1968-12-13

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. A message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill S-16, an act to incorporate Transcoastal Life Assurance Company, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. When replying yesterday to a question concerning the Toronto international airport I stated as follows, as reported at page 3852 of Hansard:
-the Minister of Transport today is in Toronto on this matter.
At that point the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) rose on a question of privilege and advised the house that he had seen the minister get into the elevator as he came into the chamber. The facts, Mr. Speaker, are that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) left his office at about 2.30 yesterday afternoon, and at the time I was speaking he was either on his way to the airport or already in the air on his way to Toronto.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this is a relatively minor matter but it does concern accuracy of information and I hope in this instance the house will conclude that the hon. member for Wellington and I were both right.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege, I accept the minister's observation; I was right and he was right. I think we can conclude that the Minister of Transport has been in flight for some time, so much so that he very seldom alights in the house.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, normally I would direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but I am sure the Prime Minister will be familiar with the matter. Will he advise the house if the government of the Ivory Coast in fact is not accepting the shipment of Canadian wheat that is due to arrive in that country soon?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we are somewhat puzzled about the information that has appeared. We were approached by a representative of the governments of Ivory Coast and Niger, and after having received representations we agreed to supply 35,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to both the Ivory Coast and Niger. Some 19,000 tons have already been shipped and the rest is being prepared. We could of course, delay the sending of the wheat if it appears that the Ivory Coast does not want any.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister know whether the representative in question who had approached the government of Canada was an authorized representative of his country? Was any contact made, for example, with the external aid section of our Department of External Affairs to ascertain whether the request was one which ought to have been made?


Mr. Trudeau:: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. We had obvious knowledge that this gentleman was a representative of these governments. He came here and contacted the government through their consular officials in Canada. I understand the problem is mainly one of insufficient storage facilities in Abidjan; there seems to be insufficient provision for handling wheat. I understand it is not that they cannot use the wheat they requested of us, but that they have a storage and handling problem at this time.
3904	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): Will the Prime Minister say, by way of a supplementary question, whether this sale was to be for cash or on time, with credit guaranteed by the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was part of our external aid program. So far as I know there was no cash involved. Of course it is possible that part of the shipment was for cash; I can inquire into that. But I know that the essence of the request, the bulk of the request, came about because of shortages which had appeared in the area. Because of this request that we received from the Ivory Coast we channelled the shipment of wheat through our external aid program. If it is not required now or not used I am sure many other countries would welcome it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same subject.
I should like the right hon. Prime Minister to tell us whether an agreement had been signed between the governments of Canada and the Ivory Coast with regard to this wheat order, in view of the fact that it was shipped and refused? If this is the case, what will come out of this agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any written agreement. There might have been an exchange of correspondence or documents, but I want to make clear that it was not a sale but a gift through our own external aid office.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question.
If it was a gift, may I ask if gifts made by Canada under its external aid program normally go through the unofficial or official channels? If they follow the unofficial channels, why do we not negotiate written agreements?
The right honourable Prime Minister could check my assertion and give me an answer later on this point.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: In view of the possible difficulty in making use of this shipment of wheat by the Ivory Coast and the obvious need in both Nigeria and Biafra, is

DEBATES	December 13, 1968
the government making plans to divert this shipment which is expected to arrive on December 20 and, perhaps, to start to make use of some of the stock presently being loaded in Montreal? I am sure it would be happily accepted by both Nigeria and Biafra.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the shipment which is on the way, there is no question of it not being required by the government of Niger. It was sent in reply to a request by them. As to the disposal of some of the wheat which, hypothetically, would not be used by the Ivory Coast, I would point out we are now in the process of assembling some $1,600,000 worth of food supplies and relief which will be channelled through the Red Cross to the various parts of Nigeria. But the request from this quarter has been not so much for wheat as for fish and carbohydrates.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: In view of the misunderstanding which seems to have arisen with the Ivory Coast, may I ask whether any preliminary visits were made by departmental representatives to determine whether adequate facilities existed for the storage of this product?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member mind repeating his question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I asked whether any visits had been made by representatives of the department to the Ivory Coast to determine whether storage facilities were adequate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Having received a request for a gift of wheat, we made the arrangements to have it assembled and sent. Now that we have learned there may be some question whether the Ivory Coast can use it we have, of course, been in communication with our embassy staff at Accra, I believe, which serves Abidjan also, and we are asking for a report.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having regard to the interest in this matter, would the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report to the house on the results of the investigation when he is next in this chamber, so that hon. members may have full information as to just what nas happened?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, we would have no objection to explaining what the situation is as soon as we have clarified this matter.
December 13, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport, whoever has the information, what has happened to the settlement between Air Canada and the employees' association. Have the negotiations now broken down and, if so, what steps are being taken to start them over again?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: There was agreement reached during an all night bargaining session a couple of nights ago. However, when the parties involved began to put down on paper the agreement they had reached there was some difference of opinion as to what had in fact been agreed. This is not unprecedented in the field of relations between employers and employees. They have since then been trying to clarify the situation and I believe are presently meeting

or they were this morning-to see whether some final understanding cannot be reached which will reconcile the difference between the parties.


David Lewis: Is the present disagreement related to the salary settlement? Is it true that Air Canada has withdrawn the wage offer which was accepted by the union, or is the difficulty related only to matters other than wages? While I am on my feet may I also ask whether the Minister of Labour, who is not here today, is taking steps to start the negotiations again, and whether he is going to Montreal personally? What is happening?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is either en route-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -intending to start, or may be in Montreal, and is very directly involved in the situation. So far as the substantive part of the question relating to the agreement between the two parties is concerned I understand it is not the major wage proposal which is in dispute and it has not been withdrawn. It is a question or questions relating to working conditions. Perhaps there might be a pay element in the working conditions, but it is in that area rather than the major wage settlement that the difference of opinion has arisen.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put my question to the Minister of Labour but, in his absence, I will put it to the Prime Minister.
Since Canada now has 338,000 unemployed, 50,000 more than last year-in my opinion, that is a very serious and urgent matter-can the Prime Minister tell us what steps he intends to take in the short or long run to alleviate that serious problem which affects our country's prosperity?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, since it is a matter of statistics, I would like to remind the hon. member that although there are 49,000 more unemployed there are also 268,000 more jobs.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that unemployment today is 50,000 higher than it was this day a year ago, and the indication that unemployment is going to increase steadily during the winter months, as it always does, will the Prime Minister give consideration to reinstituting the winter works program as a means of helping to alleviate hardship and suffering caused by steadily growing unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is just about accurate. Unemployment is up by 49,000.


George Harris Hees: Fifty thousand over a year ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, we won't argue about the 1,000. The D.B.S. figures are 49,000.


George Harris Hees: Over.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I just want to say that the success of our programs is indicated by the fact that the employment figures are up by 268,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister if the government would consider the reinstitution of the winter works program. He has not given me an answer. I take it they are unwilling, and that therefore the just society is only for the affluent and the employed.
December 13, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question in the same vein to the right hon. Prime Minister. Because of the seriousness of the allegations would the Prime Minister cause an investigation to be carried out in regard to the operations of the Canada Manpower offices in Ottawa, since it has been alleged that permanent civil servants already employed are given preference for occasional work over other applicants?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this is a supplementary question, but the question having been asked might be allowed.


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, this thing happened-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Well, I posed the question to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question. There is no point of order since I have allowed the question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
As the Prime Minister did not answer adequately the question put by the hon. member for Richmond, I would like to ask him what steps the government considers taking to provide employment for the 50,000 more unemployed that we have this year? I think the question is in order and can be answered, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot restate a question already asked merely because he feels that the government or the minister has not answered adequately. According to the standing orders, the hon. member has the right to put a question if he wishes, but he cannot insist on an answer that he would consider more adequate.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the increase in employment obviously was inadequate to avoid a very substantial increase in unemployment, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister, if he does not wish to reinstitute the winter works program, whether the government would consider some other program. Is

the government giving consideration to some other program to deal with the large increase in unemployment this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the labour force increased very considerably more than it usually does in a like period. That is why employment has increased so considerably. If you look at the percentage you will see that employment increased by 3.6 per cent. This proves that our policies for expansion are working well.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of supplementaries. We will try to proceed in an orderly fashion. I believe the hon. member for York South has a further supplementary.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the increase in the labour force was forecast by the Economic Council of Canada some years ago, and everyone knew this would happen; and in view of the fact that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member wishes to ask a question.


David Lewis: Now that I have laid the basis for it may I repeat the question. I ask this seriously. Is the government considering some alternate program to help cities, communities and particularly provinces like Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, meet the unemployment situation this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is merely repeating with more emphasis the question he asked in the first instance.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to continue to ignore the fact that there are 50,000 more people unemployed today than a year ago? Does he not intend to institute some policies in respect of this very serious situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister relates to the abandonment of the winter works program. Is the government considering a suggestion I made to the Prime Minister at the time the winter works program was abandoned, that it might be employed in
December 13, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry areas where unemployment in the winter prepared to make a statement as to whether months reaches or surpasses 8 per cent?	his government will extend-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When we abandoned the winter works program we did so because we felt there were other ways in which to ensure prosperity. We are seeking these constantly. We are in the process of negotiating a new FRED agreement with Prince Edward Island; we are in the process of extending a loan to New Brunswick to be used for the purpose of erecting transmission lines; we are in the process of offering to the Manitoba government something like half a million dollars to be used for the purpose of constructing sewers and water works in Churchill. We are doing this type of thing in other areas. This has to do with regional development, which is an area with which we are very much concerned. As hon. members know our policies extend from ARDA through AIDA and various forms of assistance to the western farmers. These are all ways in which we try to alleviate the economic situation. Of course we do not have a system of government in which we have entire jurisdiction over the whole economic policy.


Mr. Baldwin:: Thank God for that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, thank God for that; I quite agree with the hon. member. But, if he thanks God for that, why are his members by their questions seeming to indicate that every time something goes wrong-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Prime Minister's eloquence carried him away from answering the basis of my question, which was whether the winter works program might be reinstituted in areas where unemployment had reached the critical point of 8 per cent or more. In view of the many reasons outlined I think this is a very major and key question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not the magic of the 8 per cent figure which would make us change our decision to abandon a program which largely was a make-work program. Government policy is not to create work projects or find work just as a way of alleviating a situation. Our program is to create growth in areas where there should be economic growth.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest to the Prime Minister's enunciation of various alternatives to the winter works program. Is he


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to address this very urgent question to the Prime Minister. The groundfish industry is on the verge of total collapse. Unless federal aid is immediately forthcoming to avert the serious unemployment consequences of such a collapse, this will be the result. Will the Prime Minister announce that his government will extend aid to the ground fishery?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the member ask his question of the Minister of Fisheries, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize that we have already had quite a number of supplementary questions in respect of what I recognize to be a very important question. Certain other hon. members are anxious to ask questions and perhaps we might allow a few more.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Fisheries. Since the question was in order, perhaps the house is entitled to an answer.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland, industry representatives and consultants will be meeting here next Tuesday to discuss this problem and help formulate a policy.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the heavy unemployment figure and his answer of the other day, will the Minister of Industry now get the report from the interdepartmental committee and announce a policy in respect of shipbuilding which will alleviate the serious unemployment in shipyards in this country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the same kind of approach as in previous questions. What we would like to do is to rationalize the industry instead of dumping money into it. We would like to rationalize it in order that the subsidies now being given will be more properly used than they have been in the past.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
December 13, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
The hon. Prime Minister said a while ago, with regard to the unemployment problem, that there were better ways than winter works to achieve prosperity. He spoke of a lot of projects in other provinces, but did not speak of Quebec. I should therefore like to ask him what steps have been taken in the province of Quebec to help check the unemployment that exists there also?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Quebec, we signed an agreement barely six or seven months ago with that province setting up a program under ARDA for the Gaspd peninsula and the lower St. Lawrence. On that occasion, the federal government agreed to pay something like $212 million, as compared to, I believe, $46 million for the province of Quebec. That indicates that the federal government is doing much more in that part of the country than it is doing in many others, and certainly much more than the province of Quebec is doing itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The statements which have just been made by the Prime Minister suggest that Quebec refuses to help itself and I wish to object to such an allegation, because Quebecers then feel that they are in an inferior position in this house.
I would like the Prime Minister to stop acting in an arrogant manner with Quebec and to provide some assistance in areas such as the eastern townships-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that there is no question of privilege. I do not see how parliamentary privileges of the hon. member are affected by the statement of the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With the exception, Mr. Speaker, that my privileges are affected-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -The member is accusing me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be preferable to drop this matter. I pointed out to the hon. member that there is no question of privilege. May I remind him again of what I said just a few days ago, to the effect that the question of privilege has been too often abused. All hon. members should keep in mind the suggestion I made at the time, that
[Mr. Fortin.1

we should not rise on a question of privilege unless there are very serious reasons to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to very earnestly ask the Prime Minister, in view of the persistent unemployment, accompanied by persistent inflation, whether he will seriously review with his ministers the adequacy of present policies and, at a date convenient to him in the near future, make a statement to the house in respect of the proposals the government will make. There is obviously a difficult situation in the country which the government must face having regard to achieving an adequate rate of growth to meeting inflationary pressures. I ask most earnestly for a comprehensive statement in the near future as to government policy in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the inflation side of the question, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated on a previous occasion, we are preparing a white paper. The minister has already referred this white paper on control of inflation, prices and economics to the cabinet. This is now in the process of being considered, and we hope to be in a position to table it in the coming days or weeks.
On the other side of the question in respect of the problems of growth in the economy, we are very concerned. We want to sympathize with the Leader of the Opposition in his suggestion that capitalism in the market economy has broken down and we feel there are some steps-


An hon. Member:: There was a day when you would not have said so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We feel there are some steps to be taken short of replacing the market economy by a totalitarian or directed economy. These steps have to do with regional development as a process, and we have now set up a department for this purpose.


An hon. Member:: What is it doing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The department is doing the kind of things I was mentioning a moment ago in answer to the question. In answer to the question I can say I agree that at some point we-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I understand the question was whether a statement would be made at a later date.
December 13, 1968	COMMONS


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member might not allow other hon. members to go on to another question.


James Aloysius McGrath: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is of great urgency to all Canadians. I should like to direct it to the minister of consumer affairs. In anticipation of the white paper referred to by the Prime Minister will the minister launch an investigation into increasing automobile prices and decreasing automobile warranties in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding also is that this question was asked yesterday.


James Aloysius McGrath: There was no answer.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, having now met with representatives of over 150,000 people from Muskoka to Etobicoke, all of whom opposed and rejected the proposed expansion to the Toronto international airport, will the Minister of Transport now abandon this proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the way in which the question is asked- would the hon. member resume his seat? It seems to me the hon. member is making a proposal or a suggestion to the minister rather than asking a question, and I doubt whether the question asked in this way is in order.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Perhaps I might reword the question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister made any decision which he can announce involving this proposed expansion?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As indicated to the house a few days ago, I am now in the process of reviewing this whole situation in respect of the proposed expansion of the Toronto international airport. I have been looking at the evidence which has been collected and at the reports of meetings which have been held with officials of the municipalities and the province. I have talked to a number of groups representing citizens in the area. I had a talk with the responsible ministers in the province of Ontario. I hope that within a very few days
DEBATES	3909
Inquiries of the Ministry we will be in a position to announce the decision of the government with respect to this matter.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there seems to be great difficulty facing the government in the expansion of the airports at Toronto and Montreal, will the government give serious consideration to the building of a new, super jet airport halfway between, preferably in the area of Trenton and Picton-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -which is an area admirably suited to such an airport?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In light of the statement yesterday by Mr. William Bradley of Regina, Saskatchewan, publisher of the newspaper The Westerner, the official publication of eight livestock groups on the prairies, that the publication will have to close down on January 1, 1969, because of the high increase in postal charges, will the minister take this matter under consideration to avoid the serious close-down of this very important publication?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a recommendation or suggestion to the minister, rather than asking a question. I would think we have to assume that his suggestion has been noted.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, all I am asking is that consideration be given to this matter.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the facts as stated by the hon. member are accurate. We have been carrying 3,758 copies of this twice monthly newspaper for a total revenue of $5, which is not a very profitable operation. The cost will go up to about $187. We have estimated that if the livestock breeders increased their subscription rate by $1.10 a year they could easily pay for the additional postage. Apparently they do not consider that the paper is worth $4 instead of $3.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 13, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: A supplementary question tor the Postmaster General. Has the minister received representations from other farm newspaper groups?


Eric William Kierans: We hear from different newspapers from time to time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I wonder whether it is in order simply to ask whether representations have been received.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to put a question to the hon. Postmaster General.
Could the minister tell us whether he has received a letter from Mr. Mercier, president of Les Quotidiens du Quebec, Incorpore protesting against the unfair treatment of commercial information newspapers in Canada. Does the minister intend to take steps to correct that injustice?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question similar to another one which was asked a moment ago. I wonder whether I should have allowed the first question; however, having done so, I think I should allow the hon. minister to answer the question put by the hon. member for Abitibi.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Mr. Mercier and we are now drawing up a reply.



INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On Friday, November 29, the minister stated that the availability of box cars was not a limiting factor on the movement of damp grain. In view of the large number of delivery points where the initial one bushel quota on dry grain cannot be delivered because railway agents say that box cars are unavailable, will the minister now tell the house whether that problem has been investigated, and if not, whether it will be investigated?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will give me specific instances where that is the case we will be glad to make representations to the railroads and see if we can alleviate the situation.



