. member thinks he knows how we are going to vote on clause 2 and clause 6 I think he is a little confused, because I do not believe he has the foggiest notion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I know the hon. member is going to vote against the bill; he has expressed opposition to it. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has said publicly in the defence committee, and here, that unless the foreign policy of the government is clearly established he cannot support the bill, and I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is going to oppose the bill. I am not sure about the other members of that party, but I am surprised they would support the allocation of time proposal that came up today, since I suggested this other method of dealing with this particular problem and getting the House of Commons out of a difficulty. Be that as it may, we will see what happens when the time comes.
It is regrettable that an issue like this cannot be solved by agreement. Sitting on both the other side of the chamber and on this side, I have seen innumerable agreements arrived at, when difficulties were amicably settled in the lobby behind the curtains. These things are not recorded in Hansard. Neither are they recorded in the press, but experienced members of the house know how the house works. There is a tremendous amount of work done by agreement. This is how legislation goes through, unless we run into legislation that is controversial, such as the unification bill.
On many of our items of legislation there is an exchange of information, party to party, as to how many people are going to speak and how long they want. This is never publicly pronounced, but when you get a controversial bill you run into trouble. When a controversial bill is before the house the government should assess the opinion of the house, and should not press on with such a bill to the point that we have reached now, where it is going to impose closure, which is a restriction on freedom of speech.
We have not entered upon this debate lightly. We are not conducting a filibuster. Our opinions on this bill are soundly based, firmly held and rooted in conviction. We think the bill is bad for the country, and we are supported by the opinion and sound judgment of a great many former military personnel who
April 20, 1967	COMMONS
held high office under the present government. This is not a light question at all. We are within our rights as an opposition in putting forward our arguments against the bill.
What are we to do-just collapse because we know that the smaller parties to our left are going to vote with the government and that therefore we cannot defeat the bill? Are we just to say, "We are going to be defeated anyway; let's give up?" This is not the purpose to be served by an opposition. If we have strong convictions on a subject under discussion we must present them. If there is a volume of opinion in the country opposed to a measure which comes before us, it is our duty to bring that fact to the attention of the House of Commons in the hope that the government will modify its bill, or postpone it, or withdraw it. That is the situation we have reached right here.
This idea that just because the government brings forward a measure the whole House of Commons should act as a rubber stamp, is something I will not accept. This is the idea behind allocation of time, Mr. Speaker. We have had the proposition put forward by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the N.D.P. that there should be allocation of time before-I wish I could underline this in Hansard-before a debate commences. Nothing could be more ridiculous; nothing could be more unsound.
Not until a debate commences and is carried on do you sometimes discover the peculiarities and the weaknesses of a bill before the house. I have seen this happen time and time again. For example, if we had had an allocation of time on the transport bill before the debate commenced, and had been restricted to two days in committee of the whole house, we would have had a far worse bill than finally emerged, because the amendments which poured in from both sides of the house transformed that bill. All those amendments took time to present and to be discussed. That is one of the reasons why I am opposed to the allocation of time idea.
Sir, I have made survey after survey of sessions in this house. I have put this on Hansard before and I do not want to keep repeating things I have said in the past. None the less it has been the case in session after session that legislation has always gone through, and gone through without much trouble except in those instances where a highly controversial bill was before the house. Over a period of 15 sessions that I have reviewed I have discovered that from 40
Proposal for Time Allocation to 60 pieces of legislation were put through each session. On other occasions I have suggested that within the framework of 150 days to a session the house should be able to complete the major portion of its work and pass from 40 to 60 pieces of legislation if the planning is carefully done.
We are having this session one of the longest sessions in Canada's history, and one of the most poorly managed sessions in Canada's history. It is simply ridiculous to go for 245 days, as we have done in this session, running over the year, starting in January and ending perhaps in May of the next year. It is just nonsense. This session which was started a year ago last January should have ended in December. A new session should have started in January of this year, the centennial year, and we should have had a respectable and good session for centennial year. In such a year I would have kept out of the session controversial matters such as this.
I think it is a crying shame that in our centennial year we in this house are forced to put through a bill which is unsound, on which there is no need for haste, and which has brought on closure, or a restriction of speech in the house. Centennial celebration. What a farce the Prime Minister has made of parliament.
The session should have ended in December. I suggested at that time to members on the other side that although we still had before us the railway transportation bill and the unification bill we were prepared, again by agreement, to put those bills on the order paper in 1967 in the same position that they were in in 1966, if the session had closed in December, and not to go through all the committee proceedings with regard to the transportation bill, not to go through the second reading and things of that nature, but to put it back into the house in the same position as it was in in December, cut the session off, start afresh with a new speech from the throne and proceed then in an orderly fashion with supply motions and with estimates.
Look at the situation in which we are in now-245 days, talking about starting a new session some time in May, and we have the Prime Minister fumbling with regard to what we do between then and July 1. He has said that perhaps we will have to sit all July and August, and he laid out a list of legislative items as long as your arm, which will take another two years to accomplish.
In this session we have already passed 85 pieces of legislation. Obviously it has been
April 20, 1967

Proposal jor Time Allocation two sessions crowded into one, according to the order paper, and there are other pieces of legislation still to come forward. I am not counting appropriation bills which follow supply. It is a good achievement. No one can complain that we have been holding things up. If you want to take it on the average, that is only about two days per bill.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Time and time again we have passed three small, minor or unimportant bills in this house in one day. Obviously a complex bill requires more debate. In any event the record of this house, so far as passing measures is concerned, has been good. The minute the government conceives the idea that it should force something through the house it begins to refer to allocation of time and closure. Government members begin to complain about the opposition talking about certain measures. Much of the difficulty experienced by the government in this regard could be avoided by agreement and I gave two examples before six o'clock. I am sure, for example, we might have used Tuesday and Wednesday of this week for the consideration of other legislation. I made a suggestion to the house in this regard on Tuesday, but it was rejected.
Before six o'clock I suggested that we could end this session promptly by postponing our consideration of certain parts of this bill until the next session. In this way we could pass the remainder of the bill, complete our consideration of the measure on adult training, pass interim supply and deal with the report of the rules committee. Before six o'clock I went so far as to suggest that this could all be done by tomorrow. But the government is inflexible and is bound to force its will on this House of Commons by closure.
The government does not have the support of the country on this matter of unification, because it was not a subject for discussion during the last election. There has been no mandate forthcoming from the people in respect of the destruction of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force. Unification was not a plank in the platform of the Liberal party during the election of 1965. This whole matter has been brought on since then by the Minister of National Defence, and against the advice of his senior officials he intends to push it through. That is why we maintain our right to present our case now.
Not everything that should and will be said about this measure has been said, and it is

