1968-10-11

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-117 entitled: "An act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Qualifications of voters and candidates)."


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act so that Canadian citizens alone will be voters or candidates in elections.
Motion agreed to and bill read for the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question and to renew the request I made to him last night. Would he agree to bring forward the farm improvement loan bill as the first item of government business today, or early today, on the basis that the house would agree to an order that at the end of an hour all questions necessary to pass the legislation through all stages would be put? Possibly members of the creditiste party who opposed this suggestion last night might be prepared to accept it now.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of members who are not present in the house at the moment but who were advised yesterday that the farm legislation would not be called today. These were members who wanted to participate in the balance of the debate, and I think we could accept that members on both sides of the house wanted to be involved. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the house leaders of the other side
that we could substitute the farm bills for the post office bill that was announced for Tuesday. We would like to get several of these bills through, and we are prepared to offer to put them on next Tuesday rather than the announced post office legislation. This will also require some changes, but if the opposition house leaders agree we would be quite willing to call these bills for one more day.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development my question is addressed to the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur. In view of statements made on the C.B.C. national news last night by the president of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood that Indian affairs department reorganization will have the effect of more centralization in Ottawa, of separating economic from social programs, and of appointing a biologist as community development director, will the minister give an assurance to the house that he or his officials will consult with this Indian spokesman and others before giving effect to the reorganization?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the government has noted the representations made by Indian organizations on the reorganization program and has assured them that the government, as part of its review of all social development programs, will study all submissions made by Indian organizations and other interested parties. As a matter of fact the minister made this statement in the house last week in connection with an Indian-Eskimo proposal for a new development agency.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and ask him whether there are any plans to place the subject of constitutional jurisdiction with respect to Indian people upon the agenda for any federal-provincial constitutional conferences, that jurisdiction being now vested in the parliament of Canada.

October 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the general subject of the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments is on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right honourable Prime Minister and I hope that he will be in a position to answer it today.
Does he intend soon to comply with the request of retired civil servants who are asking for increased pensions out of the Public Service Alliance fund, as recommended by a parliamentary committee in the spring of 1967?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question was asked just a few days ago.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the question has not been answered, and if the right hon. Prime Minister cannot give a satisfactory reply today, I would ask that it be taken up at ten o'clock at the next opportunity.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, to avoid a discussion at ten o'clock, I must say that the question has been answered repeatedly. It was answered last week, and I myself stated that the matter was under consideration. Indeed, there has been an exchange of correspondence between the representatives of the civil servants and myself. I indicated that we were not in a position to grant those increases now but that we would consider it as soon as possible.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question and ask the right honourable Prime Minister whether he is aware that the request of the public servants follows the recommendation of the parliamentary committee. I am not asking that government funds be used but rather funds taken out of the public service fund.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the estimates of the Treasury Board are listed for

today perhaps the appropriate minister should be prepared to discuss this matter later today.



REPORTED REDUCTION IN U.S. IMPORTS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of a statement he has made and out of answers given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister advise the house as to the terms and conditions of the cut-back in exports of crude petroleum from Canada to the United States?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am replying now on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whom I replace today in the house, and in my own capacity.
The newspaper to which the hon. member refers, this morning's Globe and Mail, puts words in my mouth, as sometimes is the case with the best papers. I never used the word "quotas".
My hon. friend will remember that about a year ago I stood up in this house and gave an explanation about the kind of agreement we had entered into with the United States. At that time I referred to a "framework" of agreement. I never denied that some figures were contained in that, but I emphasized at that time, as I do today, that there were all kinds of qualifications, ifs and whens.. So much so, I said at the time and I repeat now, that it would not be useful to members to know what were the exact figures. As a matter of fact this is the way the agreement has evolved. Because of delays in the construction of capline some adjustments had to be made.
I repeated these points, I believe, to the newspaperman yesterday, but he quotes me this morning as having said "quotas", which I deny.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In spite of the reservations the minister has mentioned, is he prepared to advise the house and the country whether there has been, by agreement, a reduction in the exportation of crude petroleum from Canada to the United States, forgetting about quotas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friend knows that the export of oil to the United States is a very difficult subject. He has good informants in Calgary, who tell him that Canada has to be
October 11, 1968