SASKATCHEWAN-REPORTED INADEQUATE DRYING FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the wire sent to him by the leader of the opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature, pointing out the need for the installation of additional drying equipment in Saskatchewan, what action does the government propose to take?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am not aware of the telegram, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire about it.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in connection with the interrogation of the reporter Lysiane Gagnon of the newspaper La Presse and the searching of the premises of her parents and an acquaintance of her sister. Will the Prime Minister tell the house under what authority this investigation is being carried out, and why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The way the question is asked leads to some doubt in my mind as to whether it is in order. The hon. member is seeking a legal interpretation and asking under what authority an investigation is being carried out. I have some doubt whether the question can be accepted in those terms.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps I can rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker, because of the urgency of the matter in terms of the freedom of the press. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could advise this house why an investigation is taking place right now, in view of those circumstances?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this question would be more properly answered by the Solicitor General when he is in the house, but I can answer in a general way. It goes back to a question asked, I believe, a month or two ago about documents which appeared to be obviously stolen from the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. At the time I believe I asked the Solicitor General to inquire into it. He has proceeded therefrom. I have no last word report on the matter. I
December 13, 1968

imagine a search was carried out under the authority of a search warrant, but I have no immediate information on that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Prime Minister could advise the house whether this particular matter is under the direct supervision of himself or any other minister. If it is not under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister, which minister is involved? Further, would the Prime Minister undertake to have the Solicitor General make a statement to the house in respect to the entire matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the second part of this question the hon. member has answered the first part. It is the Solicitor General who is concerned with this matter. I am sure he will have no objection to answering questions which are asked of him on the matter.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary or the minister responsible, who may have to take it as notice. Would the government of Canada consider a donation on the part of Canada of surplus foods for a Christmas ship which is scheduled to leave New York for Biafra early in January?



BIAFRA-RECALL OF HERCULES AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since the last relief Hercules aircraft is scheduled to return to Canada, could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government has abandoned hope of an agreement with Colonel Ojukwu regarding daylight flights?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it is not that we have abandoned hope, but the hope is not as bright as it was a month or two ago when we conveyed this daylight proposal to the house. We still have had no adequate explanation, in our minds, why the daylight flights would not have been acceptable to help the starving people of Biafra. But the Hercules had to be rotated at any rate, and we thought this would be an occasion to do it, because it was

Inquiries of the Ministry sitting there inactive. We will now be awaiting further information on it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficulties our government has had in getting some clear statement from Colonel Ojukwu on the matter of daylight flights, I wonder whether the government is giving consideration to or whether it has already initiated some kind of direct communication with Colonel Ojukwu in order to clear up these difficulties.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the house
knows the reasons this government is not entering into direct contact with rebel forces in a friendly country. I repeat what I have said; apparently Colonel Ojukwu has many friends in this country, some of them sitting on the opposition benches, and perhaps they would be able to convey a message to him or at least give us some satisfactory explanation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has indicated in some indirect way that members in this house have some special access to Colonel Ojukwu. I would be glad if the Prime Minister would indicate who these members are; and whichever of these gentlemen would be acceptable perhaps the government would make some arrangement for that person to travel to Biafra to consult with Colonel Ojukwu.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this is not a question of privilege.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary would take it as notice. In view of public concern arising from the hit and run tactics of the C.B.C. in its treatment of the pollution problem at Dunnville, would the minister consult the C.B.C. and make an early report to the house on the matter?


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I expect he will be in the house on Monday to answer any questions of the hon. member.
3912	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary is bringing this matter to the attention of his minister will he find out why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation failed to respond to the invitation of the chairman of the commission investigating this situation?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I will be pleased to have that matter looked into, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question arises from the rather unusual position of Premier Bennett of British Columbia, who announced that on Monday he is going to make public the brief which would have been presented to the federal-provincial conference on that date, and his allegation that federal-provincial problems are of such a nature they cannot wait until February. I ask the Prime Minister if he can comment on this situation, and whether there will be any answer to the allegation that federal-provincial problems are of such a nature they cannot wait for two months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe it is in order to simply ask the Prime Minister whether he cares to comment on the situation. I do not believe the question is acceptable in this form. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that we have just about reached the end of the question period.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might go on with the supplementary from the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the Prime Minister say whether he has been notified that on Monday the premier of British Columbia is going to release his brief which was intended for the conference which has now been postponed; and has he any comment to make on that?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received this morning, I believe, a telegram from the premier of British Columbia indicating that he would release the brief as indicated by the hon. member. No comment, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	December 13, 1968


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the release of the British Columbia brief by Premier Bennett, will the Prime Minister make public the federal position papers now rather than later?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the house was told yesterday in answer to a question that we are seeking some kind of consensus on this. So far as I can see the consensus is mainly, and very strongly, against publication. I do not believe this binds everyone, and certainly a province is entitled to proceed as it wishes. So far as the federal government is concerned, we see the wisdom as other provinces do of not jumping the gun, as it were. I am still hopeful that we will reach a date which will be acceptable to all provinces for the resumption of this conference, and once that is done we can begin to discuss again the question of publication.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance was supposed to be in the house today and is not here, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would ask him to be here on Monday as there are questions we would like to ask him? According to the roster system he would not normally be here until Wednesday.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday of this week I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning guarantees to employees of Air Canada at Winnipeg, and the Prime Minister asked me to put the question to the Minister of Transport. On Wednesday the Minister of Transport was here during the question period but the question period was short and I was unable to put my question. On Thursday he was not here. Today he was here, but I could not get the floor, and now he has gone until next Wednesday. If he were here, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your consent to put the question now. However, I wonder if, on my point of order, I could have the assurance of the Prime Minister that somebody will be ready to answer the question on Monday; because the Minister of Transport will not be here until Wednesday of next week.
December 13, 1968


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I believe the question is directed at you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport was here, but perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not catch your eye.


George Harris Hees: May I have an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings rose I thought he was rising on a point of order. I did not expect he was rising to ask a question. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a supplementary question to ask on his point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Transport has now come back into the chamber. Even though the time for the question period has expired, in view of the fact that he will not be back until Wednesday I wonder if you would permit him to answer my question of last Tuesday, as to whether guarantees have been given to Air Canada employees at Winnipeg regarding their jobs, seniority and other rights they now have.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: These things are to be negotiated between the company, the union and other interested parties during the course of the next few weeks.
I am not in a position to make a categorical statement at this time. I hope the arrangements which are made will be satisfactory to all the parties involved. I hope this can be achieved with a maximum of co-operation and a minimum of acrimony or difficulty for any of the people who are directly interested in this affair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean that the assurance given in the press release last Friday is not really a guarantee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the supplementary question is a form of debate.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: If the hon. member wants to ask a supplementary question I think I must remind hon. members that the time for the question period expired a long time ago. I really do not feel it should be prolonged much longer.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized once but when a supplementary question was asked I had to withhold my question. I think my question is urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no authority to allow the question period to go to the extent it is going now, beyond the time allocated, unless there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears there is not
unanimous agreement. If this will help hon. members, I might say I have noticed a number who apparently are anxious to ask questions, and I will give them the first opportunity on Monday afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
ministers will not be here.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: The Minister of Agriculture is here today. This is a very urgent question, and I will not get a chance to ask it until some time later.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might communicate directly with the minister. The Chair does not make the rules. The rules are there for the Chair to administer. The rules provide a time for the question period, and that time expired ten minutes ago, and I think I have gone beyond the bounds of leniency. In spite of the fact that the hon. member has an urgent question, I feel we should go on with orders of the day. I will make a special effort to see the hon. member is given an opportunity to ask his question early on Monday.


Thomas Miller Bell: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say I fully agree with Your Honour that you have no alternative but to enforce the rules. However, I should like to point out that ministers are not here on the days they are required to attend in the house. For example, this week the Minister of Transport missed one of the days he should have been here. I had a very important question to ask him and I waited, but I could not catch your eye. It could be the case that the minister will not be here next week. We will then recess over Christmas and will not have the chance to raise these urgent matters that affect transport problems. May I also point out that on the few days he is here he should not get up in the middle of the question period and leave the house.
December 13. 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I had a very urgent telephone call that I felt I must take in the national interest. That was the reason for my very brief absence. I should like to give my hon. friend the assurance that, health and weather permitting, I will be here on my three days next week.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I also say that I wish the Prime Minister would require the people in the galleries who are making an attendance record to note when the Minister of Transport is not here, and also see that the minister makes up this time later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture denied a statement I had made that little improvement in the movement of box cars for transporting damp and tough grain had taken place. May I report to the minister that no cars for the transport of tough and damp grain have been delivered to my local elevator.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is, of course, a point of debate.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 3762).
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned last night I had made reference to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Tuesday evening, as reported at page 3787 of Hansard, in describing the business transacted so far in the current session. The Prime Minister said:
In this session we have already allowed three months to go by and only passed nine measures.
Then I went on to described some of the events in the house over the past three months. I noted that in fact some 35 or more days had been absorbed by house business involving important items such as the throne speech debate, the budget debate, all the items of supply and the establishment of the

two procedure committees. I went on to outline the very valid use of time in considering the legislation that has been presented by the government to date.
In my view it would be regrettable if the Prime Minister, his cabinet ministers or other members were to leave the faulty impression that parliament has been dragging its feet. It should be noted that parliament has disposed of the following items of business, regardless of whether members agreed or disagreed in part or in whole with any or all of the particular measures that have been disposed of.
First of all, the throne speech was completed in less than the allotted time. It is important that this debate be maintained because it affords members on both sides of the house the opportunity to debate the state of the nation. I disagree with those who suggest that this debate is of little value. It affords all members the opportunity to take an over-all view of Canada's affairs and also to present specific problems of importance to their own constituencies. If for any reason the debate on the speech from the throne dragged this year, then with all respect I would suggest that this was due, first of all, to the warmed-over soup that was dished up in the speech from the throne and, second, to the dishwater type of presentation made by cabinet ministers in dealing with the issues facing the country. Only the Prime Minister and three cabinet ministers chose to take part in the debate and to present any ideas about the new society of which we have heard so much.
The second item of business disposed of was the presentation of the budget and the budget debate. This is one item that was delayed as a result of the Prime Minister's decision to call an election. The budget can be regarded as the single most important item of business to be dealt with during a session. Considering the impact of the budget on the economy, debate is critical. In fact, a good case can be made for saying that the time allotted to the debate this year was inadequate, that further time was required.
The third item was the passage of interim supply. Again this was necessary because of the dissolution of parliament earlier this year. Matters that were debated at that time did require further debate.
The fourth item dealt with was passage of supply for 1968-69. I am sure members will agree that the voting of some $10 billion worth of expenditures is a major and most important item of business. The present procedures provide for a specified period of
December 13, 19S8

time for the consideration of supply. I am sure most hon. members agree that the discussion carried on during this period is useful and needed. New procedures for handling supply are now being proposed and I share the doubts of many members in regard to them. Nevertheless, I am prepared to try these new procedures, subject to adequate consideration of them now and a further review in the future.
The fifth item disposed of was the establishment of the procedure committee and the committee on statutory instruments. Debate was essential because of the importance of the operations of parliament, which is a critical factor in the functioning of democracy as has been demonstrated by the debate that is now under way.
The sixth item was passage of one private bill and limited consideration of other private bills and resolutions. I recognize that consideration of these measures comes under the heading of private members' business. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that these measures are an important part of the business of parliament.
The seventh area dealt with was passage of the Farm Credit Act amendments. This was a controversial piece of legislation and considerable debate on it took place. Indeed, there will continue to be debate on the real value of the measure which was passed. Nevertheless, it was passed and I am sure government members are now trying to take some credit for it wherever that is possible. If extensive time was used for that debate I suggest it was not only due to the controversial nature of the subject matter but also to the unwillingness of the government to provide information on the matters under discussion until it was pried out of them in lengthy debate.
The eighth item was passage of the Farm Improvement Loans Act amendments. Again this legislation was controversial and will continue to be a source of controversy. Regardless of the views that we hold about it it must be regarded as an item of business that has now been disposed of by this house.
We also dealt with the Post Office Act amendments, the Publication of Statutes Act, which was certainly regarded as an important measure, a Canadian National Railways branch line construction bill which was given priority by the government, as was the Judges Act, the Canadian National Railways financing bill, which was important, and lastly the Customs Tariff Act. When that act was introduced in the house by the parliamentary

Motion for Concurrence in Report secretary to the Minister of Finance he described it as being of historic significance to Canada.
Finally, we completed the resolution stage of the official languages bill, the amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and to the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. We have also had part or all of the minister's speech on second reading of the bill to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act, as well as the minister's speech on the resolution to establish the freshwater fish marketing board.
Whether I happen to agree with all or part of the measures that have been passed is immaterial to the point now under consideration. The point is that these are major items of business that have been disposed of by the house. In fact, I could spin out the list even further because other items might also be included. Not without note is the work of some of the committees and the prior steps that are required to be taken by parliament to put the committees to work. Any suggestions by the Prime Minister or other hon. members which would deliberately downgrade the work of this parliament would be a disservice to this house and constitute a misrepresentation to the country.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
During this debate the operation of our parliament has been compared with the operation of the parliament at Westminster. In any such discussion we must keep in mind that the two parliaments are of different size; here we have 264 members and at Westminster they have 625 members. Also, England for the most part may be termed a homogeneous country in which geographic factors play a limited part. The English government is a unitary government. On the other hand, Canada is much larger and is split up into basic physical and economic regions. We have a federal government. There are differences in the operations of unitary and federal governments. Certainly our federal type of government means that government work may become more complex, and that will be reflected in parliamentary work at all stages. Because of the complexity of the considerations any parliament in Canada must deal with and because of the many viewpoints which must be heard in debate in this country it is necessary to remember that there is a significant difference in the make-up of the Canadian and British parliaments.
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
For instance, the people of Britain at the present time have decided that they want to be represented in their parliament by two parties, the third party being very small in terms of the number of members in that parliament. On the other hand, the people of Canada have decided that they want four parties basically to represent them at present in parliament. Regardless of the views of hon. members on the subject or whether they want this situation or not, this is what the people of Canada have decided. Parliament must therefore recognize the existence of several bodies of thought in this nation with differing political viewpoints.
A good deal has been said about the organization of house business. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) in particular referred to the lack of organization of the business of the house. Some hon. members have implied that the opposition is opposed to planning the business of the house. I think we all recognize that there is a need to plan the operations of the house and if one looks at the wording of the amendment that is before us one will see that the principle of the need to plan the business of the house is accepted.
May I direct the attention of hon. members to part of the wording of the amendment before us. It recommends:
-that proposed standing order 16-A be amended to provide that a motion to accept the decision of the proceedings committee shall only be made following the unanimous decision of the proceedings committee arrived at during a meeting properly convened upon adequate written notice.
The wording of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition shows that we accept the principle that we must organize and plan the business of the house. What is proposed here is a change in the method or the mechanics of the operation which is essential to the fulfilment of that proposition. To judge from the remarks of some hon. members it appears they have not read the amendment or have not given it adequate consideration.
Reference has been made to the necessity of allowing more time in the house for the transaction of government business. I confess some sympathy with this point of view. I note that some hon. members have said that on some days after the house completed its routine business there was not much time left for the consideration of government business. It must be recognized that provision has been made to extend the opportunities under

which the government may present its proposals to the house.
Some hon. members have spoken of the preliminary business of the house and orders of the day in a way which suggests they want these parts of the procedures of the house discontinued or diminished. The committee concluded, it seems to me, that the time taken on orders of the day is a valid use of the time of the house, and that questions on urgent matters ought to be presented. I trust that thon. members on the government side do not question the right of hon. members to ask the government questions on urgent matters.
A number of hon. members also spoke of private members' business and I agree with some suggestions put forward. We ought to consider changes which will make private members' discussions more meaningful. That part of the business of the house is important and we should not sacrifice it for the sake of allowing more time to be devoted to government business.
The proposed rule changes provide for added hours of sitting. They provide for the transfer of some items now before the house to committees and they also provide for the elimination of the resolution stage. On many of these matters most hon. members are in agreement. All the same, I do not think we ought to provide more time for government business at the expense of the rights of private members. We must consider the rights of private members, the backbenchers on both sides of the house. That those rights exist has been recognized by eminent authorities. I will not take time to quote from the well known work of MacGregor Dawson entitled "The Government of Canada" on the rights of private members of the house, but he says that those rights must be carefully considered and balanced against the needs of the government.
The principle contained in proposed standing order 16-A recognizes the need for the planning of the business of the house. Hon. members opposite do not seem to have supported the principle of planning in the past; yet now we find them in favour of it. Of course, if planning is carried out in a heavyhanded, authoritarian way it can be undemocratic. If proposed standing order 16-A as now worded is implemented, certainly that is the direction in which we shall be headed. The government seems to have mastered the technique of handling planning procedures and has gone ahead in a heavyhanded way to bring in the proposal now before us. This is not right. Of course planning can be carried out democratically if there is a process of
December 13, 1388	COMMONS
consultation-free collective bargaining, in effect-and finally agreement. When there is no agreement the differences in our various political philosophies come into play, of course, and then those differences must be debated. Controversial issues must be debated. Yet the question still remains, who is to say when we have had enough debate? Certainly the decision of that question should not be left to one side of the house or the other.
Much of what I have said has been said from the viewpoint of one newly elected to this house. I did not secure election to the House of Commons to participate in the strangling of this institution. I came here to participate in debate on the issues facing this nation and, after adequate discussion, to participate in decisions on proposals before this house. Standing order 16-A as presented does not meet this standard. For that reason I urge hon. members to vote in favour of the amendment now before us in order to ensure that a job partly done is well done.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members on both sides of the house will agree that we have had an excellent debate on the motion now before us. I think the calibre of the debate was good and that the concern felt by hon. members was well expressed. Indeed, the discussion has been at a very high level during these past few days. I do not intend to deal with all the aspects of the committee report which is before us because it seems to me the main points of contention have been reduced to two. One is the question of supply and the other is the allocation of time, or programming, for which provision is made in proposed rule 16-A.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I have listened to the statistics which have been recited a number of times during the debate as to how well we have been doing this session. Hon. members pointed out that a lot of time was taken up by the debate on the Speech from the Throne, the budget debate, and so on, and suggested it was unreasonable to expect that more than nine or ten measures should get through in the number of days left for government business after all these things had been dealt with. What has not been said is that these other requirements are with us every session. The fact of the matter is that though we have been sitting since September 12 and then government measures have been dealt with, there are perhaps 37 more which the Prime Minister (Mr. DEBATES	3917
Motion for Concurrence in Report Trudeau) has announced, plus whatever else may come along between the present date and the end of the session-possibly seven or eight more. In other words, we probably have between 40 and 45 more measures yet to deal with, some of them major in scope.
For example, major amendments are proposed to the Criminal Code. Again, later this session, some time in March or April, we shall begin consideration of the estimates for the 1969-70 fiscal year. We know this is a big undertaking and that there is a great deal of interest taken in these estimates by hon. members in all corners of the house. Thus, if the number of days which have been used up in the first three months of this session is to be a pattern for the balance of the session, we shall not get through half of our business, assuming that the session is to end in June. That is the important point.
We need a legislative program laid out for the house to see early in the session. It does not have to be completely programmed at that point, but there should be some indication of the way in which it is proposed to allocate the time available in order that measures may be brought before the house and hon. members given the opportunity to decide whether to accept them or not.