ridiculous to suggest, as the leader of the New Democratic party suggested, that the discussion on the bill has been exhausted. That hon. gentleman has not participated in the debate. I do not believe he has read the evidence of the committee or that he knows anything about this matter. In spite of that he says everything of value has been said. How does he know that? I have more to say about this measure, and I am sure others have contributions of value to make.
We in this House of Commons are constantly faced with this sort of situation. Some people want to curtail freedom of speech. Surely that is unnecessary. Year after year this house has passed important items. There have always been certain things which must be done. There has always been a great pressure to accomplish certain things of importance, and over the years we have restricted the amount of time for debate on certain matters such as the throne speech debate, the budget debate, supply motions and estimates. These restrictions have all been put in as a result of agreement. We have cut down on the time allotted for speeches during the committee of the whole house stage, and we have limited our question period. There may be other limitations we will have to bring about in order to facilitate the business of this house, but surely these limitations can be imposed by agreement rather than by arbitrary action on the part of the government. Surely these limitations should not be made by government ukases.
A few years ago changes of the kind I have mentioned were made as a result of the unanimous agreement of an all-party committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. Such changes were made under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker Beaudoin and Mr. Speaker Michener. That is how things were done a few years ago. Useful and helpful compromises were reached. In contrast, under this autocratic government the house is being forced to restrict its freedoms.
To my knowledge five members of the cabinet have been telling the public outside this house how parliament must be reformed so that its work may be expedited. They have told the public that things should be done in a different way. I hope the public will realize that it is the government's intention to muzzle the opposition. All we in the opposition want is to debate government proposals. On the other hand the government wants to present its legislation to a completely silent opposition, which will act as a rubber stamp.
April 20, 19G7	COMMONS
That is the government's thesis expressed in simple terms.
Members of the cabinet colour this plain and simple objective by certain phraseologies. They talk about modernization, streamlining and speeding up of our procedures. I am not aware of any period of time since I have been around here when there has been a greater degree of mismanagement by a government of the business of this house than there has been in the last few years. Items have not been brought forward on the order paper although they have been mentioned in speeches from the throne. Even when they are brought forward they are in such bad shape they have to be withdrawn, modified and changed to a great extent. Whenever one finds scores of amendments to a bill he must conclude that the government has prepared that bill badly. The members of the opposition have bailed out the government on numerous occasions during this session in order that measures could be passed. This has happened on so many occasions it would be difficult to recount them. This has been a session of mismanagement and it is being mismanaged now.
The leader of the New Democratic party suggested that the business committee set up last week should be left to arrange the business of this house. Let me remind him of the house committee which meets frequently to make arrangements in this regard. The business committee appointed last week met on Friday. It did not meet on Monday but met on Tuesday at 2:15 and reported to the house at 2.30. The only purpose of that committee was to decide whether we should consider this bill for two, three or five days during the committee of the whole discussion, and one or two days during third reading. It was hoped that I would bring forward the suggestion at that business committee that we should limit the number of days to the number suggested by the government.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question regarding the number of times the business committee met? Does he not feel that he should state that certain representatives of various parties on the business committee were in accord and that the committee felt it was necessary to meet more often? Will he not also admit that discussions continued with the hon. member on behalf of his group during the intervals between the meetings?
Proposal for Time Allocation


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, go ahead.

Proposal jor Time Allocation


Harold Edward Winch: I want to be very clear about the proposal of the hon. member; therefore I would like to ask him whether my interpretation of his proposal is correct. I gather he has made this proposal more than once. As I understand it, the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is to the effect that clauses 2 and 6 should be held in abeyance and that the official opposition are prepared to deal with the other clauses of the bill at this time. I believe this proposal has been made because of repeated statements by the government that it will take at least four months to draft the regulations and have them approved before the bill is promulgated. I think the suggestion is that in October or thereabouts clauses 2 and 6 would come back to the house and would at that time be passed.
If my assumption is correct, I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre whether this necessarily means-it does to me-that the official opposition are prepared to have a government department working on and producing regulations, the passage of which involves orders in council, without legislative authority having been given. In my opinion, that is what the suggestion must mean. Then, I gather, in October we would come back to clauses 2 and 6. Are we to assume that the regulations having been drafted in the interim period and the remaining clauses of the bill having been passed, clauses 2 and 6 would automatically carry? I am sure the hon. member understands the point I am putting forward.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter before six o'clock. The hon. member is pretty well correct, but quite briefly I will put it in my own words. I suggested that clauses 2 and 6 should stand until the fall, and I gave the reasons for making this suggestion. First, the regulations have to be prepared and they cannot be ready for four to six months. Evidence given by General Allard and the adjutant general, and agreed to by the Minister of National Defence, was that until those regulations are drafted and approved and the bill is proclaimed, this legislation is not law.
Until this bill is proclaimed and it is law, the regulations cannot take effect; and General Allard said he cannot take any step toward unification until the bill is proclaimed. That puts this matter off until October. I suggested that in the circumstances we pass the rest of the bill now. By inference-and I got that word from the hon. member for

DEBATES	April 20, 1967
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) out in the corridor one day-this would give the adjutant general the assurance that he could safely go ahead and draft the regulations and the bill would not be so materially changed in respect of clauses 2 and 6 that his regulations would be thrown out.
Then I suggested that by agreement we would put this bill back on the order paper. As the matter now stands, the bill is in committee of the whole house. I said if this were done we would raise no objection, no points of order and would not participate in debate, and in the fall we would conclude the discussion of clauses 2 and 6, and third reading, in the same amount of time that the government is providing on this occasion, if they desire to impose closure. I also said that no harm would be done in that event and we could deal with other business at this time. I suggested that in exchange for this concession we would advance very rapidly with the adult training bill, the report of the rules committee and interim supply; and I went so far as to say that we would do all these things by six o'clock tomorrow night.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the question I asked has not been answered by the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must point out to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that the time allotted to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has expired.