careful not to upset United States markets. The government must take into account Canadian interests but also United States interests. And it is in our interests to take into account their interests.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I can put it very simply. Can the minister explain now to the house why we had a different answer from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last week with reference to this very matter, and why he is contradicting the other minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I read the answer given by my colleague and it was in accord with what I am saying now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming
argumentative.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Did
the government agree to limit exports of Canadian crude oil to the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said this was possible within the framework of the agreement. It would not be right for me to say yes or no, without qualification. I have never denied the possibility. I just repeated today that there were figures in the framework of the agreement, but I also said that these figures were qualified by a number of ifs and whens. That is quite clear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Instead of using so many ifs and ands, I wonder whether the minister could simply answer the question as to whether an agreement was made by the Canadian government to limit exports of Canadian crude oil.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This matter is now in the hands of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but when these arrangements were made I was trying to implement intelligently a policy devised by the Conservatives back in 1960.


Mr. Hees:: Does the minister realize that by his answer he is making Hon. Paul Martin look like a plain, blunt spoken man, and the essence of clarity?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Inquiries of the Ministry In his absence I had intended placing it before the Minister without Portfolio, but since he is absent also I shall direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister who perhaps will take it as notice and pass it on.
Yesterday I asked the minister whether the amount of $170 million which is to be made available by C.M.H.C. for new housing starts this year represented any additional funds for housing construction in 1968. The minister said there has been no increase in the capital budget this year, but that this does represent an increase in the expenditures for this year. Will the minister therefore inform the house whether, prior to this announcement, there was a planned underspending by the government for 1968 in this critical field?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can bring us up to date on a most important matter. Will he advise the house when it is anticipated that the question of jurisdiction, financing and the rail route to the new Roberts Bank development will be concluded with the government of British Columbia and the railway companies in order that construction can proceed as soon as possible to meet the contractual obligations made with Japanese companies?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could prevail on the hon. member and ask him to be here on the next sitting day, at which time the Minister of Transport will answer the question.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one the hon. member for Vancouver East directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the truancy record of the Minister of Transport, can the Prime Minister assure us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask a question which includes epithets. The question cannot be permitted on that ground. If the hon. member wants to ask a direct question he will be recognized.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East, the Prime

October 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister asked the hon. member to wait until Tuesday, when the Minister of Transport will be here. The Minister of Transport was here only once last week. All I am asking the Prime Minister is whether he can assure us that the Minister of Transport will in fact be here on Tuesday.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house that according to our arrangement, on days when matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport are raised there will be somebody in the house to answer the questions.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saini John-Lancasler):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I ask him the direct question; after one week's trial period of this system of planned attendance does he feel it is working in the way it was intended, and would he explain some of the advantages to the house which he outlined on October 4?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say that the Conservative party is even more conservative than we thought. We hope they will keep trying this novelty.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give assurance to the house that no crisis will arise within a department on days when that department is not represented by a minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided they are not engineered by the opposition.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport a question but, in his absence, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Some time ago, the C.N.R. management announced that passenger service at Victoria-ville would be discontinued completely. There was a general outcry among the population of that city of 23,500 inhabitants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must ask his question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport tell the house if the decision to discontinue passenger
[Mr. Nowlan.l
service starting next October 27 is final and irreversible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question should be put on the order paper.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'Homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Has the minister reached a decision regarding the date on which the budget will be brought down?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to bring in the budget on October 22. In anticipation of that I will be tabling the white paper the middle of next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to his announcement that the budget will be brought down on October 22. Since that is a Tuesday, and since Tuesday is his day off, will he be here when the budget is presented?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is most likely I will be here.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the day there will be a crisis.



AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce the appointment of the new president of Air Canada.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Would the Prime Minister consider appointing Mr. Maclsaac and Mr. Anderson to the Senate to clear the way for a non-political appointment for this position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
October 11, 1968



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but I do not see him here today. I thought the understanding was that his parliamentary secretary would be here to answer questions, but apparently he is not here either, so I will have to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the delay on the part of the Canadian Transportation Commission, in that its railway transport committee has failed to rule as yet on the application of the Canadian railway labour executive, which made representations in January of this year in respect of a general order on the matter of health and sanitation as they relate to railway employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this is a general question of the type hon. members should put on the order paper.


Mr. Thomas (Monclon):: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian railway labour executive is meeting this day in Ottawa, and they have stated they have tried to get this answer from the government and have requested me to attempt to get an answer in the house.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicate whether the federal-provincial conference on consumer affairs will be open to the public or, failing that, to members of this house?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial conference called for October 28 is a meeting of federal and provincial officials. In line with the usual practice, this will be a closed meeting.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Would the minister tell the house whether a decision has been reached in respect of setting up a committee on consumer affairs, since the standing committees of the house have now been constituted?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the house what committee of the house will deal with the important matters that come under his jurisdiction?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that is really a question for the house leader. I believe it is going to be the economic and social committee.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister have the white paper on prices and costs, which he promised on September 13, brought down in time for this meeting?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The white paper is not ready yet, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will he now tell the house when the special consumers' council will be set up? He has been putting off this question since the house opened.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member meant to refer to the council by its correct name, which is the consumer advisory council. I have been saying that I hoped to appoint it shortly, and I meant that. I hoped to appoint it far earlier. My problem is that there are about 200 people in Canada who would make a tremendous contribution to the council and I am having some difficulty in reducing this number to manageable proportions.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. After establishing the consumer advisory council will the minister refer to it the subject matter of price increases of automobiles, repair parts and safety devices in automobiles?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the consumer advisory council is an advisory council independent of the minister and the department. The work it will do is really a matter for decision by the chairman and the members of his council. I am not in a position to direct it to do any work.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That being so, could the minister say whether he has referred or will refer this subject matter to anyone?

October 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very lively concern to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to my department and to the government as a whole.


Winona Grace MacInnis: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If we are not to have a standing committee of this house to which to refer consumer affairs, will the minister see that either a special committee of this house is set up or a joint committee of the house and the other place, such as the one we had before; because there should be somewhere to which we can refer consumer matters.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question previously. I have said that the matter is under consideration. This is also related to the statements that I and the Prime Minister have been making about publishing a white paper on the question of costs. The two questions are related.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman can now answer the question asked previously, as to whether the post office bill will be referred to the appropriate committee so that all concerned can make representations.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the representations that could be made before a committee would have changed from what they have been in recent years. I have met with all interested groups in the past several weeks. I think the bill will stay in the house and in committee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I am wondering whether the right hon. gentleman has had a chance to study the speech made by his distinguished predecessor at York University, to the effect that an end of the military operations in Ni-geria-Biafra was of prime importance; and as

a result, is the government considering any fresh initiatives in this regard?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the committee discussing this matter met until one o'clock this morning. We are awaiting any opinions or advice which might issue from that committee.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Another crime slaying has been reported from Montreal. Is the right hon. gentleman now prepared to take this matter seriously and co-operate with the attorneys general-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable in this form.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the answer to my recent question to the Prime Minister, could he tell us whether it is his intention soon to review officially the 1927 decision concerning the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland as to the ownership of Labrador? Could he make a statement now?



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the acting minister of justice or the acting minister of Indian affairs, whichever one would desire to answer it.
My question relates to a Nova Scotia by law which states that no negro or coloured person, nor any Indian, shall be buried in St. Croix cemetery.
A situation arose not long ago in which a child of non-caucasian descent was denied burial there. I wonder whether either of these gentlemen would take a look at this situation in the light of the bill of rights and in the name of equality and humanitarianism, to see whether this is a valid bylaw which should remain in existence.
October 11, 19G8	COMMONS


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of this question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would he indicate which provinces have now stated their intention to participate in federal medicare by March 31, 1969?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will have to take notice of the question. I do not have the information in my mind.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister, when looking up this information, determine whether the $35 million in the revised estimates includes the cost which will apply to all the provinces which have indicated their desire to enter medicare by that date?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question. The $35 million in the revised estimates is the amount which is expected to be spent in the current fiscal year on medicare.