John Stratford Burton: Would the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, the hon. member has just finished his own speech. If I have any time left after I am through I shall be glad to answer his questions.
So I am not impressed by those statistics unless those using them tell the other side of the story too, and that has not yet been done as far as the work still before us for the balance of this session is concerned.
May I turn for a moment to the matter of supply and the objections which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as well as by several other hon. members. I do not question their sincerity. I' am a little surprised, however, that some of the people who were the stoutest advocates of setting up standing committees for the consideration of the estimates should now be retreating from that position.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Experience.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am happy to see the right hon. gentleman back in the house. I understand he may enter the debate soon and I am sure his intervention will be useful in support of my argument. He and I share a common concern
December 13. 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report for the right of all members of this house to consider matters of importance to them in their constituencies, and these matters can, indeed, be considered more effectively if we provide sufficient opportunity and an adequate forum. But I recall two or three sessions during which all the estimates were considered in this chamber in committee of supply. Consideration of them went so slowly that the estimates of many departments were never brought up until we were pressed, a few days before Christmas.
In 1963 the estimates of several departments went through without hardly a word being said despite the fact that a number of hon. members had questions to ask about them. This situation occurred because too much time had been spent on the estimates of other departments. The right hon. gentleman was prime minister in early 1963, and in January and February of that year he ran into a problem because far too much time was being taken on the estimates. The house was still voting interim supply although ten-twelfths or eleven-twelfths of the money had been spent. With this in mind, I am sure the right hon. gentleman will support my contention that this is not a good situation.
There are many advantages attached to referring estimates to standing committees. We know that when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of External Affairs or any other department are before a committee of this house there is a fairly low attendance. But the members who are present are members who have specialized in the work of the department and who therefore take a keen interest in the debate which is taking place. However, if it is necessary to put all the estimates through the committee of supply and if members are obliged to stand in line waiting to speak, there is bound to be a great waste of time. It is now being proven that four or five standing committees can function concurrently reasonably well. This provides an opportunity for backbenchers and, indeed, for ministers, to attend the committees in which they are particularly interested and to question the senior officials of the department concerned as well as other witnesses, a most useful exercise in relation to what happens here on the floor of the house.
The 15th report of the special committee on procedure was introduced into this house on December 14, 1964. There are several members in the opposition who were on that committee. Moreover, no majority reports were

filed; these were unanimous reports and it is therefore not possible for any hon. member who was on the committee to say he disagreed with the recommendations the particular report to which I have referred will be found in Votes and Proceedings for December 14, 1964. I quote:
Your committee is of the opinion that the potential value of the committe system of the House of Commons is not being exploited to the full, particularly in relation to standing committees. The structure of the standing committees tends to be cumbersome and, in some respects, even archaic. Your committee is convinced that a fundamental reorganization of standing committees is necessary if they are to be revitalized and their effectiveness and prestige enhanced.
That is the opening paragraph. The committee then went on to deal with a particular matter. This is all I intend to quote. Paragraph 29 of the report reads:
Your committee recommends that not more than 20 days be set aside for debating the main estimates in committee of supply. On such days it should be the right of the opposition to select the departments for discussion.
It is an easy task for anyone interested to look up the membership of that committee in 1964 and 1965 and determine that there was agreement among all those members that this was the principle upon which we should revise and restructure the committee system of this house. I am not going to continue speaking on this point because the provision of 20 days has been accepted. I know there were some additional days for supply motions and that sort of thing, but what is being suggested here in the present report from the committee is 25 days. Give or take a day or two, there is no question that members from every party in 1964 and 1965 agreed with the principle of what is now in the report of the special committee. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope this will be taken into account.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
In my opinion there has been a very useful debate on proposed standing order 16-A, but I am sorry I am unable to follow some of the arguments that are advanced in the name of democracy, arguments stating that the minority somehow has a right to frustrate or hold back the majority that the people have elected. I cannot understand that argument. Surely democracy must include the right of minorities to be heard but also the right of majorities to decide.
All of the arguments that have been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite have been predicated on the false assumption that
December 13, 1968

they have some right to hold up indefinitely the government that was elected. For a while that is right, but ultimately and finally surely the majority has the right to decide. Surely that is also the principle involved in having the Governor General call on the leader of the party that elects the greatest number of members to form a government.


Mr. Danforlh:: Nobody denies that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Oh, yes. I think it was the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who reminded the house that the combined opposition had obtained 55 per cent of the popular vote. Then he went on to argue that this gave them the right in fact to impose that on the majority government. I am sure he was not serious because surely he must represent all of the people in the Peace River constituency. I think I do in the Medicine Hat constituency, whether they voted for me or not, and I did not get 50 per cent. I am the one representative from that constituency.
I have not heard hon. members opposite put forward any other kind of plan yet. Are they talking about proportional representation or something of that nature? Is that the basis for this argument? If it is, certainly it is a rather difficult one to accept since it has always been the case that whichever party gets the most members, whether a majority or a minority of the members of the house, is called upon to form the government, prepare a legislative program and present it to the house.
I have said this before and do not want to say it again, but in the most conciliatory way at my command I point out that on June 25 of this year the people of Canada made a decision. It was not you or I. We tried to persuade them, but they finally decided who was going to represent them and who was going to form the government in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be the greatest abdication of responsibility if, after the people had given us on this side the responsibility, we should give it to the opposition. Yet that is the argument they are advancing, that they have some right to a great filibuster, to bring this institution to its knees. Mr. Speaker, this institution was set up by the people of Canada and surely above everything else we have to accept this fact. That is the fundamental of democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Motion for Concurrence in Report


David Lewis: You should not only be conciliatory but also accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not want to cause any disturbance but these are some cold hard facts that seemed to fit in that place in my speech. I am sorry if I irritated anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister now permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not just now. By the time I am through I guarantee that the hon. member is going to have some questions even more important than the one he is about to ask now.


Mr. Monleiih:: You are very proud of yourself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am proud of the proposal now before the house because I have worked on every procedure committee for the last four or five years. I am proud it has finally culminated in. a motion that is now before the house for decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we agree that minorities have a right to be heard within reason. We believe, and this is stated in the proposal, that there should be some reasonable programming. This has not been the practice in the past in any particular or legal way. There has been an understanding about the usual channels and that the house leaders would meet. But the government has the responsibility to move on with the programming if it is unable to obtain unanimous consent from the opposition, as it is now.
I think it is fair to say that the government, after being elected, not only has the right but indeed the responsibility to move on with a program of legislation as rapidly as the people of Canada want the government to do so. I do not think it is right for us to hold back on such matters as, for example, the provisions in the amendments to the Criminal Code and so on if the people want them simply because we cannot tidy up our rules to get on with that matter. I sincerely believe that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the bill?
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: My hon. friend knows where the bill is. It is waiting until we dispose of some of the matters that we are obliged to attend to before the end of this year. He knows that.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have been impressed by a number of matters that came up in this debate. Indeed, hon. members opposite have had the opportunity to say what they think of the provisions of 16-A because I am advised that they refused to discuss it at all in the committee. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, then this debate has been useful because now we have-


Stanley Howard Knowles: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That statement is not true.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on another point of order. That statement is true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that the basis of our discussions is that we have to accept the statement made by an hon. member, so I assume we have to accept both statements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We discussed 16-A in the committee at great length. We had a vote on it. We tried to persuade the government to cut it off half way. All I am trying to make clear at this point is that the statement that it was not discussed in the committee was incorrect.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will accept that they perhaps discussed it but they refused to negotiate on the terms and conditions. There was a refusal to negotiate on the terms. They did not want to talk about it when they saw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even that is not true. The minister cannot get away with that nonsense.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it has been useful to have this debate in the House of Commons. As the debate has gone on we have been wondering if ways and means can be found to provide hon. gentlemen opposite with the kind of guarantees that they want, guarantees against the misuse or what they claim will be the misuse of the standing order, and to see if

this can be done without continuing a situation that has become increasingly unsatisfactory for this house and the country. The Leader of the Opposition contended that the recommended standing order is faulty because it does not guarantee that notices will be given before the meetings of the proceedings committee. So in his amendment he deals with only that one point, that the reports of the proceedings committee should be unanimous.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has tried to make his point by stating that he would be quite prepared to have a gilt-edged rights requirement written into the standing order. There really is no difference on that point. Perhaps there never really has been. Hon. gentlemen opposite could have brought that up if they had chosen to negotiate the terms. But criticisms have been voiced that go somewhat beyond the one against which the Leader of the Opposition concentrates his amendment. We think these criticisms should not be passed over.
There is the matter of the quorum of the proceedings committee. No reasonable member of the house, I suppose, would suggest that the proceedings committee should be set up in such a way that it could be immobilized by the absence of its members. We think the house ought to be able to rely on something stronger than assurances that this would not happen. The reason for that is that things have not always turned out well despite the fact that on some occasions there has been some agreement among the house leaders on these matters. Hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, know this. I know it because, without specifically pointing out anyone, this in fact has happened a number of times.
It has been suggested that this standing order as drafted would permit the government to prevent the house discussing the full order of government bills. We wonder whether that objection can be met without going back to the kind of chaotic condition that has prevailed before. Both inside and outside the house the criticism has been made that the government should make more frequent use of standing order 33, the closure rule. But all members of the house who are familiar with the rules know that that rule is very awkward so far as legislation in concerned. I was very impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) when he quoted the authorities in respect of the
December 13, 1968

difficulty in that regard. What we are suggesting is that in relation to any particular bill any motion for the allocation of time under standing order 16-A would apply to only two stages of that bill.
Perhaps what I ought to do now is read a draft I have so there will be some precision in what we are proposing in order to deal with some of these arguments which have been advanced. There may be some small change which might have to be made later. I wish to say that we give the undertaking that this is the way in which the provisions of standing order 16-A will be used in this committee report is concurred in by the house. So I should like to read very slowly the proposals we are now suggesting:
16A (1) There shall be a continuing committee to consider the making of arrangements in relation to the calling, consideration and disposition of the business of the house and its standing and special committees.
(2)	The committee shall be composed of the house leader or other minister who, in either case, shall be chairman, and a representative of each other party in the house. A majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I knew that was going to happen.


David Lewis: I am not applauding yet. I want to hear the rest.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I continue:
(3)	(a) Meetings of the committee shall be convened by the chairman from time to time, and ordinarily the committee shall be convened on the first and third sitting days in every week, (b) The chairman, from his place in the house nay give oral notice of proposed meetings of the said committee, but, in every case, written lotice of any such meeting shall be laid upon the table of the house and the same shall be printed mder the heading "Meetings of Committees" on the notice paper attached to the Votes and Proceedings of a sitting preceding the day on which any such meeting is to be held.
(4)	When "Motions" are called in the fourth sitting day in any week, a motion may be proposed, without notice by a minister of the crown, for the purpose of ordering any arrangement for :he calling and the allotting of time to the consideration and disposition of any item or items rf the business of the house or its committees.
(5)	Every such motion stated to be made in pursuance of the unanimous decision of a meeting >f the committee shall be forthwith decided, with-Jut debate or amendment-
That is if it is unanimous.
-but the "yeas" and "nays" shall not be entered ipon the minutes, unless so demanded by ten or
29180-248J
Motion for Concurrence in Report
more members rising in their places to oppose such a motion.
(6)	When, pursuant to section (3) of this order, a meeting of the committee has been convened but the committee is unable to function because of a lack of a quorum or when a meeting of the committee is unable to come to a unanimous decision in relation to a proposed arrangement of business, any motion that may then be proposed by the chairman shall be forthwith decided without debate or amendment, except that when ten or more members rise in their places to oppose any such motion, the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.
(7)	When an order for the consideration of a motion made under section (6) of this order is called, the minister who has proposed the motion may speak first, but no member may speak for more than twenty minutes, and unless the question has been previously disposed of, after two hours, of debate thereon, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every motion necessary to decide the main motion.
(8)	Except when a motion is made in pursuance of the unanimous decision of a meeting of the committee, any order sought pursuant to the provisions of this standing order shall be confined to no more than two stages in the process of considering any bill or bills or other items of business, but any bill or bills may be the subject of more than one order under this Standing Order.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take a great deal more time. I think it is fair to say that if these suggestions meet with favour in the house-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to take the minister's time, but I wonder whether he would answer a simple question for information in respect of what he has just read. Is it the intention of the minister and his colleagues that these suggestions go back to the committee which considered the report now before the house and, if so, would the government agree that that be done and this debate end?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has anticipated precisely what I am going to say now. If these suggestions meet with the favour of the house they could be implemented without too much trouble. If the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition were to be withdrawn, the way would be open for the house leader to speak again and I am sure he would want to make two commitments to the house. The first would be that immediately after the standing committee on procedure and organization proposed in the reports now before us has been established, a motion would be proposed to the house instructing that committee to revise standing order 16-A in accordance with the proposals I have just now read. The second commitment that I think the house leader is prepared to>
Motion for Concurrence in Report make would be that if standing order 16-A were used during any period between the adoption of the reports and the time when the report of the standing committee on procedure and organization made pursuant to that instruction was adopted by the house it would be only with faithful attention to the proposals I have just now read.


Mr. Woolliams:: How pious can you get?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member can talk about being pious but this government does not renege on its commitments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Correct that sentence.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this will be
recorded in Hansard and I am sure the house leader and I will check very carefully what has been recorded in Hansard to make sure that the wording there is precisely what we intend as a commitment. So I ask hon. members to consider these proposals perhaps for a few hours, and when they have I think they will admit they are reasonable. They have met all the criticisms except the one that somehow the minority have the right to frustrate the government in getting along with its business failing an agreement in the procedure committee. We cannot accept a transfer of the government's responsibility to make decisions in so far as the business of this house is concerned if there is failure on the part of the procedure committee to come to an agreement. I think every other reasonable suggestion which has been made is included in the undertaking that we offer. Therefore I commend these proposals to the favourable attention of hon. members opposite.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising for the purpose of asking a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture was quite right in something he said a while ago. I will not ask the question I intended to ask earlier, but I will ask him one in respect of the memorandum he has circulated and read into Hansard. Apart from the formal provision for notice of the meetings of the proceedings committee, what difference is there between the wording in the report and the wording that has now been made known to us?


John George Diefenbaker: None whatsoever.

December 13, 1968


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in respect of 16-A. Paragraph, 2, for example, states:
The member or members in attendance at any meeting of the said committee shall constitute a quorum.
That has been provided for, and there are many other changes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: should like to ask what is the point of providing a majority for the quorum if you put in the order a provision to obviate the necessity of having a quorum?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We do not agree with that at all because there has to be notice. That was one of the objections raised at the meeting. I am convinced there has to be a majority of the members of that committee in attendance before we bring the motion in here. They have to reach unanimous agreement on the allocation of time for any item or items, and that is different. They have to bring this to the house. As I have said, and I say it as kindly and conciliatorily as I can, the government cannot transfer its responsibility to the opposition because it would then be abdicating its responsibility for bringing legislation before this house. That responsibility is given to the government. There was a great deal of argument raised about this.
This does not apply to the complete passage of any item but only to two stages, presumably the second reading and committee stages. There will always be another stage. There were arguments raised that when an issue is presented to the public as a result of debate in this house public opinion is generated or mobilized, if you like. There would still be a stage where this opinion could be presented to the house. The opposition and the government may be impressed by any consideration that is raised and that could be taken into account.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he does not agree that these new suggestions are made without expressing any view about what at this stage is precisely the kind of suggestion which should go back to the committee? You could then have a discussion and improve on the suggestions. Why does it have to be imposed on this house without going back to the committee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are two reasons for this, Mr. Speaker. If we were to send the revisions

December 13, 1968

to 16-A back to the committee without concurring in this report we would hold up the adoption of the other parts which hon. gentlemen say they accept to the extent of 95 per cent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us approve of those now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are also some technical problems involved in taking this report apart, and hon. gentlemen know that very well. We have given a firm undertaking that this is the way 16-A will be used. We have given a firm undertaking that this proposal will be referred back to the committee on procedure as soon as it is set up, which would be soon. Hon. gentlemen know very well that we have to move ahead with this. We have been as conciliatory as possible in adopting all the suggestions-


John George Diefenbaker: The word "conciliatory" is just a cover-up for the word "tyranny".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the government consider, if perchance the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition were disposed of, moving an amendment to refer the fourth report back to the committee for the purpose of reconsidering rule 16A? In other words, I am suggesting that it go back for renegotiation rather than having something rigid imposed upon us. Would the government consider that as a way of resolving our difficulty?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government considers any possibility. The fact is that we have come to the conclusion that we should adopt this report now because 95 per cent of it is acceptable, with the firm undertaking that we use 16-A as described.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were being conciliatory.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You asked the question. We are and have been conciliatory to the point of meeting all the objections. I think that is conciliation. We have made adjustments and I think that we-


An hon. Member:: It is one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. An hon. member has brought it to the attention of the Chair that it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Motion for Concurrence in Report AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have not been here during the last two and a half days but some variety of flu, Hong Kong or otherwise, kept me at home. However, I have followed with the greatest interest what has been said in this debate. I have read all the speeches and have been greatly impressed by the quality of the arguments advanced. Indeed, while I will not cover all those to whom congratulation is due, I was very much impressed by the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The standard he set has been followed throughout by members in all parts of the house, to some of whom I shall refer during the course of my argument.
I want to sum up the state of affairs as I saw it before the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) this morning. If the allocation of time proposed by the government is carried out, it will mean that the road to Canadian parliamentary serfdom will have been established to meet the ego of a power-hungry government. What is the concept? Where did it come from? What is the pedigree? It certainly was not from those who in the British tradition understand parliament. It was not from those in Canada who appreciate the meaning of this institution. They would never have countenanced this in the days of the greats of the past. Laurier, Borden, Meighen, King, Bennett would never have permitted, would never have dared permit the presentation to this house of a virtual bar on argument. It could have been conceived in a communist country, for under communism there is no opposition. It is said, of course-it is always so, and has been through the years-that those who would make shortcuts through parliamentary procedure are always able to assuage their consciences by giving reasons for the action taken. The reason given in this case is efficiency. I should point out that this was dealt with in the supreme court of the United States by Mr. Justice William Douglas when he said:
History shows that governments bent on a crusade or officials filled with ambitions have usually been inclined to take shortcuts. The cause being a noble one (for it always is), the people being filled with alarm (for they usually are), the government being motivated by worthy aims (as it always professes), the demand for quick and easy justice mounts. These shortcuts are not as flagrant perhaps as a lynching, but the ends they produce
December 13, 1988

Motion for Concurrence in Report are cumulative, and if they continue unabated they can silently rewrite even the fundamental law of the nation.
Efficiency has always been an argument. We want to make parliament more effective. But parliament is not a corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament has a soul. Some theorists have always wanted to make it a corporation, with the prime minister as the managing director holding control over a majority of the stock, and with the rest of the shareholders being dominated because of that fact. It is of interest that at this very time when the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and with the assistance of his Man Friday, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), is trying to crucify parliament, in the U.S.S.R. the intellectuals are doing everything they can to end the concentration of power in the hands of the few to the detriment of the many.
How the government can explain this, I do not know. I look at those men sitting over there on the government benches and ask myself, how can men like that do this to this institution? It is a spurious trick to emasculate parliament, to cow and eventually to render the opposition null and void. Martinets trying to hobble parliament do not get far, history shows. Today the iron hand has apparently been lifted and the velvet glove has taken its place. Nobody can do that better than the Minister of Agriculture, because he knows both sides of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He has been on this side of the house. He used to express views when he was on this side, and did much "social credit" to himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is what he said in the House of Commons on May 20, 1965, as reported at page 1548 of Hansard. He was dealing with the question of rules and, as he told us today, he has had a wide experience. He sat on several committees. You know, it is a strange thing but there are some who, the more experience they gain, the more adamant their opinions become. What did he say in 1965? He said:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I suggest the government should reconsider some of these proposals so that they may be made clear.