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) speak of freedom of speech a few minutes ago leads me to reflect that each member may have a personal opinion on this matter just as anyone who takes the trouble of speaking about it.
Recently, I read in a newspaper an article by Mr. Dean, well-known correspondent and newspaperman, in which he wrote about those who preach freedom of speech in order to curtail it in others. I believe that if freedom of speech carries certain rights, it also involves some obligations.
The leader of the government (Mr. Mcll-raith) introduced a motion under standing order 15A suggesting the allocation of time, specifically two days, to complete debate on Bill No. C-243 in committee of the whole.
April 20. 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Standing order 15A was introduced on June 11, 1965, when the house agreed to certain amendments further to various reports of the committee on standing orders, on which it was my privilege to serve.
When this amendment was passed, there was considerable discussion in the house. Needless to say, the special committee on standing orders, after sitting nearly a year, had seriously considered the advisability of amending standing orders.
This afternoon, I heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), leader of the New Democratic party, recite once again the list of suggestions his party favours for the proper conduct of the business of the house.
I think it was the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who remarked that these suggestions have already been made. Personally, I have no objection to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam or any other making suggestions to improve the proper functioning of the house.
Obviously, it was almost a repetition of the press release dated September 22, 1964, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I found a copy in my files and I read it during the supper hour.
However, I have noted that the government had implemented a number of the proposals made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on September 22, 1964. If the government has not yet been able to find the miracle solution to get ahead with the business of the house, then let each and every one of us blame only himself.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), following those proposals put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, had answered on September 23, 1964, that he was very pleased to have the support of that hon. member as far as reform of the parliamentary procedure was concerned.
The Prime Minister repeated this afternoon that a system of allocation of time must be set up for the debates of the house, so that it might consider urgent matters.
Thus, after all the proposals made previously, the government finally submitted to the house amendments to the procedure in 1965. After a lengthy debate, most of those proposals were passed on June 11, 1965, including this standing order 15A about the allocation of time for consideration of any legislation.
Proposal for Time Allocation
I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) when he says that the business committee has not met perhaps as often as it should have. As I said earlier, however, there may be a lack of sincerity and good will, since the house had agreed to provide in its standing orders a means to cope with the present situation.
That the government should have decided as a last resort to apply to existing rules and standing order 15A in order to allocate time for the study of Bill No. C-243 should not come as a surprise, and all members present must admit that a decision has to be reached with regard to that bill.
I understand that it will likely not meet everybody's wish, but after hearing quite a large number of speeches by the official opposition, some of which were quite thorough and others maybe less interesting and repetitious, I think that a solution had to be found and that the hon. leader of the government had no alternative but present the motion which he moved today.
Mr. Speaker, I should like, however, to make a suggestion and voice a personal opinion; if we do not want too much bitterness to prevail following this debate, it might be a good idea to come to an agreement and set clause 2 aside and go on with the study of the other clauses of the bill.
Under this motion, examination of the bill will have to come to a conclusion, and a vote will be taken, and without anticipating the result of that vote, I have no doubt that we shall vote on that question in the very near future.
I feel that it is in the interest of the country that we, as members, should have the opportunity to study the other clauses of this bill'.
If the house decides that this motion is to become operative, I see no other logical solution, Mr. Speaker, than to agree to suspend consideration of clause 2 and proceed immediately with the other clauses of this bill.
I think we would show maturity in following this course.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, anything I had intended to say in this debate must be changed to some extent as a result of the intervention and of the interesting observations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon. He said then what I have heard on so many occasions from
15164	COMMONS
Proposal for Time Allocation other distinguished members of the cabinet, not only during the present government's tenure of office but also when other parties held the office of government, that things must be done; we must get moving; the business of the country must be attended to. We received a long list of legislation which must be passed dealing with almost everything conceivable. I think the right hon. gentleman did forget to suggest that we should add some fitting words to the Sermon on the Mount, that we should amend the Ten Commandments and rewrite Hamlet's soliloquy. I suggest that the right hon. gentleman had everything in his speech.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about Hebrews 12 and 16?


Gerald William Baldwin: I believe that intervention is superfluous because that matter is being attended to already. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is an urgency about some matters. We must bear in mind today, however, that with the division in the political parties there is bound to be feeling. This is an actual part of the political process. In the course of the last two or three years the government which the right hon. gentleman leads has seen fit to introduce certain measures which have reawakened latent hostilities and strong dislikes. It will be for historians at a later date to say whether this was the appropriate time or whether it may well have been more appropriate to wait a longer period of time. The fact remains that in the country, and reflected in this house, there are stronger feelings of hostility than usually prevail.
Consequently, in assessing the necessity for introducing and dealing with legislation, there must rest upon the government the very grave burden of undertaking to give priority to measures which are less controversial. I do not expect there are many matters that will be dealt with in this house without controversy. It is in that atmosphere that the government now seeks to curtail debate on this bill by means of this motion. In the light of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has said, and according to my interpretation of events, much of the difficulty we are experiencing today must be laid at the door of the government.
In the fall of 1965, with a long period ahead of us and with urgent legislation to deal with, with the estimates for that fiscal year untouched, the government saw fit, for reasons which it considered sufficient but which obviously were not acceptable to the country, to

DEBATES	April 20, 1967
call an election. Ever since that election the business of this house has not been properly ordered. Over and over again we have experienced situations in which legislation has been postponed, where ministers charged with responsibility for completing certain items have left on political safaris or for other good reasons. As a result, we have had to postpone these measures and deal with something else.
These postponements and delays have been the cause of uneasiness, and a feeling that there has not been that degree of advance which there should be in the legislative process here. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a liability upon the government. After all, they are charged with the responsibility of so ordering the affairs of this house that we will know what we are doing, that when we start a matter we will have an opportunity to carry it through to completion. I believe these are some of the reasons for the feelings which have been generated in connection with this debate, and for which the government must accept a substantial degree of responsibility.
The right hon. gentleman spoke about changes in the legislative process. He mentioned certain matters, with some of which I would agree. We must bear in mind, and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) referred to this, that there is an equal responsibility resting upon the government to ensure the rights of private members. It is not enough simply to give to the grasping hands of government the right to use more power to speed up the legislative process for purposes which they consider necessary.
In the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to read some of the reports made by a special committee in the United Kingdom House of Commons, where they have been plagued with some of the difficulties with which we are faced. Running through the transcript of evidence are the same stories which we hear concerning the frustration of members and the desire of the government to introduce more and more legislation, often ill-conceived and therefore likely to be ill-digested. Some of this legislation, which the government thinks it wants, is not necessarily the legislation which meets the requirements of the country.
They have a very interesting arrangement there, Mr. Speaker, and in this connection I disagree to some extent with my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. There, Mr. April 20, 1967
1516S