Jay Waldo Monteith: With all the anticipated provinces in the program?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which I can fully support by Your Honour's rulings throughout the last session of parliament, under which I and other members of the house were not permitted to ask questions of ministers which did not pertain to their own departments. In view of the fact that I and other hon. members were refused permission to do this, it should naturally follow that no minister should be permitted to answer questions which do not pertain to his own department.
DEBATES	1089
Inquiries of the Ministry
The system introduced by the Prime Minister has thrown that all out of whack. For example, when the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question which was directed to the Minister of Transport, he was informed by the Prime Minister he would have to wait for an answer until the minister's return to the house, which will not be before Tuesday.
The situation in which an urgent question is asked and we are told by the Prime Minister that an answer will not be forthcoming sometimes as late as five days hence is making mockery of parliament. It is also a mockery of parliament that today we have in the house only eight ministers out of twenty nine.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald MacInnis: Matters of great importance are sometimes raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly state his point of order.


An hon. Member:: How many members do you have on your front benches?


Donald MacInnis: With the Liberal side acting up again I did not hear your remark, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the would-be leader from British Columbia, wants to take the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member should state his point of order, on which I will give a ruling.


Donald MacInnis: My ruling, sir, goes back-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: It might not be a bad idea if I did give a ruling. My point of order is substantiated by the rulings of the Chair throughout the last few sessions of parliament, when hon. members were not allowed to ask questions of a minister unless those questions pertained to the department of the minister to whom the question was directed. Mockery has been made of that practice by the Prime Minister. It is time we had a definite ruling from the Chair, and it is time the Prime Minister was told how parliament should operate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no difficulty in making a ruling on the point raised by the hon. member. If he will remember the circumstances to which he referred, it was the hon. member himself who, along with other hon. members,

October 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry attempted to ask questions of ministers in their capacity as alleged ministers for a province, and I suggested that questions could be asked of a minister only in his own purview. What is being suggested now is that questions be asked of acting ministers. This has always been accepted in the 100 years of Canadian parliamentary procedure, and from a procedural standpoint I see no difficulty in accepting that proposition.


Donald MacInnis: May I say, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that I do recall a ruling with regard to asking questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made my ruling. The hon. member may not agree with it, but I am afraid he has to accept it.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege will come up later.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I must ask this question of the right hon. Prime Minister because today is not the day for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be here, and this is a matter which I suggest cannot be delayed until Tuesday. It arises out of a report that the Hercules planes which the Canadian government is now making available are to fly only from Lagos in Nigeria and not from any other base from which relief might be flown into the areas of suffering; that is, they are to fly only between Lagos and Enugu, both of which are in the federal military government occupied area. My question to the Prime Minister is whether this is the condition under which the Hercules planes will be available to the International Red Cross, and whether that condition was laid down by the Nigerian authorities.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have seen such a report, Mr. Speaker, but apparently it is a news report from a source which we have not been able to verify. It does not correspond to the facts as we see them.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question. As the right hon. gentleman knows, this report allegedly comes from the international committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. May I ask the Prime Minister if he knows whether

the Department of External Affairs is making direct inquiries to ascertain whether those limitations are to apply with regard to our aircraft.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had notice of this report yesterday through the ordinary news wire. We are continuing to make the arrangements, about which we told the house yesterday, to organize flights from Fernando Po to the rebellious parts of Nigeria. Consideration is being given to the possibility of making these flights with the greatest safety. We are not affected by this report, and it is not our understanding that this is the way in which the arrangements will be made.


Mr. Forrestall:: I wonder if they are not rebels with cause.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: The
Prime Minister referred to flights from Fernando Po. Did he intend to exclude from the arrangements flights from San Tome, the Portuguese island?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I was simply indicating that now that we have the agreement of the Lagos government that flights by our aircraft under the authority of the International Red Cross will not be considered a hostile act, we are placing our aircraft at the disposal of the International Red Cross so that that organization can fly these planes as best they see fit.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: have a question for the Postmaster General, based on reports that post offices are being flooded with third class mail from companies trying to avoid the government's rate increases. Can he tell the house what measures his department is taking to prevent possible consequent delays in the deliveries of other classes of mail as a result of these floods?