It should make some of the refinements that are necessary so that a ruthless government could not run roughshod over parliament-
Those are wise words. Physician, now that you are able to do so, heal thyself. Today the hon. gentleman produced a document, a substitute, as it were, for what has already been before this house these past few days. It is an interesting document. Never have I seen more words used to conceal an idea. The idea still remains, to throttle parliament. The only difference now is that the government, having created a chasm, is now afraid of the position and is going to try to jump over it in two jumps. This is a rather difficult thing to do.
What does this mean? It simply means that the government knows it is in trouble. The minister says that is not so, but then he turns to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who silently works. This morning I noticed that the minister got advice from the President of the Privy Council. I say to the Minister of Agriculture as a fellow westerner: Don't take his advice unless you want to get into great difficulties because with all his smiling exterior one can almost see him as the Simon Legree of parliamentary rights. This document means nothing. A committee is going to meet and if it is unanimous when it meets, then that is fine. If it is not, the government says this is what we will do: we will only proceed by two steps at one time. We will only deal with two phases at one time of the four particular phases of legislation under the parliamentary system today. With the new rules this will mean the government will be able to act when we are on second reading, when the matter goes to committee, on the report from the committee and finally on third reading. This is meaningless. It is an endeavour to deceive the Canadian people, but not intentionally. The hon. gentleman would not participate in anything of that kind. However, the object was to fool, but it will fool nobody but the members of the government.
He says: "We want to make the House of Commons efficient and effective; the record has been bad in the past". This suggestion was analysed at length some years ago by one of the greatest parliamentarians in our time with the finest knowledge of parliamentary procedure in Canada, in keeping with that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I refer to another Winnipeg member, Colonel Churchill. He analysed this argument that we are not doing anything in parliament. Once more, I place a few statistics on the record to answer that fallacious
December 13, 1968

attempt at escapism on the part of the government. Here are the various sessions: From 1952 to 1963, in 14 sessions, the house got through 654 bills, either amendments to existing statutes or new legislation. This resulted in an average of 46 bills per session. What has been the position since? In 1964-65 the house passed 81 bills in a long session of 248 days. In 1965, in the 53 days before the former prime minister decided to get a majority by going to the country, the house passed 23 bills. In 1966-67 the house sat for 250 days and passed 119 bills. In 1967-68 the house sat 155 days and passed 49 bills. The record of the House of Commons of Canada is equal to that of any parliament in any of the commonwealth countries today. Yet day after day the government has preached this doctrine that there is something wrong with parliament.
The minister says: I give you this promise to do what I say I am going to do. I ask this house, do you not know that this government keeps its promises? I looked over at him, and he smiled. "This government keeps its promises". Ask the labour men in Winnipeg who are working in the overhaul base whether this government keeps its promises. I am sorry the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg is not here. I should like to ask for his assistance, and I know I would get it in reverse. During the election campaign he was saying: "We are going to carry out our promises". We have not heard a word since. I can understand that because today ministers are to be seen but not heard. Some, I have to say, we see but seldom as a result of the roster system. "This government keeps its promises". Well, one could go down the list but it is not my purpose to do that unless anyone is anxious. The promise, however, in connection with parliament was to bring about reform; that was the only promise. They did not dare tell the Canadian people what they had in mind, that they wanted to hobble this institution, that they wanted to shut down the opposition. They do not want to hear criticism. None of us like criticism.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Allocation of time was the main feature.


John George Diefenbaker: Allocation of time-this is the subterfuge. This is what it is called, but in fact it is a denial of the rights of parliament. I point out this to you, Mr. Speaker, that autocracy, tyranny and dictatorship are shadows that ever stand in the wings of even the freest of parliaments. In the absence of a strong opposition the cabinet is in a position
Motion for Concurrence in Report in this house to bend any rule without regard to individual or minority rights. One has only to quote Bassett's book, "Essentials of Parliamentary Democracy", to be reminded of the fact. He said: "The opposition is not merely tolerated but it is treated as indispensable". This is not true of this government; they believe it is dispensable. The government want us to sit over on this side of the house and ask them a few questions which they will answer if they choose. They elude when they are asked questions, and in a number of cases they evade the truth. Ministers are here whenever the Prime Minister decides they may be permitted to come here.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
According to Bassett:
The democratic method is not that of securing formal agreement by enforcing acceptance of a minority or majority decree through the suppression of all opposition. On the contrary, differences are recognized and their adequate expression welcomed as a means of attaining voluntary and genuine accord.
That was the view of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) when he spoke.
Without an opposition what would parliament be? It would degenerate into the arbitrary direction of public affairs by the executive and the bureaucracy. Minorities would stand unprotected, freedom would wither, individual liberty would be in jeopardy, and the unwarranted and oppressive invasion of private rights would grow unchecked. The government says that we would get efficiency: I say we would not get justice, freedom, equity or liberty.
Before the Minister of Agriculture spoke today I asked a colleague sitting behind me whether he thought the minister would make a counter-offer, whether he would retreat from the position taken by the government, whether he would make a strategic retreat on behalf of the government. But not at all. The minister indicated he was making not a strategic retreat but a pretence-"If we can get this over to the people, we will give them a second chance. We may be able to delude them".
The document that has been produced in this house is a sham, a delusion, a farce. It is an endeavour to cover the weaknesses of the position of a government whose members know in their hearts they are wrong, that is, unless they checked their consciences at the door before coming into the chamber.
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
Professor Jennings has been quoted before, but he has declared in regard to the parties that are represented in the house:
The House of Commons Is the oratorical battleground of those parties. The one supports and the other opposes the government. The one defends a policy and the other puts forward another. Any defect of administration, any weakness of principle or defect of practice, any blunder of politics, is soon brought to light and exhibited to the world.
That used to be so until the introduction of the roster system.
The functions which Bagehot described are thus exercised through the competition of government and opposition. The "mind of the people" is expressed in different ways and through different forms because it is not and cannot be a single mind. Political education is real education because at least two points of view are always being put, and the elector has to choose between them. The other side has power to speak and therefore can and must be heard. The opposition demands that policies be formulated openly and consequences of policies revealed.
How can this government defend itself with rational arguments? Majorities have their rights, says the minister. Minorities have too. The majority does not override the minority roughshod because the habits of centuries have created a free people under the British system of government who dislike oppression even of minorities.
I should have liked to see the Prime Minister present in the house today. I know it is difficult for him to be here; I occupied that position and know how the many calls upon the Prime Minister require his absence from the house. However, I intend to deal with one or two phases in which he would be interested if he were here.
I hear it said that we have a new government, a new politics. I suggest it is the same government that has been in office since 1963, with a few changes. It has the same philosophy-a pathological refusal to accept the opposition that was characteristic of the party opposite in the days of the Defence Production Act and the pipe line debate. Hon. gentlemen opposite claim it is a new government, but would you, Mr. Speaker, call a secondhand automobile on which a new steering wheel has been installed a new automobile?
In 1945 those who were endeavouring to undermine the state abolished habeas corpus: it was an obstacle. What we have today is a repetition of the fights of the past. For the Liberal party is unrepentant. It is still the party of the pipe line debate. Whatever the government opposite want they can get because they can count more heads.


I remember last February when the government went down to defeat and should have been out. The Prime Minister, the minister of justice of that day, declared: "We are the masters of the house". That was said when they were in a minority in the house. Today they have a majority and they are going to show us what it means to be masters. In February hon. members opposite said: "If we are defeated we will decide either before or after the vote whether it is to be a vote of confidence."
The house has been going from bad to worse. Hon. gentlemen opposite reform and rewrite everything today. Just think of Charles I who went to the houses of parliament at Westminster and tore out two pages from the record of the House of Commons! I thought of that incident the other day when the question regarding the committee on transport came before the house. It was history repeating itself.
The party opposite has changed the record on more than one occasion. If the Prime Minister were here I would go into the details, but they were fully set forth in an article by Mr. Patrick Nicholson on March 19 last. However, I have always made it a point not to do things like this in the absence of those of whom I speak.
This reformation process goes on, even in the matter of books. The Canada Year Book for 1967, as at February of this year, disclosed that if the government were defeated on a vote of confidence it would be out of office. The new Canada Year Book which was published the other day has changed that statement. So it is a question of changing the record, of treating the House of Commons with infinite contempt.
I will have something to say in a moment when I explain what is actually happening in regard to the Prime Minister's statement that only certain ministers shall attend in the house. As he outlined his plan it was reminiscent of a professor speaking to a freshman class. The government seems to be following a course that is designed to bring about in Canada the United States system of congressional government. They start off with a few ministers not being here and not answering to the representatives of the people as required under our system. It is not a far step from that for the Prime Minister to say, "We have reduced the number of ministers attending to three or four." It is obvious that this is happening. Time magazine says:	"Everything
Liberal is fine." Oh, yes; according to the
December 13, 1963	COMMONS
Canadian issue of Time, not distributed in any other part of the world, everything is fine.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We have flippancy, in the answers to questions, that would never have been accepted in the days of Laurier, Borden or the other greats of our country. We have frivolity in place of information and, finally, the setting up of a new body which will preside over desks of information. I do not want to be abusive but I think that body deserves a name: Trudeau's snoop troop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They are the snoop troop. We do not know yet who is paying them but whatever they get they will have earned. They stretch across the country; indeed, one might almost call them the distemper of our time.
Snooping in bedrooms is barred because you are liable to find things you may not want to see. But snooping across the country is lawful and appropriate. And when I look at the Liberal members of parliament-there are some outstanding ones among then and I am very much impressed by some of them-I wonder what all this means. If I were a Liberal member and found my leader had decided it was necessary to get information elsewhere in order for it to be dependable I would not be completely gratified, even if I were a member of whom the Prime Minister had never heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I felt sorry for the hon. gentleman; I did not mention him the other day and I will not mention him now, but his applause indicates that he appreciates what was done. If any Prime Minister does not know his own members things are serious. There is every indication that by taking on 28 assistants the Prime Minister intends to approximate the methods of the United States system of government. Sir, the Canadian parliament is not the White House in Washington.
They say they need these powers to enable them to get through this house a number of pieces of legislation. I have found no legislation that has been held up in this session. For days on end the government has not had any legislation ready.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is absolutely right.
DEBATES	3927
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You should look at the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: The government is never ready. It is the government of the unready and it now endeavours to pin responsibility elsewhere than in the proper place. Where are these bills? Where are these pieces of legislation? Why keep them hidden? The fact is that the government has no legislation ready to go ahead with. It may have legislation on the Criminal Code; it can prepare legislation in order to aid abortion and multiply homosexuality. It has that legislation ready. At a time when the Canadian economy is in a serious condition, when taxation is at its highest level, when the cost of living has shrunk the contents of every pocket, this legislation is of first importance, they say.
Earlier I made the statement that there has been a systematic undermining of parliament by the Liberal party. It has been joined in that endeavour by members of some of the other parties. That fact has made it easier for the Prime Minister to try to throttle parliament. Everyone knows we live in uncertain times; some people think everything must be changed. Since the last war there has been a constant conflict between the rights of the individual in a parliamentary democracy and the increasing bureaucracy by which the government increases its intrusion into fields that should be reserved for the individual.
They say we would pass far more bills if we were to pass these rule changes. Why, if these changes come into effect the government will be able to have holidays every two weeks because there will be no business ready for the chamber. There is much clamour for action, speed, efficiency and leadership. The answer to this is given by one of the great writers on parliamentary life, Bassett, who says:
It may well be contended that the world is suffering today more from hasty and ill-considered measures than from any dilatoriness of action.
There have been great parliamentarians of all traditions and all racial origins in this house. I listened to the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one of the greatest parliamentarians of our country. When he first came to the House of Commons he did not know any English; yet he became a powerful orator in the English language. This is what he said to parliament and this government should take notice of his words:
The first duty of parliament Is to remain a parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental body ... It is the will of parliament, not
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report that of the government, that is the will of the nation ... the sovereignty of the people is delegated to parliament, not to the executive, and when I say "parliament", it means the minority as well as the majority in parliament.
This government has concluded that parliament is a nuisance; it interferes with them. If they bring in anything we approve of, that is fine, but when we dare to question, to examine, to criticize and scrutinize then we are guilty of a filibuster. In the British system there is no such thing as a filibuster. There is obstruction but not a filibuster, and the expression has no place here. Parliament cannot be held in servitude at the beck and call of even such a benign individual as the President of the Privy Council. I recall his Robespierre-like smile as he set out to destroy this institution. Sir, parliament is the repository of free speech. It is not the repository of the rights of government, the majority in parliament. Is it not strange that the Prime Minister made available $125,000 to the opposition in order to provide research facilities so that they could prepare their speeches and at the same time brought in a measure that will deny them the opportunity of making those speeches?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Parliament cannot be made a puppet. It dare not be made a sort of cuckoo clock, or a place in which ministers may appear at stated times regardless of the issues before the house. The President of the Privy Council came out with a fine idea the other day. He said: We spend too much time examining accounts; we should reduce the number of votes from approximately 250 to 125. How helpful that would be, Mr. Speaker. For whom? What a concept of parliament that is! Wherever you go, whatever you do, you find that the government has decided that it is going to emasculate this institution. I want to tell them right now, and I do not intend to use the words of the Prime Minister with reference to an absent member, that they are going to have a heck of a time doing that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I felt sorry for the Minister of Agriculture this morning. He made just about as good a job of his presentation as he has on behalf of the farmers of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This government has to begin to realize that the opposition will be

more than a bystander watching the procession of legislation introduced by the government pass by. Discussion is to end. We are to have a few minutes in which to speak. The minister has said: "Trust us." Yet after watching the President of the Privy Council, who makes a better contribution when he writes and signs his letters than when he speaks in the house, and what he has tried to do to this parliament, one wonders if this indeed is the new politics to which the government says it is devoted.
There would be no time for discussion. What would have happened on the transport bill in 1967 if there had been no time? After three weeks of discussion in the house and in the committee, 70 amendments were introduced. If it had not been for the opposition the result would have been an abortion and a monstrosity.
Surely the minister did not think today, in offering this bauble, that we would grasp at it. It is exactly the same thing, only double. He indicates that it is not. I read it and re-read it. It would require a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it and I do not belong to that classification. Its object, I repeat, was to deceive the House of Commons and it would simply mean the abolition of parliament.
Now we come to the question of the proceedings committee and the allocation of time. I intended to speak but shortly on it. What has been introduced here as an allotment of time is simply a bill of attainder. Those who introduced it will allow us to speak, perhaps, but it amounts to the worst kind of closure, closure even before the introduction of a bill if the President of the Privy Council so decides. Under the new amendment we are to get two hours, according to the changes suggested by the minister. How many people will be able to express themselves in that time? It fools nobody. We are to debate with a stopwatch in the hands of the President of the Privy Council and we are to get two full hours if the new proposal is adopted.
It is a repeat performance. It is a chronic disease. What is being done here is being done in no other part of the Commonwealth. Allocation of time? Yes, within reason, by agreement. I could not believe it when I read the speech of the President of the Privy Council. There was no ridicule in what the Leader of the Opposition said, that the minister would be able to make the decision
December 13, 1968

in his bathroom. But he will never be able to wash off the guilt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In the United Kingdom, according to Erskine May, an allocation of time is not usually made until after the second reading of a bill and often, even then, not until the rate of progress in committee has provided an argument for its necessity. Now it is to be proposed before the debate even begins. Surely the government knows better than that.
I am wondering why they are seeking all these powers. I have tried to review some of the things this government might be wanting to do. I believe in change to meet changing conditions, to make parliament more responsive. During my period in office we made the House of Commons bilingual by simultaneous translation. We appointed a member of the opposition to be the chairman of the public accounts committee, remembering that when we were in opposition we could not get any information; we were always barred by the chairman.
I have refrained from saying this before but I will make just a brief reference to it now. As I listened to the Prime Minister in the course of the election campaign I felt he had in mind something which was going to elevate Canada, raise her horizons, give new hopes. I am disappointed. What has taken place has been a negation of the hopes that I had in mind. What are they trying to do? Why do they want this power? Is it because they realize they cannot amend the constitution, the British North America Act, so far as education is concerned because in 1949 all amendments for the future were denied? I took a stand against that. At that time I said: You are forcing the British North America Act into a strait-jacket. Is the government about to try to get around that constitutional difficulty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I must interrupt the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a great place, the House of Commons. We disagree, we have strong opinions, but the one thing above all else that one treasures after he has been here through the years is to have 29180-2491
Motion for Concurrence in Report the kindness, the thoughtfulness and the helpfulness of members in whatever part of the house they sit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not going to ask for extra time; I was going to serialize.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the first step along the road to the Americanization of the Canadian political parliamentary system? Is the downgrading of the monarchy to be the next step? Certainly if the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) were here I would ask him to answer that question. His observations regarding the monarchy can only be accepted as meaning that it is meaningless. Indeed he voted for its abolition. I would like to see something said about the monarchy and what it means. During the days of the late Mr. Massey and the late General Vanier, former Governors General of Canada, they regularly set before the Canadian people the meaning of the monarchy. The people understood it, but it is not being said today.
What about language? Through the years when most of you were not born I was in the courts upholding the right of French Canada to have its language in the province of Saskatchewan. When I tell you that, you can look up the law reports. It was not popular. During my term of office we gave French Canada what it had been demanding over and over again-bilingual cheques. We gave French Canada what it never had before, a fair share of the allotment of positions in the civil service and the foreign service. Does it mean anything? Step by step more and more is being asked.
Some advocate a republic. I think if we had a republic in Canada it would end Canadian independence. It could do no other. The monarchy cannot be abolished except by constitutional amendment. But lo and behold, Time magazine has come out with a story this week, and this magazine always has its ear close to the government. I quote:
Last week, thinking aloud in the Liberal caucus, the P.M. said that the government hopes to "Cana-dianize" the monarchy by quietly "depersonalizing" the Queen's role in favour of more emphasis on the constitutional position of the Governor General-by, for example, replacing the name of the Queen with that of the Governor General on all official documents.
Sir, that is what we have suspected. Let the government get the power under this monstrosity of a measure to limit the rights of
December 13, 1968