Speaker appears before the committee along with the whips of the various parties and some of the prominent members of the parties, and they give their views. They are faced with precisely the same kind of problems with which we are faced. One of the major problems is one which was mentioned I think by the right hon. gentlemen, who had served on both sides of the house, namely the fact the government attempts to introduce legislation beyond the capacity of the government and the country to digest. This is a very serious difficulty.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that basically one of the major responsibilities of the government is to look carefully at the priorities. We would all like things to be done, I am sure, having in mind the situation which we occupy and what we have done during the course of political campaigns. We all have ideas we would like to see incorporated in the legislation, probably in many cases better ideas than the government has. We must recognize that the government has the responsibility and to that extent there must be a determination to assess the capacity of the country to absorb these legislative enactments. This has not been the case with this government.
I want to deal to some extent with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I agree with many of the proposals he has brought forward. I must say, with all due respect, that in my view the rules of this house do not belong to the government. They do not belong to any political party: They belong to the members of this house. I honestly do not believe it adds to the likelihood of free and unihibited discussion which we must have, not only in this house but in the committees, if there is any suggestion that any particular proposal for changes in the rules is the property of any party.
I accept the fact that the hon. member put these suggestions forward in good faith. However, I do not feel this is likely to be conducive to the type of change which we must have if parliament is going to survive as an active, viable and useful force. Equally I say to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who intervened in this connection, that his definition of the allocation of time-I will have more to say about that later-if carried through to its logical conclusion would mean a great many changes. To what extent are some of the smaller parties of this house prepared to accept on motions- and in my humble opinion the government makes far too many motions that need not be
Proposal for Time Allocation made-an allocation of time in the form of not making statements on announcements which are made, with the right reserved to them to ask questions on orders of the day? This is a practice frequently followed in the United Kingdom. Personally I think it is a useful practice, because you precipitate a far more intelligent approach to a subject matter if, the minister having made a statement, an opportunity is given to ask questions. However, that is something the committee on procedure will have to discuss at a later stage.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Dealing with the particular motion before us, Mr. Speaker, I think I have been objective in my approach to the subject matter of this problem. I have not intervened or spoken in the debate up to this time, though I think I did say something on the resolution stage. I must be perfectly honest and say there are undoubtedly aspects of the debate which have appeared up to the present time which would justify one in taking the position that it might be a good idea, if not to bring the debate to an end, at least to arrange for a more orderly completion to the discussions we have had.
There have been invitations to impose closure and threats to do so. To my thinking, there has been repetition on all sides of the house which has been unnecessary and has not enlivened the debate. Statements have been made which I think should not have been made. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are not attending a tea party in the House of Commons. Feelings do run high, as they should and must. People do have a point of view to present and they feel very strongly about certain issues. I would be both surprised and unhappy if in the course of our debates we did not see these strong views and representations reflected in language which perhaps the following morning the hon. member who had used it might wish to correct. I have no objection to a little blood flowing, but I prefer blood and not garbage.
As a result of the continuance of this debate in this way, I think one of the problems has been our inability to get into some very critical and important issues which are involved in various clauses, the necessity for moving amendments and for joining issue, for coming together in conflict, on matters which have not been dealt with so far. If this debate ends without this being done, I think we will be doing less than our duty.
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation
Finally in this regard, as advocate for the plaintiff, as it were, may I say I dislike dictation. I dislike tyranny. I dislike the tyranny of a government which imposes closure. Equally I dislike the tyranny of members who use more than their allotted time to present their views over and over again, preventing other members from having their opportunity to speak. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must say that what the government is now proposing is the wrong move at the wrong time in the wrong way and for the wrong purposes.
The hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) who has just resumed his seat was one with whom I had the privilege of serving on the committee on procedure. Let me make it quite plain that what has been referred to as the allocation of time rule has no connection at all with what was proposed by this committee, on which I had the honour to serve some years ago. Any resemblance is purely accidental. I would certainly deem it a breach of privilege if I were accused of being in any way even part author of this particular rule. I would think the only way to find out who sponsored it would be to provide terms of reference under the children of unmarried parents act.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I say, this proposal is not an allocation of time. The allocation of time, as I construe it, is a measure which would not be used very frequently. The original proposal was one fairly mild in its application, and I do not think it would apply to too many measures. Those who promised us such great things are, I think, wide of the mark. But there are a number of measures we always have in every session in respect to which agreements made by the house leaders are not always observed, though not through the fault of the house leaders.
These are measures where it would be possible, through the agency and under the aegis of the business committee, to work out in detail an allocation of time, provided there is complete frankness on the part of the government in disclosing the legislation. I think that would have to be a condition precedent. I think it would involve as well a practice somewhat similar to that in the United Kingdom of filing all amendments to Mr. Speaker's ruling in advance of moving the amendments, ruling out duplications and those which are not in order, so we would know precisely what was involved in the debate and the areas which were controversial. However, I think it would be possible in some few measures to work out in advance an

allocation of time, and I think the house would be appreciative of it and that it would do a great service.
This was the only intent of the committee on procedure when it proposed this step several years ago. It is my clear understanding that in respect to any step beyond that, the government must still be prepared, if it feels it has a good case, that it has the support of the country and it feels it must do so, to move closure, and to move it not under the guise of an allocation of time. That is their rights. If the government is justified in doing it, I for one would have no hesitation in supporting it in a proper cause. But the government must be very sure they are right, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest it is completely erroneous to exercise this right as they have done here, and to use the allocation of time rule at this particular period.
If the government is satisfied that this debate has gone on long enough, and if in the exercise of their discretion and in the carrying out of the duties and functions of the government they feel that they are acting in the best interests of Canada, then it is their duty to move toward and to impose closure, not this half-way measure which was never intended to be applied to a situation of this kind.
I know there are other members who want to follow me before the axe is honed and sharpened and put into the hands of the headman, but there is another reason that I feel very strongly about this, in spite of what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I think it is an issue which has been completely forgotten, and I think we should have the opportunity to discuss it in the course of this debate.
e ^9:10 p.m.)
That is an illustration of the continuing growth by governments toward arrogating more power and more authority unto themselves to do by order in council, regulation and ministerial order in the dark recesses of cabinets and ministerial offices that which they do not dare do on the floor of the House of Commons. Lord Hewart called it the new despotism, in the form of anaesthetic.
We have talked about unification and integration. I will be quite frank and say that I oppose the government's action with some reluctance. I oppose it because involved here is the desire by the minister and the government to take unto themselves the right to change the structure of the armed forces of
April 20, 1967