Eric William Kierans: I do not believe that poses any particular problem. There is a great deal of third class mail going through, as there will be until November 1. I imagine it is normal for such companies to try to avoid cost increases, but so far this has caused no deterioration in the delivery of other mail.
October 11, 1988	COMMONS



CANCELLATION OF ORGANIZATION MEETINGS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, through you I desire to direct a most important question to the President of the Privy Council. Since it is his day off from orders of the day I therefore direct my question to whoever can speak for the President of the Privy Council today, or to the Prime Minister. In view of the expressed desire of the Prime Minister that the standing committees be organized and assume responsibility, can whoever may now speak for the government inform members why this morning we were informed that by order of the President of the Privy Council all organization meetings of standing committees of this house called for next Tuesday have been cancelled? I know you realize the importance of this particular question, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will allow an answer to be given.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps while the matter is being considered-


Donald MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. While the cabinet is considering the answer, could we have this time deducted from the time allotted for questions?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of serious financial losses of western farmers because of the loss of markets, frost, rain and low quotas, will the minister consider re-establishing the emergency legislation concerning acreage payments?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is a possible or a potential serious loss to the farmers of western Canada, but I think the hon. member will realize that until the harvest season is completed it would be difficult to ascertain what the loss will be. There are several days, perhaps even weeks, left this fall when much of this harvesting could be done, providing the weather turns better. I feel it would be premature, therefore, to give this kind of consideration when we don't know what the harvest will be. I should advise the hon.
DEBATES	1091
Inquiries of the Ministry member that the latest revised estimate by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates the crop will be around 628 million bushels, which is a very good crop for western Canada.


Mr. John Burion (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, is the government carrying on consultations with the provinces and other interested parties to consider measures to alleviate the serious income problem now facing the prairie farmers and also to counteract the deteriorating crop conditions which are getting worse by the day?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are doing more than that, Mr. Speaker. We have introduced legislation to increase by 100 per cent the cash advances on farm stored grain in western Canada. We hope the house will be disposed to approve this measure quickly so we can make it available to the farmers.


John Stratford Burton: Will the minister consider making representations to the house leader to give this legislation a higher priority on the list of house business?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am wearing two hats today, one as Minister of Agriculture and the other one as acting house leader. We have already suggested, and I thank the Postmaster General for his agreement, calling this farm legislation for one more day, namely next Tuesday. We would be prepared to call Bill No. C-lll first, followed by Bill No. C-110, followed by Bill No. C-113, followed by Bill No. C-112. We should hope the house would give us authority to proceed with the provisions contained in those bills.


Richard Russell Southam: May I ask a supplementary question to my earlier question concerning cash advances? Does the minister not realize that the provisions concerning cash advances are going to limit the amount of money available to the small farmer because of a lack of quota?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I realize it is going to double the amount of money available for every type of grain, wheat, oats and barley. As soon as this legislation is approved, cash advances will be increased 100 per cent.


John Stratford Burton: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister consider calling the bill concerning cash advances immediately after consideration has been completed of the Farm Improvement Loans Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Corporation

October 11, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry bill and the cash advances measure are all vital pieces of legislation. We certainly do not want to be in a position where we have to cease operation of the Farm Credit Corporation because the capitalization is not sufficiently large for that corporation to continue.