Motion }or Concurrence in Report speech and it can get these things through. Is that one of the reasons that there is such a rush? Indeed, the Prime Minister said of the Queen, when an amendment was before a Liberal association in one province, "I did not think it was important enough. I did not vote.
I do not take a stand against the trend". Is that why they are asking for this measure, so they can trample on the rights of those who believe other than they do? I can only wonder whether this is the subtlety behind it.
Is it to bring about, in the Supreme Court of Canada, appointments based on race and creed? An hon. gentleman nods his head in a negative manner. That has been widely stated to be the fact, that we are going to take the Supreme Court of Canada, which has become a court respected by all, and emasculate it because some people do not like the way it goes about its business.
I have always taken the stand that separatism in Quebec was not widespread, and the polls have shown it. To me one of the most dangerous things today, and the most perilous to national unity, is those people who, while condemning separatism, use the fear of separatism as a smokescreen through which they endeavour to advance their subtle demands for more and more. That is what is happening. Is that the reason for this amendment of the rules, so that these power-hungry men can trample on the traditions of Canada's past? Is it to secure an amendment on the question of language in the schools which cannot now be secured by a constitutional amendment in view of the action of the government of Canada in 1949? It has been stated by one of the leading jurists of Canada, the hon. J. T. Thorson, a former member of this house, a former minister of the crown, that what is being done will constitute a constitutional amendment. Are they trying to hogtie parliament so that it can be pushed through on their say-so? These are some of the dangers inherent in what is being done.
English Canada wants to bring about unity in Canada, but to go on pushing through things regardless of the wishes of English Canada and the multitudes of those of other racial origins cannot but be serious to the future of Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is how serious these amendments are.
They did not produce them out of the air. They did not produce them for glorification. The Prime Minister once said that as a student the person he most regarded amongst the statesmen of the world was the Italian dictator of many years ago. I will deal with that


on another occasion when the Prime Minister is here. Subtlety, destruction, undermining deviousness, were the characteristics of that person.
This government, on the basis of statements that have been made by the Secretary of State and in no way condemned by the Prime Minister-after all he is one of the triumvirate that came to the Liberal party, one of the three wise men who saw the star-


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Wise?


John George Diefenbaker: They must have been because they are all in the cabinet now. He says we are going to have a republic. He says we have no use for the crown. And as I watch him in this house he seems to have a controlling interest and I can only conclude that on the basis of statements he has made there are members of this government today who are hell-bent for a republic. We want the matter to be discussed in this house. If Canada decides that way, Canada will decide. But through you, sir, I say to the President of the Privy Council; Don't think that as Simon Legree you can lash us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not going to be made slaves to achieve the purposes you have in mind, if any. When I go outside the main door I see the motor car of the head of the army. I see that what is on the side does not show our rank badges; it displays four stars. It would be interesting to know who gave the right to substitute four American stars for the rank badges of Canadians.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Sir, if the Prime Minister had been here I would have asked for extra time. As he is not, I shall not. I ask the government to agree to the changes that are asked for by members of the opposition. I do not agree that some of the changes should be made, but I won't be here to see the full effect. I have seen parliament for a long while and I know that when you start to whittle away rights it is not very long before you do not have any left. I say through you, sir, to the Prime Minister, "You shall not crucify parliament on the cross of political ambition or by grasping for personal power." I say to you, sir, "If this goes through, a tyrant could ask for no more." The government will be able to do anything it wants to do for four years. By that time, whatever the electorate does or feels will be too late. This is not a personal government of
December 13, 1968

the Prime Minister or the cabinet. It was Churchill who once said that it is a very delicate plant, this parliament, but he also said something else about personal government. He said that personal government with all its latent possibilities of oppression and caprice is not to be endured.
Surely they are not going to try to press this on us. We will not submit to a bureaucratic government in which parliament is an extension of the East Block and the higher echelons of the civil service, whether we like it or not. I say to hon. members, whatever their position in the house may be; do not take this chamber and make it a handmaiden of a government which since 1956 during the pipe line debate, and whenever it has had an opportunity has shown by its attitude its disregard for parliament. Don't do that; save this institution. Make the changes that are necessary, but do not try to place members of the opposition in the position of mendicants who must kneel before the government and ask consideration, while mighty, powerful ministers epitomized in the person of the President of the Privy Council turn to us and say: You have no rights; we have given you five minutes; we have given you two hours under a revised plan for the whole House of Commons; what more can you ask?
Mr. Speaker, I hope yet that the members sitting opposite will talk with the ministers of the government and the Prime Minister, if they are permitted to do so, and make it clear that Canada's future will not be determined on the basis of a chamber in which members are bulldozed by the rules, and denied the right to speak when they have that right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in politics for many many years, but I never thought it possible that I would ever have the opportunity and privilege to stand in this House of Commons following one of the great parliamentarians of our time. All of us know that the right hon. gentleman who just spoke has made a great name for himself in all of Canada, and more particularly in this august body, the House of Commons. But I want to say that the pages of history are full of references to great men who have been wrong, and the right hon. gentleman in this particular instance is wrong. As a matter of fact, sir, and I say this is a most kind and sincere way I think there are many of us who sit on the government side of the house who are much more loyal to
Motion for Concurrence in Report the right hon. gentleman than some of those who sit around him.
We have just heard the story of the ghost of Christmas past. It is a story that has been turned down by the people of Canada; they do not believe it any longer. While I know it has been given in great sincerity, nevertheless as I said, we on this side have the opportunity to disagree and it is my privilege to do that at this minute. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this House of Commons. As the opportunity presents itself it is my duty and opportunity to say to you, as the deputy speaker, how much I admire those who sit in the chair in which you are sitting now, and the great job you and Mr. Speaker do. I believe it is one of the most difficult jobs I have ever seen in my life.
Mr. Speaker, as one who has had the opportunity to sit in the Ontario legislature for many years let me say that, as speaker, your job is much more difficult than that of any of the speakers in any of the other legislatures I have seen in the provinces of Canada. Now I wish to come immediately to the business at hand and the opportunity that you, sir, I, and other members of this, the most exclusive club in Canada, have to change some of the rules here, in order to get Canada once again on the road. I should like to quote Upton Sinclair, a great man who unfortunately died about a month ago. One of the things he said was that you do not have to be satisfied with America as you find it; you can change it. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to be satisfied with the House of Commons even though it has been a great body for the last 100 years. We can change it, and certainly we will change it.
As one of the backbenchers of the Liberal party and as a matter of fact if I were any farther back I would be right outside the curtain I say to you, sir, that it has been a most frustrating experience for me to sit here in my seat for the past three months. Remembering all the history, the dignity, and all the great people who sat in these seats here over the past 100 years, I say most kindly that almost any club, the Canadian Club, the Rotary Club, the Women's Institute of Canada and certainly any business, conducts its affairs in a much more businesslike fashion than do you and I sitting here in this House of Commons of Canada.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It has been said on many occasions that it is time for a change. If I ever saw a time for a change, let me tell you it is time right now
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report to change some of the rules we have in this House of Commons. During the last three months and one day, to be exact, since we have sat here, where we are supposed to belong to the most exclusive club in Canada, representing the people from Vancouver to Newfoundland, we have put through about 8 or 10 bills. We should be ashamed of ourselves. There is not a business in Canada, if it were run the same way we have run the affairs of the country in the last three months, which could last for more than two or three weeks, because it would be completely bankrupt.
Last June 25 the people of Canada proudly, perhaps for the first time since Confederation, did not vote for a party as much as they voted for a change. They voted in this way because they were fed up with some of the things that had happened in this House of Commons, particularly in the last ten years. The people were sick to death of what had been happening in this house. Then, thank God, a breath of fresh air came along for Canada, and he sits in the present Prime Minister's seat.


An hon. Member:: It is empty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The holy ghost.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let me tell you that he is effective, in any event.


An hon. Member:: That's not fresh air, that's hot air.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am proud of him and I say
to you, don't you wish you had him?
For the last few months I have been listening to the gentlemen in the opposition to my left. Let me say that I am a professional, as far as being a member of the opposition is concerned, because I sat for almost 13 years on the opposition side of that most professional political club in the whole of Canada: I sat in opposition to the Tories in the province of Ontario.


George Harris Hees: You will soon be back.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if those members to the left of me, -when they stand up with their silly questions before the orders of the day, and make their speeches, realize why they are sitting over there to the left of Mr. Speaker, while the government is sitting to the right? I will let them in on a little secret: You fellows lost the election. That is why, in our parliamentary

system under democratic government, the opposition sits to the left of Mr. Speaker; and you fellows did lose.
The people have assigned to the government a task, and for those of us who sit here right next to those who comprise Her Majesty's loyal opposition, those of us who comprise what could be described as the government rump-


An hon. Member:: He is thoroughly
confused.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe there is some feeling that when a member is giving his maiden speech in the House of Commons he should not be interrupted by the opposition. I have sat in several legislatures and I have been interrupted by experts, so let them carry on because I do not consider them to be experts.
It really makes my heart bleed when I hear the Tories talk about how we on the government side are going to cause things to be terribly bad, because we are going to be the boss. They should see how the Tories, the most professional political club in Canada, operate in the province of Ontario. In any event, a Tory is a Tory. I have seen them operate in Ontario, and let me tell you that they are all brothers. Having sat here and listened to some of the silly questions the Tories ask on orders of the day, many of which are repeated day after day for political reasons only, let me tell you how they operate in Toronto. I realize these people are in the game of politics, and I do not mind their playing the game, but when I think of that exclusive Tory club in the province of Ontario I feel that perhaps some of these gentlemen should read about some of the things that happen there.
Do hon. members here know that no questions are allowed in the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario unless there is a written question submitted to the speaker of the house before twelve o'clock the same day?


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Unless you go through the Speaker's office, your question is not acceptable. Boys, how would you like it if we brought something like that in here? But we are not that way; we are not Tories. We are fair, and that is a word I advise you to look up in the dictionary.
It is not just we, as Liberal members, who want a change in the House of Commons. The whole of Canada wants a change, and that is
December 13, 1968	COMMONS
why this government is sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker, and you are sitting to the left. I suggest that the citizens of Canada want some action around here. Let me invite the members of the opposition to come along and support some of the bright ideas presented by the committee which, in my opinion, did a wonderful job. I ask them to support the government on this bill, because if they do not, the rump is going to be a lot bigger after the next election.
It is not going to be good enough for this parliament to be just as good as other parliaments. The people of Canada want something better. That is why, with what I describe as that breath of fresh air, our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), this is going to be better than other parliaments. This is what Canadians want, and this is what we are prepared to give them. We want your help. No one is more important to parliament than an opposition. I sat in opposition for almost 13 years and I know all about this. I was just as frustrated as you people are, the only deference being that I was right, in my particular circumstances, and you are wrong.
This old Tory feeling, that the status quo is good enough, is just for the birds. People do not believe that any more. I invite the opposition to join the ship and come along, and we will all sail together to make Canada a better place in which to live. By changing the rules of the House of Commons in the next week we will take an initial step in making Canada a better place. The rules must be changed so that the government of Canada, whether it is a Tory or Grit government-I don't think there ever will be any opportunity for those other fellows down there to form the government-can get on with the job of making this old Canada of ours a better place in which to live. We must get ourselves on the right road, as individuals. We must get the House of Commons on the right road.
It is even more important, Mr. Speaker, to get Canada on the right road so that every Canadian, whether he lives in Newfoundland or any other place, right through to Victoria, can proudly say: I am really glad I am a Canadian citizen. By bringing these rules in, and by other things that will be developed in this house, we will be getting on with the job of making this Canada a better place in which to live.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), I cannot help
DEBATES	3933
Motion for Concurrence in Report remarking that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is still looking for additional revenue, he should place an amusement tax on the speeches of the hon. member. The rhetoric was most-


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is not what your brother says.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend half a dozen times in his remarks said, "I am going to let you in on a little secret." I will let him in on a little secret: He will not hear any speeches from my brother in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: You will not be making any after the next election.


Harold Edward Winch: I must admit that, after considerable contemplation, I am surprised at my own surprise in not being surprised at the attitude that has been expressed by the government through the medium of the speeches and the motion dealing with proposed changes to the standing orders and procedures of this House of Commons. But I should not have been surprised; I should have expected it.
We have heard a great deal about Canada being part of the commonwealth. There have been in the commonwealth countries with parliamentary government, and they lost that parliamentary government by military coups d'etat. Of course the Liberal party in this house would never think of bringing about a military coup d'etat to get control of the house. They would do it in a smoother way. They have their own system of coup d'etat to remove the rights and privileges of parliamentarians and to wreck the institution of parliament. Basically the result is the same.
The hon. member for Bruce began his remarks by quoting somebody in the United States saying that if they did not like the United States, they could change it. He said we can change Canada and we can change parliament. I admit that we can change parliament. I admit that some changes should be made in parliament. But we say, for God's sake do not wreck parliament. This is what would happen if we ever allowed the government to get away with at least one of its proposals, in asking us to vote on a blanket package for changes to our procedures and rules. I said that I should not have been surprised, Mr. Speaker, because, though you may try to camouflage it any way you desire,
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report the government's intent is to have absolute and outright control of parliament. And that is dictatorship.
I know, and we all know, that the Liberals sanctimoniously mouth words about democracy and support of democracy and parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, in their heart of hearts they believe in dictatorship.


An hon. Member:: You don't believe that.


Harold Edward Winch: As I say, in their heart of hearts they believe in dictatorship.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear. They have demonstrated it.


Harold Edward Winch: They have demonstrated it by what they are now asking parliament to do in respect of certain rule changes. My hon. friend has said that I do not believe that statement. I say that he is forgetting Liberal party political history. The move this week in the House of Commons is not new to the Liberal party. Many years ago another Liberal leader, a Liberal premier of British Columbia, with his majority in the British Columbia house introduced and forced through legislation that became known as the S.P.A., the special powers act. The move of this government today is merely a step toward the S.P.A. of British Columbia, brought in by a Liberal. The act to which I refer did not mean just the control of the legislature; it did not mean just the muzzling of the members of the legislature: It was a Liberal sponsored act of parliament that said that by order in council the cabinet could exercise all the powers of parliament without calling parliament in session.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Harold Edward Winch: have a conscience, or vote according to his own convictions. It is a change of attitude that is required, not a change in the procedure or the standing orders as suggested by this government. Hon. members may have noted that this week a Liberal private member's bill was talked out. The bill requested action on pollution and it was not talked out by the opposition but by the Liberals themselves. We can understand why they talked it out. They did not dare have a real study made of pollution, otherwise the people would recognize the way this government acts. The worst pollution in this country is found in some of the policies this government tries to put forward.
This is particularly true of proposed standing order 16-A. This morning the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) introduced what purports to be an offer from a reasonable man, a reasonable government. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the proposal put forward by the Minister of Agriculture is an out and out farce. It is an insult to the parliamentarians who sit in this house, when the government introduces this as a substitute. We can only hope that reason will prevail and that there will be an understanding of the meaning of reason, reasonableness and reasonable men, so far as the government is concerned, and that this attitude will apply to rule 16-A as well as the supposed change introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. We can only hope that they will be withdrawn.
So much has been said already about rule 16-A that I am not going to make any more comments on it. There is another phase I should like to discuss about which only a brief mention has been made. This is a matter upon which the committee has made a recommendation, and it disturbs me. I should like to have some explanation of how it is going to operate. I have in mind the referring of estimates to the standing committee. My understanding is that all estimates will be referred to standing committees. No doubt standing committees can do a great deal more of the important work of parliament and perhaps can make a greater contribution than they have in the past. However, because of my knowledge of standing committees that deal with estimates, I am disturbed about how this procedure is going to operate.
When vote No. 1 is before a standing committee, the minister comes in, makes a statement and that is the last you ever see of him. During the balance of the time the estimates are being considered, the deputies and departmental heads are before the committee and they can give only statistical information.