the country by regulation, order in council and decree.
We do not know what the government intends to do. The suggestion is made that there will be structural changes and important, fundamental and basic alterations. It is incumbent on the government to bring to this house before those changes are made the decrees, regulations and orders in council containing its proposals.
We are the most medieval, antedeluvian, anachronistic member of the democratic nations of the Commonwealth in our approach to this matter. Most countries, and I refer to Australia in particular, conduct themselves differently. In most Commonwealth countries nearly all orders in council and most regulations are brought back to the House of Commons for consideration or revocation.
I recognize that governments must have power, mobility, the right to move quickly, and flexibility. But hand in hand with that must go the right of this house and of parliament to check, to examine, to scrutinize and, where essential, to revoke and rescind orders in council and decrees. That principle is involved in this measure. I wanted to enter the debate last Monday, during the committee stage, but because so many members wanted to participate I could not. I wanted to propose what I thought was a suitable compromise-not along the lines of that suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but in many ways similar. I put this to the minister for his consideration-and I asked a question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam earlier embracing this suggestion. Let the bill pass, but add to section 6 (1) a provision that any proclamation in any way affecting the separate identity of the army, navy and air force shall not be effective until it comes back to this house, accompanied by the regulations or statements containing the exact proposal which the government seeks to introduce. At present we do not know what that is. The government asks us for carte blanche-for a blank cheque. That is dangerous, and we have had far too much of that.
Let me give an illustration. The President of the United States sought sanction for what is known as the Tomkin resolution, giving the executive power to increase the armed forces under varying circumstances to take care of the situation in Viet Nam then existing. This was to be done without any declaration of war. I am convinced from what I have read
Proposal for Time Allocation and from the people I have talked to-members of the United States Congress and Senate -that the members of those bodies would never, under any circumstances, have endorsed this request of the president and given the executive the authority under which the escalation of the war in Viet Nam has come about.
In a different way this is what the minister and the government are asking us to do. They want a blank cheque. They say: "We are the great white father, benevolent, all wise, all seeing; trust us; trust our discretion. The changes we make will be good; they will be helpful; the country needs them."
I have not that much trust in any government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Particularly not in this one.


Gerald William Baldwin: And particularly not in this government, which has a predilection, because some of its members on the treasury benches have had experience in the civil service, to realizing the benefits arising from repairing mistakes in the dark, without ever bringing them to the light of day.
I say this to the minister: Many of our difficulties date back to the reasonable request that this bill be sent, before second reading, to a committee. Many of the problems which have been generated, many of the difficulties which have occurred can be traced back to the refusal on that occasion. Had the minister agreed to that request I should have been perfectly happy with an order allocating time. That was when the minister ought to have acted. He should have sent this matter to the committee on national defence.
Had the minister done so I submit that it would not have been necessary for the opposition to press certain changes; the government would have suggested them. The government would not have taken the hard position it has since taken, and from which it is unable to move.
Because of these things, though I have had grave reservations about the course of this debate, I cannot in conscience say that the government's action now is wise or necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like others I regret the impasse reflected in the motion that is before the house for debate and decision today. Even so, I suggest that this day is not a dead loss. It has been good for us to take a hard look at some of our procedures. Indeed, I dare to hope that the debate that has taken place
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation today will be of assistance to the members of the special committee on procedure, when we meet again either in this session or in the new session that should start soon.
Another advantage, although for the moment I might have to put that word in quotation marks, that flows from today's debate is the interesting list of items of business the Prime Minister gave us this afternoon. I hope that that list was not given merely as a debating point. I can tell the Prime Minister-and his remarks are now on the record-that members in all parts of the house will insist on government action on the many important issues he listed this afternoon.


David Lewis: In 1967, too. e (9:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: As my hon. friend reminds me, the inference was that this was business which should be done for the people of Canada in 1967, and I say that this commitment on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will have to take priority over any suggestion of a long holiday or anything else which might crop up.
Like others, as I have said, I regret this impasse. I believe it could have been avoided. One of the ways in which it could have been avoided would have been for the government to have acted completely in the spirit of standing order 15A by calling together all the house leaders, or the members of the business committee, to try to plan the length of time to be allotted to this debate before it started. I know that when I use that word "before" the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) will probably want to remind me of his statement a few moments ago, that nothing is more ridiculous or nonsensical than to try to plan the length of a debate before it starts. I can only say, then, that the way in which they carry on debates in the United Kingdom must be ridiculous and nonsensical, because the fact is they determine the time to be allotted to practically every debate which takes place in the mother of parliaments.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? While I believe nearly all hon. members would agree with him that it would be better at some time in the future to regulate all the business of the house by referring it to the business committee and reaching some agreement as to the time to be allotted to each measure, does he not believe that had this rule been used at the outset before the commencement of discussion, the


government would have been accused at once of applying closure, even before consideration of the measure began?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not agree with that assumption. I believe that had there been an honest attempt on the part of the house leaders or of the business committee to arrange, in advance, a reasonable time for this debate, we would not have found ourselves in the trouble we are in today. I proposed this myself in a television program on Sunday, April 2, before the debate started and I proposed it at a meeting of the house leaders on Monday, April 3. But the other house leaders thought it was not necessary.
I think the day must come when we plan our debates as well as the work of the parliamentary session generally, in advance, and I see no advantage in continuing to put that day off because of the fear which the Minister of National Defence has just expressed.
In the debate today we have before us two main issues. One of them is an immediate issue. The other is a long range issue. The immediate issue is very clear: Has the time come for the House of Commons to take a decision on Bill C-243. Surely, even after we have had our say about the rules and practice of the house, this becomes a matter of judgment-and it is a judgment which individual members will be called upon to exercise in about 20 minutes from now when Your Honour will, no doubt, apply "closure" to my own remarks. In my judgment and in the judgment of my colleagues this matter has been before parliament and before the country long enough for members to be in a position to take a decision.
We cannot liken this debate to the pipe line debate of 1956. I looked up the record today, though I hardly needed to look it up to recall it, and I found that in committee of the whole on that bill we spent practically no time at all debating its clauses. We were in committee of the whole for a few days, but at the very start closure was threatened and it was soon moved, with the result that we spent most of the time fighting closure or discussing points of order. We had practically no discussion at all in committee of the whole on the pipe line issue. On this occasion we have already spent 13 days in committee of the whole on Bill C-243, and even if the motion now before us carries, there will be two more or a total of 15 days. This, in my judgment, plus the time spent on second reading, plus the time spent in the committee on national defence, plus the time which was spent on interim supply is
April 20, 1967	COMMONS
sufficient for members to be able to reach a decision. This issue being one of judgment I believe we should make up our minds at a quarter to ten this evening.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Coming as he does from Winnipeg, he is very fair. When he mentions the discussion of this issue on interim supply is he not overlooking the fact that it was not until expert evidence was produced before the committee on defence that we really got to the root of the matter? The discussion earlier was a confused discussion because the minister could not give us accurate information..


An hon. Member:: Why have it, then?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was the fault of the minister. He was confused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will be fair to my hon. friend from Winnipeg. I am quite willing to remove from our consideration the number of days spent on defence when we were on interim supply. I submit that the time left, the time spent on second reading, in the committee on national defence and in committee of the whole, is sufficient to enable us to exercise our powers of judgment on this bill.
But I think the other issue which is before us, the long range issue, is even more important. This matter has been referred to a number of times today, but like others I feel very strongly about it. I refer to the necessity which faces this parliament of finding a way, in a year which contains only 12 months, to deal with the amount of business which must come before us on behalf of the people of Canada. We often say that there is a great deal more to be done nowadays, and sometimes when we say this people think we are only generalizing. I would therefore like to give one or two facts in support of my contention that this is a very real problem.
If one takes the trouble, as I have done, to check the sessions of parliament going right back to 1867, he will find that before the turn of the century no session of parliament ever lasted more than four months-most of them lasted from two and a half to three months. If one looks through the records of the early part of this century he will find that but for the session of 1912-13 which extended over six and a half months-


Gordon Minto Churchill: In 1903.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but for the session of 1912-13 there was none of any great length.
Proposal for Time Allocation The 1912-13 session was the longest in the early part of this century. Most of them lasted for four or four and a half months. Even during the first world war the limit was about four and a half months. To come closer to modern times, some of us were here for the sessions during the second world war and we thought they were long. The fact of the matter is that although the sitting extended technically over the full calendar year, so that parliament could be recalled immediately in case of need, the total sitting time never exceeded six and a half months. I heard an interjection. Yes, some of us were here during the sessions I have just mentioned.
Since that time the length of sessions has increased. Until four or five years, the average was of the order of eight or nine months. Now for the second time in this decade we are in a session which has gone more than 14 months. Surely it is clear that the amount of business has so greatly exploded that we have to find some way to cope with the fact that there are still only 12 months in a calendar year.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I might be the last person in the house to judge what we do by dollars, and yet I think even dollars can sometimes be an interesting measurement. I find that in the first years of Canada's parliament the amount of money that had to be appropriated, all told, was of the order of $20 million to $25 million. By 1900 that had doubled to $50 million. By 1939 it was still only $500 million, but today it is $11 billion. Let me put those figures in a slightly different way so that they can be compared with each other: in 1867 $20 million; in 1967 $11,000 million, an increase of 550 times.
Dollars do not tell everything and a lot of that, of course, is inflation, but surely the length of time we have had to spend dealing with the nation's business and the amount of dollars we have had to collect and appropriate suggest that our business has exploded to such an extent that we have got to take this problem seriously.


An hon. Member:: A welfare state.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says the problem of the welfare state comes in. He simply reminds me to point out, if I have time, that in addition to these evidences of what has happened, the fact of the matter is that parliament, which used to be concerned with roads, post offices and a few other things, is now concerned with everything under and
April 20, 1967

Proposal for Time Allocation over the ground, under and over the sea, and on into outer space, and with the life of man from cradle to grave.
The amount of business we have to cope with emphasizes the problem of time. That obviously is a prelude to suggesting we have to find ways of planning the use of our time. We have to find ways of regulating the amount of talking we do on the various issues that are before us. That of course immediately leads one to suggest that we must not orget the purposes of parliament.
I am reminded that the purposes of parliament, in the main, are twofold. There are a lot of incidental ones that we seem to produce as we go along, but there are two main ones. On the one hand it is our function to discuss the proposals that the government of the day places before the house, and a parliament that does not have free speech, a parliament that does not have the right to discuss those proposals as adequately and as sufficiently as necessary, is no parliament at all. But the other function of parliament is to make decisions, to decide whether or not the proposals placed before it by the government should be put into effect, and I say with equal vigour that a parliament that is denied the opportunity to make decisions on proposals that are placed before it is likewise no parliament at all.
I urge therefore that we should keep these things in balance. As a matter of fact, that is what the development of rules and procedures is all about. That is our constant struggle, to try to find the kind of rules that will achieve a balance between the right of free speech and the right of parliament to make decisions. The whole idea that in order to do this we have to do something about speaking time, whether it is the speaking time of an individual member or whether it is the time that the House of Commons spends on a motion or on an issue is, of course, not new.
We already have many time limits built into our rules, which we have come to accept without any question. For example, we have a 40 minute rule on speeches made while Your Honour is in the chair. When that 40 minutes is up the member speaking is through. Sometimes by unanimous consent he is allowed to go on, but the rule says that the member has had his say. There is no denial of free speech in that. The member must sit down so that another member can speak, and that applies whether it is the 40 minute rule when the Speaker is in the chair, or whether 
it is the 30 minute rule in committee of the whole.
We have accepted the proposition that the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne should be limited to eight days. No one shouts closure when the eighth day comes and Your Honour announces from the chair that the vote must be taken. No one says this is a curtailment of free speech. The same thing applies with respect to the Budget debate which is limited to six days. The same thing applies with respect to supply motions which are limited to two days. The fact is that freedom of speech does not mean licence to talk forever. It means the opportunity for some people to express their views, with due opportunity for others to speak, and this can be worked out only by rules and regulations that are fair to all concerned.
Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are being quite consistent with the practices we have already established when we face the fact, as I hope parliament is doing, that we are going to have to accept not only limitations on individual speeches, not only limitations on perfunctory debates such as the address in reply, and the debate when Mr. Speaker is in the chair on the budget, but we are going to have to accept time limits on debates, on measures and bills that are brought before us.
I want to say again, as my leader said this afternoon, that doing this to me is not nearly as much a form of closure as it is for debate to be unlimited. I believe the most effective form of closure on other subjects is for the house to go on forever on one subject. I think one of the tragedies of the 1964-65 lengthy debate on the flag issue was that we spent so much time on it that we were not able to get at some other measures. I think if we had not spent all the time on the flag issue we might have got medicare in 1964. Someone said to me the other day, when I said this in another context, that there would not have been any more chance of getting medicare then than now, since it has been put back until July, 1968, in any event. In reply I would remind the house that in 1964 we did not have the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and if we had had time to get at the medicare bill then we might have had it in effect a couple of years ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.
April 20, 1987