Motion for Concurrence in Report However, when you are examining estimates, to a great extent you want information on policy. I know from personal experience that when the External Affairs estimates were referred to the committee this session, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) appeared once. If a member asked a deputy or department head for the information to which we are entitled, and which in the past we could get from the minister in committee of supply, we were told, "Sorry, that is policy; I cannot answer. Only the minister can answer those questions." I am worried about that situation. I should like to have additional information and I hope, confirmation that, if the estimates are referred to committees, the ministers will be in attendance as long as the estimates are before the committee. If that is not to be the case, then this is a negation of the opportunities of members to accept their responsibilities, to ask questions and get information.
There is also another important phase to which I should like to refer. A member can be on only two or three committees. If he is on only two, it can happen and will happen as it has happened this session, that a matter in which a member is interested is before another committee. You cannot even go to listen to the discussion because you are sitting in a committee on estimates. Can you not see, Mr Speaker, how this is going to handicap members of parliament? May I be pardoned if I use a personal illustration, Mr. Speaker? For over 30 years I have been interested in penology, in prisons, in parole, in probation, in pre-sentence reports, in the construction of penitentiaries and in narcotic addiction. When the estimates are considered in committee of supply I can speak to the minister about these matters. However this session I was unable to raise my voice on these matters, about which I think I know something. These estimates were referred to the justice committee of which I am not a member.
We cannot have members jumping back and forth, day by day, from committee to committee. For one thing, they would not know exactly when the subjects in which they were interested were coming up. It would make a farce of the operations of committees. It is because of these two matters of vital importance affecting the study of estimates by committees that I have some doubts about referring the estimates to committees, unless there is a commitment from the government as to how the method is going to be
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report worked. Are we going to be able to accept our responsibilities to our constituents by asking questions about the things we know something about? If we do not happen to be a member of the specific committee in which the matter is being studied, how can we do this?
So, Mr. Speaker, we have before us one of the most important issues ever to come before the House of Commons. I believe in change for the better, in change that represents an improvement. I believe in anything that would make this house a more efficient parliamentary body, subject always to the democratic right of free speech on the part of a person who is sent here, invested with all the power of a member of parliament representing his constituency.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I agree with at least P'j per cent of the suggested changes, but it is wrong and I suggest practically an insult to introduce them in this way, as a package. This means that we have to accept those issues of which we do not approve. This is not a reasonable or responsible manner in which to present proposals to the members of the House of Commons, especially proposals as important as these.
I said that I have a love for this institution. I have said that to my mind it is the greatest institution for solving the problems of man. It has everything to offer in the way of developing the country in the interests of the people and building the nation that our potential makes possible, both as a result of our manpower and womanpower, and our resources. It will be a disgraceful day in the history of Canada if this so-called bunch of Liberals set us back a century in parliamentary democracy by trying to force through a camouflaged policy of outright dictatorship. As long as I am able to speak I shall oppose this step with all the strength at my command.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this legislation may I make it abundantly clear at the outset that I support steps to streamline and improve parliamentary procedure. However, I would point out that in speaking to this issue I am at some disadvantage in that I have not been a member long enough to qualify as a rules expert. I have been here long enough however to realize that some of the ideas that I brought here with me as a new member are not practical, and I sincerely hope that some of the "instant experts" opposite will also one day see the light.

Two main reasons impel me to take part in this debate. The first is that, frankly, I am suspicious of the real motives that lie behind these so-called reforms. Secondly, I believe some of these specific proposals are dangerous. I think some are ineffective in their present form; others are foreign to our particular system of parliamentary democracy.
During my years in parliament I have never become, as have some of my colleagues, an expert on the rules and procedures of the house. I cannot even claim to have taken any particular interest in this subject in the past. But recent events and the circumstances of the present have forced me to make myself, if not an expert, then keenly aware of the vital importance of this question.
The reasons for this is simple. Like the people who elected me to represent them here, I hold a strong attachment to the system of government that we know as British parliamentary democracy. This system may have defects, it may falter and creak on occasion. But what free system of government operated by ordinary men and women does not have weaknesses? Surely the important question is to decide which system has the fewest weaknesses; and I believe the answer is "our system".
A leading authority on government, a man who was never, in my opinion, under any circumstances described as a Conservative, was Harold J. Laski. He opened his great work "Parliamentary Government in England" with these words:
No system of representative government has a history so continuous or so successful as that of Great Britain.
I believe this is true. I believe in the effectiveness of our system. Like the majority of my fellow Canadians I believe in its effectiveness to provide good, stable, democratic government. I further believe in its ability to protect the rights of the individual and of minorities from abuse by an autocratic executive. I believe in parliament's historic role of servant, not master, of the citizen. It is because I suspect that there are those among us who would use the device of procedural reform as a cover for their real purpose that I am so concerned. It is because I suspect that these proposed reforms are a first step toward a fundamental change in the system of government in this country that I have been forced to take a close and keen interest in this question.
December 13, 1968	COMMONS
Those who propose these changes now before us claim they do so only to make parliament more modern, more efficient, more able to cope with the demands of today's world. This is a reasonable claim. Though it is reasonable, it is not necessarily sound; and it is only reasonable if it is made in good faith. But so many things have been happening in recent months, there have been so many warning signs, that I believe it would be wise for all of us here to look beyond the mere mechanics of procedural change.
I think of the "ministerial Mafia" that was uncovered in the gallery yesterday. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is better to indulge suspicions that later on may turn out to be groundless than to rush to adopt changes that we may find have emasculated parliament and opened the door to an alien, perhaps even sinister, system of government.
It could happen-I do not say it must-that there are those in this country who seek to do by stealth and deception what they know they could not achieve by an open and democratic expression of public opinion. Anyone dedicated to changing our form of government might well feel the fastest and easiest way to do so would be to weaken, distort and discredit our present institution.
I am appalled by the philosophy, so often and so brashly exemplified by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), that belittles the role of this house as a forum of free discussion and reduces it to a mere appendage of a sealed legislative machine. Today's political technocrats regard the House of Commons as an industrial machine to be urged to higher and ever higher production levels until it spews forth an endless flow of new laws. This view makes completely meaningless our democratic electoral system. Some hon. members may remember the great satire on mass production, the movie "Modern Times." This measure makes of members of parliament so many Charlie Chaplins humbly serving the machine.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
What makes the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) so sure that they have all the moral values, all the wisdom and all honour that exists in this house? A British writer writing in the Spectator in the 1930's, when dictatorship was in fashion, was discussing the popular claim that dictators and dictatorships were more efficient, more effective and speedier than free parliaments and constitutional executives. Dr. G. P. Gooch said it was
DEBATES	3937
Motion for Concurrence in Report claimed that dictatorships could deliver the goods; but he asked, what sort of goods, and at what sort of price? This might be a good question to ask ourselves today when we are being urged to become more swift and efficient at the cost of open debate and free discussion. I do not believe that any such sudden and drastic change in our rules and procedures can be warranted on the grounds only of speed and efficiency.
I do not wish to burden you or the record, Mr. Speaker, with too many quotations but I feel that in this debate one ought to put on record as many opinions as possible, particularly when those opinions carry the weight of study and experience which have been denied to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald).
Professor Reginald G. Bassett, the professor of political science at the London School of Economics until his death in 1962, is considered by many to be an outstanding modern authority on the system we know as parliamentary democracy. His book The Essentials of Parliamentary Democracy is a standard reference work. Among other things he wrote:
There are some democrats who claim that parliamentary democracy can be speeded up to such an extent that decisions can be taken as quickly as under dictatorships. That, in our view, is a delusion. Democratic government must be comparatively slow in the taking of decisions: that is the price which has to be paid for political freedom.
He also noted:
Taking of decisions is one thing, and lasting achievement quite another.
He was concerned with the danger to the system of shallow proposals for change and hasty decisions difficult to reverse, once made. This is what he wrote:
More dangerous, perhaps, in present circumstances, than either the impatience of the extreme left or the obstinacy of the extreme right, is the demand for action as such.
He saw little virtue in change for the sake of change and action for the sake of action, and added:
To desire speed for its own sake is irrational, and, in politics, as in other spheres of human activity, the indulgence of such a desire may have regrettable consequences.
Before I leave this particular aspect of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I will cite just one more authority. Right Hon. Michael Stewart in his book The British Approach to Politics, wrote:
-it would be unwise to pursue efficiency at the expense of individuality. Parliament is more than
December 13, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report a machine for making laws; it is a forum for discussion, for redress of grievances and exposure of abuses.
This, Mr. Speaker, exactly sets out one of the chief reasons why I deplore this government's obvious attempt to drive debate out of this chamber and into the back rooms.
In looking for the real purpose underlying these proposed changes we should look at the whole tenor of parliament, at the tone of parliament, as set by this new government. The tenor generally speaking-and I say this regretfully-has been one that demeans the House of Commons. We have only to consider the preposterous duty roster of ministers initiated by the Prime Minister. It is a clownish device at which one might laugh, if its implications were not so serious. I view it as a deliberate attempt to restrict the accountability of the executive to the people, to protect ministers arbitrarily from proper questioning and to humiliate and deliberately to degrade the House of Commons and render the role of elected representatives a farce.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: It may be, of course, that the Prime Minister has banished his ministers to the cabinet harem because he is jealous of their ability, or fears their facility for putting their feet in their mouths. Whatever his reason for cloistering the cabinet, he has shown contempt of his colleagues and of parliament, and I think this attitude of contempt for parliament is reflected clearly in these proposed changes in our rules and procedures.
The Prime Minister's attitude in this house and in many of his public utterances indicates that he holds parliament in contempt as a mere talking shop. He likes to be portrayed as a political sophisticate. Professor Laski, who is an older and wiser hand at this business, once wrote:
It has become almost the proof of political sophistication to sneer at the House. The 'talking shop' leads many people to sigh, like Carlyle, for Colonel Pride and his little platoon. On all this there are many things to be said: not least of them that the alternative to the 'talking shop' is the concentration camp.
The other evening, on December 10, I believe, the Prime Minister gave an interview in which he said, among other things, that the opposition was holding up the business of the country by debating the rule changes. I ask, what business is being held up? What fundamental and earth-shaking steps to formulate the just society are being held up?


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, what are they? Is one of the measures the measure to increase interest rates for fishermen's loans, perhaps? Or could it be a bill to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, or a measure to arrest the spread of pests injurious to plants? If these are the vital and important measures that are being held up by this discussion of proposed changes in our rules and procedures, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they give a very clear understanding of the importance attached by the Prime Minister to these changes and to parliament. If the Prime Minister had signified his government's intention to bring forward measures dealing with the really crucial aspects of the nation's business, by placing appropriate measures on the order paper, he would have been more convincing. Where are the measures to deal with such urgent matters as unemployment, the steadily rising cost of living, the plight of eastern farmers, the grave crisis in western grain, and the desperate condition of the east coast fishing industry? No, these cannot be found among the priority matters on the government slate. Instead we have such pressing measures as an official languages bill, and changes in the rules of the house.
A giant step towards making parliament more effective could be taken by having this government give priority to the proper national questions. The Prime Minister has changed the face of this house by arbitrarily ordering his ministers to stay out of it. He has set up a system of regional desks within his own office to partition the national business regionally, and to further remove national business from his colleagues and the Commons.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
He has suggested that perhaps more frequent use of the name of the Governor General might be made in connection with legislation, rather than that of the Queen. The logical next step for him to take in this regard, one might fear, is to forget about the Governor General and use the name of a president yet to be named by him.
These are all straws in the wind, signs and portents that show the drift of national affairs under this regime. Now we have a suggestion to chase public business out of the open chamber and into the back rooms of parliament. We have a suggestion for the autocratic allotment of time for debate by a government
December 13, 1968

unimpeded by rules or an effective opposition. The whole trend is to get away from the public eye and into the citadel of absolute parliamentary power. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate step could be a declaration of a form of government modelled on that of France, where parliament would be the powerless and subservient tool of a north American de Gaulle.
Would you believe "General" Trudeau? Before anyone laughs too loudly, let him remember that last February it was the present Prime Minister, then minister of justice, who said: "We are the masters." I do not know whether my suspicions are shared by all or any of my colleagues here, or by Canadians outside this house; but I feel they are valid until disproved, and I say that in the national interest it would be well if the Prime Minister were to make a clear and public undertaking that the intention of this government in advancing these changes had no connection with the intention eventually to change our parliamentary democracy into a republican form of government.
Before I finish my remarks I should like to take up one point of specific objection to these proposals. It has to do with the apparent failure of the government to make the necessary adjustments to our committee system to accommodate its proposed use of committees. In Britain, as I understand it, the practice is to refer bills to an appropriate committee after second reading, much as is suggested by the proposal now before us, in accordance with which proceedings at the committee stage, formerly handled in committee of the whole house, would be dealt with in the same way but within the smaller confines of a standing committee.
It is true this is done in the United Kingdom, but the committee there is in every way a miniature replica of a committee of the whole house. Then again, this system is only possible because the British committee is not an investigative, but a legislative committee. The purpose of the standing and special committees of this house, as now constituted, is set out in section 8 of the proposed amendment to standing order 65. It is to examine and inquire into matters referred to them, to send for persons, documents and records, etc. In other words, the procedure of our committee, sitting as a replacement for the committee of the whole house on a bill, would be to call witnesses, ask questions, consider testimony and arrive at a report.
This would be completely contrary to the traditional procedure in the house at this

Motion for Concurrence in Report stage of a bill, and I submit it would be completely ineffective. When a bill is considered at the committee stage in the special legislative-type committee established in Great Britain, the procedure is an exact duplicate of the procedure we have known in committee of the whole house on a bill; the minister explains the various clauses, assisted by his departmental experts; the members ask questions, make their views known in speeches, and move amendments.
The manner in which our committees now proceed-and apparently nothing has been done to change it under these new proposals-is entirely different. They operate as an investigative body, with witnesses called and sworn, documents produced and members reduced to making their contributions by way of questions.
In the British committee no experts are heard-they must make their contributions through information passed either to the minister or to members on the other side. There is ample time for individual members to speak and be heard. I think this question of committee procedure should be cleared up before the house is asked to adopt a motion calling for the blanket assignment of legislation to these committees for consideration at a vital stage.


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


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: As soon as I am through.
I have many other reservations as to the effectiveness of the new system proposed. However, I am sure that other members, more skilled than I in the intricacies of the rules, will deal with them before this debate comes to an end. It does appear improbable, though, that the speed and efficiency so glibly promised by the President of the Privy Council will be forthcoming. After all, the personnel serving on the committees will be the same as the personnel of the house. With many committees sitting simultaneously, as they must if the promised speed up is to come about, we shall see members flying from one to another without adequate time for preparation, and amidst more confusion than you could shake a stick at.
I fail to see what advantage this proposed new system might have over the use of the whole house as a committee. As I have already stated, I am no expert on the rules but I cannot see what advantage is to be expected at this juncture. Indeed, I am almost inclined to believe that this change is being
3940	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report advocated simply because it might appear to be new and radical. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, that Mussolini was defended on the ground that he produced greater efficiency. At least he made the trains run on time, it was said. Hitler was lauded for his efficiency in constructing superhighways. In neither case did the defenders of those dictators bother to mention for what purpose the railways and the roads were to be used.
From his many, one might even say endless, public statements about the need to turn parliament into a legislative mill, the President of the Privy Council would seem to be seeking immortality as the man who made parliament run. But in this case I think we would be very wise to ask also, to what end and for what purpose? I believe, Mr. Speaker, members of this house must ask themselves a question and assure themselves upon one main point before they saddle themselves with these proposed changes. We must assure ourselves that we are really trying to improve our system of government, not change our system of government. It is distinctly possible that by adopting these sweeping changes we will merely be accessories in preparing the ground for a fundamental change in the system.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Sure, I may be charged with being an alarmist. I may be accused of bias and of many other things. But, Mr. Speaker, I smell republicanism in the air. I see some of its advocates in high places, and I hear its echoes in the statements of prominent members of the governing political party. Unless someone of the stature of the Prime Minister can effectively deodorize the atmosphere, the aroma is going to persist, and while it persists I will remain suspicious. And I will remain unalterably opposed to changes in our methods that I believe are too hasty, too sweeping and too radical for the need.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter I should like to point out that since the government allotted an amount of some $135,000 or more to the leaders of the parties of the opposition, the members give speeches which, without being more sensible, are better written and can be more easily tolerated. The opposition must recognize that it was a good gesture on the part of the government to give that help.