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it not a fact that in 1964 we gave up our summer recess in order to deal with the flag, and if we had not been on that we would have been away and not much other legislation would have gone through?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even having given up the summer recess and staying here, I would point out that the session started in the early part of 1964, in January or February, and did not end until the end of March or the beginning of April, 1965, so that in addition to giving up the summer recess we stretched the session to 248 sitting days. I suggest that is a perfect example of what a lengthy debate does by way of closing out debate on other important issues.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, we are going to solve this issue, but not just with respect to the matter now before us. The issue before us today is far more important than just the question of whether or not the final vote will be taken next Tuesday night on the defence bill. I think the question really before us is this: have we the wit to plan the rules and procedures of the house so that we will be able within 12 months to do the tremendous amount of business that is facing this country every year?
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, not 40 minutes but because the vote on this motion must be taken at a quarter to ten. However, I would like to say just a word to the effect that the rule we are now operating under certainly needs to be improved. It is not the kind of allocation of time rule some of us produced in a committee a couple of years ago. It is one the government brought in instead, but even though this is not the best kind of allocation of time rule it is a great deal better than the old closure rule, No. 33, which I hope will yet be taken out of our standing orders. Indeed, I am as opposed to it now as I was in 1956 and in 1964. But may I remind hon. members that closure rule No. 33 is unilateral in its practice, whereas under provisional standing order 15A there is consultation between the government on one side and representatives of the opposition parties on the other.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The old closure rule, No. 33, when it came into effect was immediate. There was a vote at the start of the day and the debate was concluded that night. Those of us who experienced it in 1956 and again in 1964 know what it is all about. That rule allowed no room for negotiation as to the amount of time
Proposal for Time Allocation which might be allowed. Rule 15A, even with its imperfections, does provide for consultation and negotiation in respect of the time allowed. I suggest therefore that to try to compare the situation now with the situation of 1956 is a little bit far-fetched.
Some people suggest that what is being done now is the same thing, but one cannot make something the same as something else merely by making the assertion. The plain fact of the matter is that we had practically no discussion in committee of the whole on the pipe line bill in 1956, whereas we have already had 13 days and will have two more, a total of 15, in the committee of the whole on this bill.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is the answer to those who attempt to say that the application of this provisional standing order is the same as closure. Fifteen days of discussion is not the same as practically no discussion at all. Even when this rule was invoked last Thursday it provided, by the time element built into it, a number of days for further discussion. That was not at all possible under the old closure rule used in 1956.
May I say that I hope this house will approve of this motion tonight, to set the reasonable time limits proposed with respect to the further debate of this bill. I hope once we have done that we will all realize that the walls of parliament have not crumbled, that we have not limited free speech or ended democracy by adopting a limit of 15 days debate in the committee of the whole.
It is my hope that the matter will not end here, but that we will go on to improve provisional order 15A, or whatever number we may finally call it; because if we are going to cope with the problems that now face us we must adopt some allocation of time proposal that will really work, and will be fair to all concerned. One of the ways to make this work is to adopt a rule package which relates to the whole parliamentary year. It is not good enough to go on for eight or 12 months muddling through the business of the house in the way we have done and then invoke this rule to cope with a crisis. There should be a co-operative arrangement between the government and the opposition from the beginning of a session. The whole session should be planned in its entirety so that arrangements can be agreed upon as to limitation of time for individual debates.
Because this provisional rule has been invoked I will not complain if Your Honour

April 20, 1967
Division
tells me that it is 9:45 and that I must sit down. That is the rule, and I accept it. I do not believe the 40 minute limit on individual speeches is closure. I do not believe the eight day rule on the debate on the address is closure. If we have the intelligence to agree on the times to be allotted for various debates, that will not be closure. Rather, it will be the sensible planning of the parliamentary year so that we can carry out the business of this nation as grown men and women. I hope this is what we will soon do in this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 6 of standing order 15A it is my duty to interrupt proceedings at this time and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene); otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.
April 20, 1967


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lawrence T. Pennell: There is an echo in the chamber. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I meant to say that had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean).


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko). I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted against the axe.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader clear up an uncertainty and inform us of tomorrow's business?