DEBATES	December 13, 1968
Like several other members, I do not profess to be competent in the matter of parliamentary procedure, but I did make it a point to listen to everything that has been said until now by people who know more about it than I do. I also studied the old Hansards of the house and what other experts have said on parliamentary procedure. I read what the committee on procedure published after its proceedings. I even inquired of the library about what has been done in this regard in other countries, such as Australia and England, for instance. Even so, I do not claim that all this gives me the required competence, but I do say I learned certain things.
This afternoon, I should like to limit my remarks to a rather brief analysis of what has been said until now.
First of all, it seems to me the opposition is overlooking one point when I hear shouts of distress because it would seem that the privileges of parliament are being threatened. It seems to forget that we also belong to parliament, even if our representation spills over onto the other side of the house, and that at the last elections, we were entrusted with the task of governing this country. As far as I know, the results of those elections do not give a minority opposition the absolute right to direct, control, stymie and bog down, to use an expression which is not from Bossuet, the government elected to administer this country.
Mr. Speaker, like many other hon. members I always listen to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he takes the floor. He is a great debater but also a great actor, and I would give him an Oscar for his performances in this house.
The other day while listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-for whom I have great respect, as I said before, and I think he knows it too-I got the impression that, in view of the success enjoyed by the hon. member for Prince Albert as a public speaker, he would have liked to imitate his tactics or some of his tricks. I would not advise him to try it in view of what has happened so far. The hon. member for Prince Albert has always had that knack for making fun of his opponent, getting him to say what he wants and playing with words with an extraordinary sense of humour, even if he is unkind most of the time. However, experience shows that he has paid for it, because many of his ministers turned against him and his supporters deserted him during election
December 13, 1968	COMMONS
campaigns or political conventions. The leaders of his party have forgotten him and the convention ignored him in a very humiliating way. So the conclusions are so obvious for everyone that, in my opinion, the Leader of the Opposition would venture into a wrong course if he attempted to resort to such debating tricks which are a mere window-dressing, and rather funny. However, these tricks are not consistent, in most cases, with the seriousness of parliament which our friends opposite worship as much as we do.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this whole discussion over the reform of procedure-at least that is what I think and what many other Canadians think-seems to be an organized campaign to throw discredit on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and to present Canadians with a caricature, designed to scare them with the prospect of dictatorship, when the only purpose is to make government efficient, as promised, and that is what Canadians demand of this parliament. I think that many of my friends opposite, perhaps without realizing it, are challenging the Prime Minister, because of his tremendous success and also his main associates and the party now in office.
Mr. Speaker, some people clamour for the respect of parliamentary privileges, but I do not see how these are affected, unless they want to limit the definition of parliament in the sense that the opposition alone would constitute parliament and that the responsibility of controling parliament would rest only with them.
The opposition must say what it has to, and it will have a greater opportunity to do so than before, because for instance the estimates will be scrutinized much more carefully in the parliamentary committees. However, no one should be misled by that outcry which can be heard here under misrepresentations, with a tone which would be moving if it were true, and which seems intended to rescue from ruin or disappearance the privileges of parliament. I will say again that we, of the Liberal Party, also belong to this parliament.
It was said that ordinary members, usually called back-benchers, observe a self-imposed silence. If my friends of the opposition could attend our provincial or federal caucus, they would see that there is truly in our party a freedom of speech promoted by the right honourable Prime Minister, by the whole cabinet and by the President of the Privy Council. Of course, our name is not on the
DEBATES	3941
Motion for Concurrence in Report front page of newspapers the next day, but I think that in the past, in our own way, we contributed to the formulation of legislation and we stopped a man or a party from becoming the government itself. The caucus is precisely democracy in action.
Mr. Speaker, my reaction to the stand taken by the opposition and its comments from the beginning of the debate-and I have listened nearly to all the speeches-is, first of all, that the opposition wants to keep a kind of power to stall legislation so that when election time comes, the government is unable to show a list of achievements which will please the people and which, of course, would induce them to vote for this government. The opposition seems to forget that this government was elected with a very clear mandate: an efficient administration of the business of the state and a reformation of parliamentary procedure in order to get rid of those lengthy speeches which we have deplored for a long time.
The opposition forgets that the Canadian people and in particular the rising young people are fed up with those lengthy and sterile debates which solve nothing. In fact, under the pretense that the opinion of the people of the ten provinces must be expressed here, all day long we have to listen to lengthy and repetitious debates on the same issues, rehashing twenty times over meaningless points which finally get nowhere and waste the time of the house.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The opposition seems to forget-for I do believe that its members are intelligent-that it would be simply stupid for the present government to restrict itself to a minority role when it has been elected by a majority. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, why, under our democratic system, the party elected by the majority is responsible for the administration of the country. If the government were really trying to muzzle the opposition, I would be one of the first to protest vigorously.
Members are objecting because, they say, in a committee of four members, if the representative of the government were alone, he could invoke the privilege which authorizes him to act as if he were in the majority. Others are protesting that, under certain circumstances, the opposition would unite against the government. Promises of goodwill have been made to the government. In fact, I heard my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) promise to
3942	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report co-operate with the government. I admit that most of the time he co-operates, but I remember a lew instances where, lor partisan reasons, the opposition united in order to prevent the government from adopting a certain legislation. I think the government has the duty to provide against filibustering, il it does not want to be discredited by public opinion because ol eternal discussions which do not settle anything.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition lorgets that parliament includes also the Liberal members and that this procedure has been considered in committee and in caucus. We are clearsighted enough to know that we would not be happy il we accepted measures which 25 or 50 years Irom now, if the hazards of politics brought us back into opposition, might be to our disadvantage. But we believe that, under the circumstances, these reforms as implemented in other countries have become necessary.
Through his whole speech, my friend, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier)-I was taking notes-was proposing an acceptable compromise, but in my view his conclusion is not acceptable. He said: Why not establish a standing committee on procedure with the responsibility to limit or allot the time?
I want to point out to him that this is unpractical because in the end, the government would again have the majority and nothing would be changed. Therefore, it might be better to let the President of the Privy Council take care of this, as the final result will be the same. So, his conclusion is perhaps not one of the best.
Mr. Speaker, many things have been said, and the most striking was said this afternoon by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who at one time expressed his disapproval in these terms, and I quote:

"A ruthless government can subdue parliament." [Translation]
The right hon. member for Prince Albert, in using the words "ruthless" and "ruthlessness" must have looked at himself in the mirror, because people who were here when he was Prime Minister tell us how determined, how aggressive he was even with the members of his own party. It is hard to conceive that such a thing could happen under the present Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, he often says to us: "Go ahead, say what you have to say." And one day when he was asked

DEBATES	December 13, 1968
what would happen if our free interventions became annoying to a minister, he replied that the ministers must learn to take care of themselves and that if they do not know how to do it, they do not deserve to remain ministers. Up till now, they have taken care of themselves very well, thank God.
And the hon. member for Prince Albert said, while speaking about the President of the Privy Council, and I quote:

"Here is the Simon Legree of parliamentary rights."

This always makes a great deal of impression, Mr. Speaker. Those who hear it for the first time are impressed, it gives them the shudders and brings tears to their eyes. However, when one has heard the member for Prince Albert repeat it twelve times, one feels somewhat less impressed. One tells oneself that it is just some more of his theatricals of which he is a master but which do not settle the situation.
As far as I am concerned, I cannot imagine that the President of the Privy Council could make dictatorial decisions without rousing strong protests among the members of his own party. Let them not take us for school children, for people without a mind of their own, and who do not know what parliament is for. Let them not take us for people who are kneeling down in the hope of getting some day promotions or favours, because we know that there are still a large number of people who think along those lines. It is an exception to be interested in obtaining favours. I will even say that the majority of members on this side have already filled some office in the municipal and provincial fields and on school boards. They are used to parliamentary debates and they respect our par-liamentiary customs. However, they have often heard the rising generation asking for more efficiency and voicing eloquently their disgust for the very costly waste of time in parliament.
Since hon. members must make the parliamentary machinery more efficient, the time has come to complete that reform or it will never be done. I deny that the privileges of members are infringed upon by those measures, except perhaps if one insists that the 264 members of parliament should speak until they are breathless on every possible or conceivable subject. It would then be necessary to sit day and night, 365 days a year. Even
December 13, 1968

then we would not succeed in performing our work.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Prince Albert say:

"The record of this parliament is as good as that of any other parliament."

He then quoted statistics and gave to understand that this parliament has nevertheless achieved something against all odds. Whatever has been accomplished so far does not correspond to the hopes of the Canadian people who are going through changing times characterized by transformation, a true revolution, which requires not only efficient action but also infinitely more numerous and beneficent measures than those adopted so far. That is why our parliamentary procedures must be modernized.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that my allotted time to speak is nearly finished. So that it will not be necessary for you to interrupt me, I conclude my remarks by saying that I approve these measures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill C-13, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Repeal of court of
revision).
He said: Mr. Speaker, before speaking on this bill I must say that it will indeed be difficult to follow in the footsteps of the illustrious hon. members who preceded me in espousing effervescent rhetoric. It is also ironical that I should be discussing on Friday the 13th a bill which is referred to as Bill C-13, and is listed at page 13 of the order paper. How lucky can I be! Nevertheless I shall endeavour to give in capsule form the purpose and intent of this bill.
Its purpose and intent is basically to eliminate the courts of revision, which generally are established in urban electoral districts, and replace them by the more effective and less costly procedure already provided for
Canada Elections Act
rural voters whereby, on voting day, an elector, whose name does not appear on the official list of electors, may cast his or her ballot, notwithstanding that the name is off the list, upon swearing an oath that he or she is ordinarily a resident of the particular electoral district in question, and meets all other necessary requirements of an elector. This is likewise supported by an oath to the same effect by an elector whose name does appear on the official list of electors, and who is ordinarily a resident of that electoral district, thereby corroborating the previous oath.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is proposed that these oaths be administered at any time up to and including the date of an election by the returning officer of the particular district or riding in question, and in addition on election day the returning officer would also be empowered to administer similar oaths, thereby adding, amending or deleting any elector's name on the official list of electors of the electoral district in question.
As I am sure all hon. members are aware, at the present time lists of electors are compiled for each subdivision of an electoral district by enumerators who are appointed by the returning officers of each federal electoral district. These enumerators usually, especially in urban ridings, consist of two persons for each subdivision, one who is usually recommended by the member who is representing that particular riding, and the other who is recommended by the party having the second largest number of votes polled at the previous election for that particular riding. After these lists are compiled copies are made, some of which are placed in conspicuous places in the subdivision for all to view, to see whether their names are on the list. Other copies are given to the returning officer. These lists are required to be completed within a specified time prior to the election date.
In 1934 a system of permanent lists of electors was adopted by parliament for federal elections by the enactment of the Dominion Franchise Act. This system, however, was only enjoyed for the 1935 general election. The Dominion Franchise Act was repealed in 1938, and the system of compiling lists of electors by enumerators, as previously described and referred to, was provided by section 17, as well as schedules A and B of the Dominion Elections Act of 1938. Since that debate the system has been substantially the same, except for the introduction of revising

December 13, 1968
Canada Elections Act
agents to assist the revising officers in revising the electors lists in various districts, particularly in urban areas.
I submit that at the present time the number of persons added to these voters lists by these agents, or these courts of revision, is very small and does not warrant the cost incurred by the public. I should like to submit at this time certain cost figures which I obtained from the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a cost breakdown in respect of the cost of revising these voters lists, and this is up to November 26, 1968. It shows a total cost for the last federal election of $823,658.83. The cost in respect of the metropolitan Toronto area was $63,331.40, and for the metropolitan Montreal area, $77,904.69. I am sure you will agree that this is a little exorbitant.
I should also like to give the house some figures in respect of the Toronto-High Park area. The cost incurred by the revising officers appointed for this area totalled $3,657.41. I am informed that the six courts of revision added to this list some 240 names. In my humble submission this would represent in the vicinity of $15 to $18 for each name added. Surely you will agree that this is costly. There is no reason this task could not be performed by the returning officer and the deputy returning officers. In addition to the cost involved there are other instances of injustice, especially on election day. I personally encountered some of these during the previous election. Residents came to my office and telephoned me, advising that they had attended at their polling booths but were not permitted to vote. It happened that it was pouring rain on the last election day. It is regrettable that people who want to vote in the polling divisions, especially during adverse weather conditions, were not permitted to do so. I asked many of them why they did not get their names on the voters lists in time, and many had very valid reasons. Some said they were out of town and others said that there were a number of persons in the family, some of whom had their names on the list, and they felt their names would also be there; but they failed to check, and when they did find out it was too late.
In other cases these lists were posted on telephone posts or on trees, and may have been torn down by children or destroyed by the elements. In this event some people would not have had the opportunity to view them to make sure their names were included. I submit that the passing of this bill would eliminate these injustices.
tMr. Deakon.]
In closing I plead with hon. members to give this bill careful consideration and not, as happens in the case of most private members bills, relegate it to another slot in this exercise in futility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the mover that neither I nor my colleagues will do anything to prevent or preclude this bill being voted upon this afternoon. I do not know that I have ever spoken in this house on a Friday the 13th, but I find I have often made little contributions on Fridays. It seems that the competition to orate is much less on that day of the week.


An hon. Member:: You get the week end press, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You have a more intelligent audience.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think we have an excellent audience on Fridays.
I should like to congratulate the mover of this bill on his initiative in bringing it forward for our attention, and I commend him for taking an interest in the machinery of elections, that vital process whereby our representative institution is brought into being. As I have often said in the house, in this and in previous parliaments, while the collection of private members bills with suggested amendments to the Canada Election Act is commendable, we have long passed the stage where we should have had a thoroughgoing review of the act. It used to be the custom that after a dominion election-that is an archaic word which I use-the House of Commons, with the experience that all the members derive from the contest, would sit down, look at the election machinery and make suggested improvements.
I believe we have had four elections since we have had a thorough review of this act. I had the honour to preside over the privileges and elections committee when that was last done. While it was a great honour, it was also a burden, because we had many, many meetings, heard many, many witnesses and gave exhaustive study in the process to this question. The exercise was somewhat exhausting also, but I think it was helpful. I think that is the way to do the whole job. I hope it will be done very, very soon so that all questions, that of the voter's age, party affiliations being noted on the ballot, a permanent voters list, and many other aspects of our voting process will be studied, and recommendations made
December 13, 1968

as a result of which a new act can be brought into being.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Many improvements could be made to this process. Usually I find myself in total agreement with hon. members who have brought forward bills of this kind. I am not so sure about this one. There are some things about the bill which cause me a little anxiety. However, I do not want my colleagues to forestall the vote because they think I may vote against the measure. Perhaps before the hour is out I will have been persuaded to vote for it. But I have some reservations. It seems to me that in essence the hon. member is suggesting that the procedures of our urban polling divisions be abandoned, and that we go back to those of our rural polling divisions.
The difference between the procedures, as they now exist under the legislation stems from the fact, as I understand it both in practice and from explanation by the experts, that in the rural polls there is little prospect of misrepresentation; that you are not in a situation of anonymity. This is an entirely different situation from that of the many, many large polling divisions in our great metropolitan centres, where very few officers and agents would know who in the world a given voter was who came in to exercise his franchise. In other words, although I do not think I have a particularly suspicious mind, I would be afraid that the hon. member's suggestion might make it a little easier to practise that ancient but dishonourable art of telescoping. This is not an unfamiliar art.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
telegraphing.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes. This shows my innocence in these matters.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You are not familiar with these techniques.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Where I come from there is a great likelihood that everybody would know everybody else and would have a rough idea how everybody would vote, so telegraphing of votes could not occur in Prince Edward Island. But I have heard of its occurring in other places. We know that devices like this are used in our election process, and we should try to make that process more efficient, fair and honest. Therefore I would be a little leery of this provision. I think the hon. member is to be congratulated for having
Canada Elections Act
introduced the bill. It is a shocking thing when, because of administrative inefficiency, Canadian citizens are denied the right to vote. This question is raised at every election. There are all kinds of people who, because of the failure of an enumerator to do his duty, finds he is denied a vote. This is a shocking thing, because our machinery should be geared to allow every qualified Canadian to exercise his franchise. Yet in election after election the enumerating process fails here and there.
I am sure there is not a constituency in Canada where there has not been embarrassment and upset on the part of qualified voters. Many people-and I say thank God they are like this-take very seriously their right to vote. Many people are deeply disturbed, profoundly upset when they find that this measure of democracy, the freedom of choice, the exercise of selection, is null and void because of the stupidity of some individual or the inadequacy of some regulation or legislation.
I think a better way of dealing with this problem would be to have a permanent voters list where, in the whole period between elections someone is concerned with the problem of keeping the voters list up to date. Once a permanent voters list is established, steps can be taken to overcome the problems with which the hon. gentleman is concerned. A permanent voters list would allow for absentee voting. A permanent voters list would allow with greater ease the transfer of a man's franchise to another election district. We live in a very mobile society and the advance poll although it has been broadened and improved, has not been able to keep up with the fact that many people have moved during the election period. You cannot hold Canadians stationary for the practically two months period of campaigning.
Incidentally, but significantly too, I would think the permanent voters list would allow for a substantially shorter election campaign. Although election campaigning is fun, I think it would not hurt the country a bit if that particular exercise were abbreviated somewhat. I believe, too, that had we a permanent voters list, and if more of the essential process were carried out of having people listed where they belong, and their qualifications certified, more or less in peacetime before the campaign started, there would be better opportunity for some of the officials whom the hon. gentleman mentioned to cope with these last-minute inadequacies, so that people presenting a legitimate case, and who are

December 13, 1968
Canada Elections Act
obviously qualified to vote, can do so. Under our existing machinery they just cannot make it.
In other words, once the court of revision closes, no matter how good is your case, if you are an urbanite you are out of luck at the present time. This is not good. Under our system, when enumerators' lists are completed, hurriedly at certain times, I do not see how the revision offices could be kept open much longer than they are. My more experienced and worldly friends here, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), told me that what I was really worrying about was not telescoping votes but telegraphing them. This is a matter which as a political scientist I have studied. I think this would be the one deterrent in the matter. I have not looked into the cost. I had not thought it would be such a money saver, but I would be prepared to study it. It seems to me the revision costs are among the minor ones in the holding of an election.
I commend the hon. gentleman for his initiative. We all join in the desire to broaden the opportunities for people to vote, and to maximize the exercise of citizenship on behalf of Canadians. I think the hon. member has done well in drawing our attention to this matter. I am always happy when in private members hour we are given an opportunity to look at some of the fundamenals of our process. We are doing it in the general debate, but I think we should do it much more often. In this way we can develop a little more awareness of some of the basic aspects of this institution and of the broader institution, namely the democratic process whereby we are brought into being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to support the plea made by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon), that his bill be permitted to come to a vote during this hour. He will certainly get full support on that point from those of us on this side of the house, and I hope his words were heard by his colleagues. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that this is the hon. member's lucky day. His bill is No. C-13; it has been called on Friday the 13th. The last time I counted I saw 13 Liberals in the house; I saw 13 of us in the opposition and then I started counting the people in the gallery and I managed to count 13 there. So, perhaps this is the hon. member's lucky day and his bill will get through.

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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let us hope the roof doesn't fall in.


An hon. Member:: I didn't know you were superstitious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I am saying is that I am not superstitious. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a lucky stroke, not only for the hon. member but for the voters in urban centres across Canada if we could do something about this problem.
While I am in a light mood I might pick up the thought the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) was discussing and run the risk of telling a story which I have no doubt has been told in this house before. It is a story told by Chubby Power, our late friend, of an experience he once had with another friend, the late Mackenzie King. It appeared that on one occasion Chubby Power had Mr. King down in Quebec city or somewhere in that area and at Mr. King's request took him out to see the grave of one of Mr. King's uncles or cousins once removed, or something of that sort. It seems they were standing looking at the grave and Mr. King said this was a relative for whom he had great respect, despite the fact he had always voted Tory. Chubby Powers says he replied, "Don't worry, Mr. King, he has voted Liberal ever since he died".
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this bill the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) has addressed himself to one of the most serious and pressing problems we in urban centres experience every election day. He said that himself, and all of us who come from urban centres have had the experience every hour of election day of receiving calls from scores of people who are unable to vote because their names are not on the voters' list. Each new returning officer in every urban constituency vows he will do a better job than the last one, but he does not manage to get a list that has all the names on it. People in urban centres hear about people in rural areas being able to get sworn in on election day. They wonder why they cannot do the same thing.
I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough that a permanent voters' list, as has been suggested in the report Mr. Castonguay recently made, would be a more logical and better way of solving a problem. However, the member for High Park seems to have come up with a much less costly way of dealing with the matter. It does seem to me it
December 13. 1963

should receive the support of the house. As I say, it is an issue that has stumped all of the candidates on election day in urban areas. The hon. member for High Park is to be congratulated upon bringing the matter before the house.
I am going to sit down. I support the plea that we let this bill come to a decision today. If all it gets today is second reading, although I am satisfied it could go further, at least-that will be a declaration by the members who happen to be here this Friday afternoon that they support the principle of this bill. If the proposal is made from the government side that the subject matter be referred to the committee on privileges	and elections,
although that seems to be a compliment, it will mean that will be the last we will hear of the matter in the current session. It does seem to me this is a matter with which we should cope and the hon. member has come up with a solution for it. I hope the house will vote for it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak only briefly on this important bill. The hon. member is to be congratulated upon his efforts in this regard. Indeed, it has struck me as being incongruous that in the government's great desire to bring about certain reforms in the operations of this house there has been relatively little activity to date with regard to what I suggest is of even far more concern to Canadians, that is the way in which they participate in the process of governing this country. I think it has been unfortunate that as we have developed many means of mass communication, of making mass decisions, many of which could well involve thousands of responsible Canadians, the only thing still required of most Canadian citizens in terms of the democratic procedures in this country is that once every two, three or four years they go to the polls and make an "X". Then, somehow they have fulfilled their responsibilities as citizens. I think the time is very fast approaching when Canadians are anxious to play a much larger role in their own self-government. We will have to use our imaginations not just the members in this house but the people outside as well, to think of ways in which people can be more actively involved in the process of decision making. The bill with which we are dealing this afternoon is one suggesting an amendment to the election act so that people will not be deprived of their right to vote on election day. I sympathize very much with this sentiment. I believe we are depriving far
Canada Elections Act
too many people of the right to vote on election day. I think it is a remarkable thing that all the Canadians who serve our government in various government departments, with the exception of those who serve in the ranks, have no opportunity to exercise their democratic franchise as citizens of this country on election day if they are outside of the country.
One could even refer to the immediate past prime minister of this country, who for many years was deprived of the exercise of his franchise because he was serving Canada, whether it was in the United States, Great Britain or some other place. I hope that matters such as this will be dealt with very shortly by the Committee on privileges and elections. I hope it will be a very active committee. I hope it will be not only studying legislation referred to it, but I hope the committee will involve many Canadians who have studied this matter and are concerned about it. The widest possible discussion should take place in the committee on privileges and elections. Following that discussion, I hope the government will put on the order paper legislation that will correct many of the inequities we have debated from time to time in this house.
I think, too, of another large group of Canadians that are deprived on a regular basis of their vote on election day. I refer to those who are in hospitals and who, through no fault of their own but because they are incapable of getting to a polling station, are unable to vote. I may say some provinces are more enlightened on this matter than the federal government in that they do permit such people to vote on election day even if they are not able personally to appear at the polls. I think, too, of those who, for one reason or another, while they may not be in hospital, because of some physical infirmity are perhaps unable to get into the polling station. Sometimes it is simply because the polling station may be some steps above ground level and these people have a heart condition or some physical incapacity which prevents them from participating in the election process.
The hon. member for Hillsborough mentioned the fact that we are a very mobile people. I think we forget that roughly a quarter of our population moves every year. There is a space of almost two months between the time of calling the election and the date of the election. During this time people may move, sometimes thousands of miles

December 13, 1968
Canada Elections Act
or more, and they are thereby deprived of their right to vote. If one were able to actually make a count, and it may be worth while for this purpose to determine just how many Canadian citizens are not able to vote in an election, I think we would be both surprised and deeply disturbed. I think it important, therefore, that we consider these matters. Perhaps I may add that we must also be very careful of the rights of Canadians because the secret ballot is something to be guarded carefully.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I am still troubled by the way in which the service vote is treated as an isolated vote, not usually announced until some days after the general vote has been tabulated and published. It should be possible in this era of high speed communication and transportation, since the service vote is taken some days prior to the general election, to collect this vote, tabulate it and release it as part of the over-all vote for each and every constituency in the country. At the moment I think the situation is unfair to our servicemen. It creates a kind of political aura about the men serving in the ranks, which is not good for them, and certainly not good for the country.
I concur as well with the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie) and his suggestion that there be established a permanent voters list. This is something that has been talked of ad nauseam, yet little has been done to ascertain its cost, as well as the benefits that might accrue, apart from the major benefit that is quite often talked about-shortening the time taken for election campaigns. That would be one virtue.
I also see many other virtues-and this relates to the first point that I made when I rose to speak. If we really believe what we often say in election campaigns, namely that people are more and more anxious to participate, to involve themselves in political questions of the day and to take part in some responsible way in national decision making, then I think by the establishment of a permanent voters list we will recognize the fact that not only are people important at the time of elections-on which we spend a great deal of money, as the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) pointed out, to tabulate names and publish lists of enumerations-but that people are important to us all of the time. By keeping annual lists of voters we might consider other ways of involving people in the

ongoing decision making process that is self-government.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, I concur with the provisions of this bill, though I think we could improve it a good deal by considering many of the other problems that face us in this regard. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who suggested that, if we are to respond to the great desire of the Canadian people today to participate in a realistic way, both in 1968 and beyond, in the process of self-government, the house should approve second reading of this bill, to show our support for these kinds of changes, and then perhaps go on to deal with this bill and other measures in committee in a way that will indicate that we are taking seriously the changes and reforms that are necessary in the elections act.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to add my small contribution to the debate on this fine bill that has been presented by one of my colleagues, as usual one runs the risk of finding that most of his speech has already been made. I thank the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for his words, and I am happy to know that on this Friday afternoon a member of the rump can concur so readily with a member of the opposition to my left.
I should like to add one or two points, if I may. I am in favour of the bill as presented, though I do not feel it is really broad enough in scope. We need to go a great deal further in the matter of reform. I also agree that this is a timely piece of legislation in view of the fact that we are thinking at the moment in terms of reform. I am sure we are all thinking in terms of reform, whether or not we are entirely agreed on the method.
I come from an urban-rural riding. I am sure there are many urban-rural areas throughout the country. I speak, for example, of small towns or cities which have immediately outside their limits a rural area that is in a municipality. In such areas people in the municipality prior to election day are able to be sworn in because they live in a rural area, whereas their neighbours who live virtually across the street are unable to exercise their vote. I know of nothing more aggravating to a couple of neighbours than for one to be allowed to exercise his franchise and the other not able to do so. This does create a great deal of trouble. Unfortunately it does not seem to create too much trouble for the returning officers, although it does for the candidates, because they are continually
December 13, 1968

asked to do something to correct the situation. It seems to me that a bill of this kind would be of considerable help in taking care of the urban-rural areas.
I too am concerned about the absentee ballot. A lot of people in my area are engaged in the logging business and work in the woods. Others work on fishing vessels. When they are away from home, either working in the woods or fishing on the lakes, these people are disfranchised as a result of the lack of a system of absentee voting in times of federal elections. I would hope that this bill could correct the situation. As far as swearing in prior to election day is concerned, this matter of telegraphed votes is entirely new to me. However, I have a great deal to learn, since I am relatively new to politics.
Times have changed considerably during the past two years. For example, take the matter of identification. It seems we must have a card for everything these days. As a matter of fact, cash is now referred to as the poor man's credit card. We have our driver's licence and also our pension card. There are many forms of identification card. It seems to me that if we were serious about giving each Canadian a proper card of identification, then it would be a simple matter for all voters to identify themselves at polling stations when they exercise their franchise on election day.
I should like to support my colleague who has moved this bill and I hope it will be dealt with to his satisfaction on this lucky day, Friday the thirteenth.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I congratulate the hon. member who introduced the bill, which is very definitely an excellent step in the right direction.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then let us vote for it.


David Anderson: There will be time to vote for the bill when I have finished. I realize hon. members want to get home for the week end, but I shall put forward my views in regard to this matter in a short space of time.
In addition to the need for a permanent list of voters, there are other areas in the Canada Elections Act requiring correction. I think particularly of Canadians serving their country abroad, who are unable to vote, here I do not refer to the members of the military forces. This is one aspect which as far as possible should be rectified.
Second, we must also do something about the people to whom my good friend from
Canada Elections Act
Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) has just referred, those who are unable to vote either at the preliminary balloting or on the day of the election. I think in particular of fishermen in my riding who cannot choose the time that they go to sea. They must go out to fish during the hours that are allowed them by the licensing authorities. Therefore on some election days they are unable to vote, and this is a situation that we should correct as soon as we can possibly do so.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill and others like it did not come forward to be passed by the house in time to have an effect on the election in Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Distinguished candidates are running for office in that election.


Harold Edward Winch: You bet.


David Anderson: It may be that a man of the calibre the hon. member for Vancouver East might wish to see in the house will soon be here.


Harold Edward Winch: He'll be here after the election.


David Anderson: It is unfortunate that this house did not correct the shortcomings of the Canada Elections Act before holding the election in Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. With these remarks I will sit down, Mr. Speaker, taking care to point out to hon. members that I have not talked the bill out.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, a certain ritual has developed with respect to private bills, and remarks during this debate reflect that ritual. Some hon. members tried to deal with the principle of the bill while others tried to deal with procedure. I confess to being disappointed with the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because his entire remarks were devoted to the principle of getting the bill voted on. He did not analyse the contents of the bill, although I know he is well capable of doing so. In some respects I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who dealt with the principle of the bill.
The ritual we have developed is this: The mover of the bill says, "We should let this bill come to a vote; it is so unfortunate that so many private members bills are not voted on, and these bills ought to be voted on according to their merits", and so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, at the present time there are more than 100

December 13, 1968
Canada Elections Act
private members bills before the house, and if we were to yield to the ritual each one of our proponents would have us go through, the work of our committees would be substantially changed. Frankly, and I suggest this humbly, I do not think every one of those bills is so carefully drawn that it deserves to be passed in the form in which it is presented to the house.
On the subject of reforming private members hours and abandoning this ritual, perhaps I can tell hon. members what happened in a previous parliament in which I served. A bill similar to the one before us today was part of the package before the house. An hon. member in the house belonging to the party to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre belongs-he is now a member of the press gallery-had between 15 and 20 private members bills before the house. He gave them exotic names such as "an amendment to the Criminal Code" and so on. From the name he gave a particular bill we could not really know what if was about. One day I listened to him speaking on a bill and, frankly, I could make no sense of it. An hon. member who is now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources asked the hon. member making the speech if his notes were mixed up, and whether he was not speaking to the wrong bill. It turned out this was correct: The hon. member had gone through half his speech speaking about another bill. He had pulled the wrong file from his cabinet.
The concern I have here is this: I do not believe that the substance of this bill is such that I can support it. I wish to congratulate my colleague from High Park (Mr. Deakon) on his attempt to deal with a Serious problem that we all recognize exists at election times, the problem of the voter who should not have been qualified and has not been qualified, but who shows up at the polls. In a rural poll he can take an oath vouched for by an elector; in an urban poll he cannot. My colleague has therefore argued, and he quoted some convincing material to support his argument, that we should follow the procedure of the rural polls.
I have been a candidate in four elections; in three of them I had a mixed rural and urban constituency with rural and urban polls. May I say that problems with respect to polls differ a great deal in different parts of the country. I had the privilege of serving as a member of the privileges and elections committee when that committee in 1963, 1964 and 1965 held a series of hearings on the Canada

Elections Act. It reported to the house. Unfortunately, because of the log jam of legislation before this house and the difficulty of resolving procedural rules in order to deal with these matters more expeditiously, the proposed legislation was not enacted and the amendments did not come forward in the form we hoped they would.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, may I put before the house some procedures that deal with the establishment of voters lists. There is good reason for having different procedures in most urban constituencies, as against rural constituencies. In the rural constituency a single enumerator enumerates the voters and prepares lists. In an urban constituency, in the urban polls, there are two enumerators named from the two political interests which received the highest and the second highest number of votes in the previous election. The theory is that these enumerators will watch one another to make sure there is no irregularity and no omission. Each one of them has the opportunity of making observations and comments to his associate doing the same job. The purpose for this is to serve the public interest as carefully as it is possible to do so.
Then comes the revision procedure. Those of us who have worked under it have found it trying and somewhat vexing. But the elimination of courts of revision in my opinion is not the proper answer to what is wrong. I do not care how expensive it is; I am concerned more with questions of principle. If you want to talk about the expense of conducting an election you could talk about the expense of the military vote; you could talk about how expensive it is to try to guarantee that as many Canadians as possible have the right to vote, under circumstances which are compatible with democracy. If we eliminated courts of revision and permitted a very simple procedure on election day, let us think for a moment what we would face.
Let us think of what happened in the last election when there were complaints about revisions of boundaries. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent the boundary runs down the middle of the street, down the middle of Baseline road. Before the previous election it included one strip of houses on the other side of Baseline road. On election day many people found, to their surprise, that they would not be voting in Ottawa West but in Grenville-Carleton, the constituency on the other side of the street.
If you had a simple procedure along the lines of that in rural polls you might get
December 13, 1SS8

something like this: A man might say, "I know John Smith; he lives on Baseline road; I live on Baseline road and I can vouch for him; he has lived there for a long time, is a jolly good chap", and so on. The system just would not work if you did not have in your poll an extremely well qualified deputy returning officer, who would be absolutely informed of the latest boundary revisions of the constituency and thoroughly aware of all the little facts of geography, such as the street here or there that runs down the corner to a cul-de-sac; that it bends just before it gets to the cul-de-sac and that the people in the middle of the cul-de-sac vote in one constituency and those at the end in another constituency. I should have considerable reservations about adopting a system that requires this. I will not use the expression the hon. member for Hillsborough used, but I think hon. members will know what I mean.
The vote of someone not properly qualified to vote is not a proper vote. It is better, Mr. Speaker, that thousands of dollars be spent to make sure that there are no irregularities than that in the interests of economy we should open the door to permit a number of voters who are not properly qualified to swamp election machinery or individual polls by permitting the taking of oaths under the pressure of election day and, if I may say so, thereby possibly subverting the results of such an election.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The number of circumstances in which hon. members of this house are elected by very small margins is fairly large in the kind of contests we have now. What I am saying is not academic; it is a matter of serious concern to members who are worried about the principles by which we conduct ourselves in democratic elections. In rural constituencies there is a presumption of knowledge. The boundaries of such constituencies are more easily defined-they are not as closely drawn as they are in the great urban centres. Moreover, residents do not change as quickly. It is literally possible to go to a deputy returning officer and say, for instance: The Smiths have not moved out. Why are they not on the list? Everyone knows a mistake has been made, and it is corrected.
There is a certain wisdom which has been accumulated in the Canada Elections Act. It is not a haphazard document. It represents the results of experience during a number of elections conducted in this country at different times. Members of the committees which 29180-250
Canada Elections Act
have examined this problem have come to the conclusion, in their wisdom, that there is necessity for flexible arrangements in the rural areas. This seems to work. There is no great evidence of abuse nor, in my opinion, is there much possibility of abuse as a result of such flexibility. I have not known abuse to take place in the three elections with which I have been concerned although there was a substantial rural population.
I would, however, be gravely concerned about the mechanical difficulty of coping on election day with the number of people who would come to the polls at the boundary of a constituency, especially if those boundaries had been subject to recent change, and claim that they should be put on the list. In many cases they would do so with the best of intentions, in the firm belief that they belonged to a particular constituency, when in fact they did not.
The possibility of irregularities and contested elections arising out of such a situation is very great, in my opinion. As I said before, I am concerned about the way in which previous speakers have dealt with the subject matter of the bill. Although this subject is one which causes me concern personally, I don't believe the direction they have indicated is one I should like to see this legislation take. I may be wrong, but if I recall correctly the evidence given before the committee by Mr. Castonguay, who is experienced in these matters and who has the complete confidence of all parties in this house, it was not such as to prompt those of us who were members of the committee to move to include this type of amendment in the act. The committee did not deal lightly with the measure, and for this reason I personally feel that in the circumstances I cannot support the principle of the bill.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: In a moment or two I propose to move that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections. Before I do so I might say that this is one of a number of bills on the subject of electoral reforms and various reforms in connection with electoral boundaries which now stand on the order paper as public bills. Since it is the intention of the government to send the elections act to the committee on privileges and elections at some time during the session, the government has indicated that the subject matter of bills of this nature could also be reviewed at that time. Thus, the subject matter of the bill now before us will

December 13, 1968
Canada Elections Act
receive thorough consideration when the elections act is referred to the standing committee.
I therefore move:
That the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired. It being six o'clock this house now stands adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 16, 1988