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose submitting item No. 107 on today's order paper to the house for consideration, and at the conclusion of that, item No. 134.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provi-tional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I attempted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour about the housing situation in metropolitan Toronto. All members of that area, I am sure, are aware of the housing shortage, and particularly of the shortage of housing within the reach of the average citizen.
Recently the president of the Toronto Metropolitan Home Builders Association directed attention to the urgent need for overcoming difficulties blocking the supply of private and multiple dwellings in the Toronto 23033-959
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion area. The association outlined the basic reasons underlying the shortage in this way: first, insufficient serviced land; second, unstable mortgage financing conditions; third, an inequitable tax base and fourth, restrictive construction bylaws and conflicting building codes.
The association proposed solutions. It called for the provision of building lots in adequate supply for the mass production of homes by planning that would extend water and sewer facilities into areas of raw land. It suggested that modification of the educational tax burden was essential to allow municipal freedom in opening raw land for development without worrying about where the educational dollar was to come from. It demonstrated the need for the universal adoption of the national building code of Canada, which would allow more builder efficiencies and help to reduce red tape at the municipal level.
The association suggested the streamlining of the whole land development process, and the adoption of a sane policy with respect to land use. It said that builders in the metropolitan Toronto area are ready and able to provide family types of multiple housing, needed particularly in the area, but that the way had to be cleared by a change of attitude on the part of mortgage companies and municipalities-mortgage companies which preferred to finance downtown highrise apartments and municipalities which do not encourage multiple housing because of inherent education costs involved in connection with accommodation for families with children.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It is clear from this analysis that the housing crisis in Toronto is not one which lends itself readily to solution by federal authority. The recently retired president of the Urban Development Institute is reported in this evening's Toronto Telegram as saying that the Ontario government is toying with the housing crisis and derelict in its duty. Addressing the South Peel real estate board Mr. Grant Duff termed the housing problem an absolute disgrace and called on the provincial government to face up to fundamentals. He said-and I quote from the news report:
Removal of the bulk of education costs from property will do more to solve our housing problems than any other single remedy.
Mr. Duff went on to say that recent provincial action in the housing field demonstrated that there is no recognition of the fundamental problem. The provincial government had

15174	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion apparently not recognized the effects of its policies on the land market. He pointed out that land costs in the metropolitan Toronto area were the highest in North America, adding:
There could be no better solution to high land prices than an over-supply of residentially owned and usable land. Resulting competition would be of the greatest benefit to the public.
He went on to say there was a lack of adequate housing policies to which planners should conform.
Again it seems clear from the comments of this housing authority that the problem is not primarily one within federal jurisdiction. Yet a housing shortage in one of the great urban areas of Canada must be of concern to the federal government.
The Canadian Welfare Council in a recently published issue of its magazine Canadian Welfare said this:
The disjointed approach to low income housing in Canada has produced far too much grief; far too few houses.
The author of that article, Mr. Michael Wheeler, called for a co-ordinated national approach to the problem. It does seem to me that when the environment of our people is becoming increasingly urban, when life in our cities is becoming the dominant kind of life that Canadians lead, the federal government must take a more active interest in the coordination of policy for improving the living conditions of our city dwellers.
I have suggested in the past that the federal government should have a housing and urban development ministry. I hope this will come soon, but in the meantime I would ask the Minister of Labour once again what steps the government has taken to relieve the shortage of housing in metropolitan Toronto and, if steps have been taken, what effect they have had up to this date?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say how much I appreciate the approach that has been taken by the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Stanbury) in dealing with this problem. It is the type of question that in my opinion should be asked more frequently because too much has been said, there has been far too much talk about Canada's growing housing problem-too much talk, I might say, by ill-informed people, people who have not taken the trouble to ascertain the real facts. That is why a question such as put by the hon. member tonight merits a complete answer.

DEBATES	April 20, 1967
I am very pleased to be able to inform the hon. member that largely as a result of action already taken by the government there has been a marked improvement, a significant improvement, in our housing picture during recent weeks, and I am also very happy to say that no part of Canada will benefit from this improvement more than metropolitan Toronto. Again I say this is in no small measure due to steps taken by the government in December last, and shortly thereafter.
As of April 14 of this year, in effect in the first 100 days of this year, there had been more N.H.A. activity than there was during the whole of 1966, and that as I say again was largely a direct result of introducing a realistic rate at which the institutional lenders of money, those that provide most of it, will make it available to those who are interested in building or in purchasing homes.
But not only has this encouraging activity been in the field of direct loans, it has also been in the field of insured loans, and approved lenders have applied for roughly three times as many loans in the first 100 days of this year as they did in the same period last year. Already there are about 1,200 or 1,300 more applications in the first 100 days of this year than there were in the whole of 1966, and a large percentage of these are in metropolitan Toronto.
In addition to that, when it comes to direct loans you will recall that one tf the other steps the government took was that it announced a special program to encourage house building during the spring months of the year, a special loan program, to begin April 1, or 20,000 loans. As of April 14, 17,000 loans have been applied for-that was before the middle of April though the loans were to cover the period April 1 to May 31.
In addition to this special spring lending program, where there is no presale requirement, for the first time in the administration of the National Housing Act, the C.M.H.C. have continued their normal direct loan program. As a result of this move there has been 300 per cent more N.H.A. housing activity in Canada in the first 100 days of this year than last year, and most of that is reflected in the metropolitan Toronto area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the most significant fact that I would like-
April 20, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Unless the hon. gentleman would like me to ask whether there is unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The most significant fact is that in the last 20 years conventional lenders have provided more than two thirds of the money that has gone into the construction of houses. There has been very significant activity in this field.
Today I had lunch with a number of representatives of the lending institutions. They informed me of their plans for the future and we reviewed what has transpired during the past three months. The present trend would indicate that last year's drop in housing starts, roughly 32,000 to 33,000, will be more than made up this year as a result of this activity, apart from the additional government activity to which I referred.
I should not like anyone to think there are no housing problems facing us, but developments in the N.H.A. field and increased activity on the part of conventional lenders has been particularly encouraging during recent weeks.
Let me say one more thing in respect of public housing. We naturally are concerned with the situation referred to by the hon.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion member for York-Scarborough, which exists in Toronto and other cities. We are aware of the difficulties facing young married couples and others who are attempting to find homes in these cities. Whether we like it or not we are rapidly becoming a nation of apartment dwellers. This is a trend that is taking place in Germany, Sweden, Holland and the United States. There is a great movement of people from farms, and of new immigrants to our cities. With the limited space in our cities a greater percentage of our people are living in apartments. There are methods to correct the situation and each province is adopting its own program to do so. The federal government is, to a large extent, limited in what it may do by the actions of provincial and municipal governments. They are the authorities which pass the building and zoning bylaws which restrict the availability of land for individual home construction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Before I sit down I should like to thank hon. members for their indulgence. I would like to have dealt more fully with the progress that is being made as a result of federal initiative, but I have already taken advantage of the indulgence of hon. members.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
15177

Friday, April 21, 1967