CORN-INQUIRY AS TO STABILIZATION OF MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact I have been informed that the price of Canadian corn fell another 4 cents a bushel yesterday. When is it expected that the government policies indicated by the minister might have some effect on stabilizing this market?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we were extremely anxious that action be taken to restore some stability to the com market both in Canada and the United States, because as my hon. friend knows one is related to the other. I had some very useful conversations with Secretary Freeman of the United States department of agriculture. These have been followed by meetings in Washington between senior officials of the Canadian and United States government.
A press release was issued at six o'clock last night by my department and by the United States department. While no specific action has been agreed on at this point I think it is useful to know and, indeed, significant that the United States has agreed that it is urgently necessary to consider the several proposals placed before the meetings in order to find ways and means that are to our common advantage in stabilizing this market situation.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether his departmental officials feel, after meeting with their counterparts in Washington, that a decision can be expected from Washington before the change in administration?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope a decision will be made sooner than that. I am sure my hon. friend is aware of the very, very complex background to our international agreements. I do not think it would be useful or beneficial to our corn producers if we were to speculate on the proposals that are under consideration, since if we were to do that the meetings might be frustrated.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, but in his absence I will direct it to whoever will take it. In view of his announcement last night that various projects are planned to boost the Newfoundland lumbering industry by conditionally approving public measures to aid developments in Happy Valley and Stephen-ville, can the house be informed what these conditions are before approval can be given?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order, please. The house again in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote 1 will be found at page 188 of the blue book, with the details listed at page 189.



GOVERNOR GENERAL AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS

[Stage Direction]
(The following items were agreed to:)
I. Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, $685,400.
Item agreed to.
5. To authorize reimbursements to the Lieutenant-Governors of the Provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as detailed in the Estimates, $145,000.
Item agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: That disposes of the estimates of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors. We shall now proceed to the estimates of the privy council for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, vote 1, to be found at page 380 of the blue book.



PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
Item 1:
1. Maintenance and Operation of the Prime Minister's Residence, $40,300.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one or two comments. The first is with
October 11, 1968

regard to the position taken by government and by the Prime Minister in particular in connection with the constitutional difficulties which the country has been experiencing. Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister if he did not think it was now time to establish in this parliament a parliamentary committee to examine the problems in connection with our constitutional position and the changes that are proposed so that we could all be brought into the picture. The Prime Minister made a slick, glib reply and suggested that the opposition parties had not made up their minds. That is no so. Our position has been made clear, but that is beside the point. For far too long the government and the Prime Minister have taken the arrogant and secretive position that constitutional changes are too precious to be entrusted to any but those who are hidden in the bureaucratic recesses of the government.
The people of this country are entitled to know what proposals are to be made. They are entitled to participate in debate through their elected representatives in this chamber. The prime minister of Quebec recently grappled with this problem and saw fit to disclose publicly the proposals which had been discussed in the constitutional committee of that province. We may or may not agree with those changes. Yet nothing, I submit, is more important to the people of this country than the opportunity to decide whether certain areas of responsibility shall be left with the federal or provincial governments.
I suggest to the government it is time it stopped hiding behind the barricade it has erected. It is time to bring the people of Canada into the picture. It is time to turn this matter into a national debate. The people of Canada are entitled to have some say and we are entitled to have some say on their behalf.
I submit that the Prime Minister cannot long delay. I know he has a majority and can deny our request. I suggest to him, nevertheless, that authority and majorities ought to be used with great circumspection. It is high time a committee of this parliament was established so that we might air in public all areas and all problems associated with this matter. I know that when it comes to working out details we shall require legal and economic experts. I submit this is far too important an issue to be left bottled up. I suggest that the Prime Minister should seriously consider revising his opinion, climb off his high horse and bring this matter before parliament where it should have been long ago.
Supply-Privy Council


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the item carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might have some direction. I do not know whether under this vote I may discuss the matter of royal commissions or whether I ought to wait for another occasion.


James Hugh Faulkner: I think it would be appropriate to deal with that matter under this item.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Frank Howard: My remarks will be relatively brief. I suppose that at some time in the past royal commissions served a valuable purpose, but in the last 10 or 15 years they have been considered to be commissions appointed for the purpose of sidetracking complex, controversial or difficult problems. Some of them are spending many years on their deliberations and coming up with worth-while suggestions and recommendations which, because of the political climate and the feeling of the government at the time the report is made, tend to be sidetracked. Neither I nor anyone else apart from the minister knows the extent to which the report of the Carter commission on taxation will be reflected in the budget, but if the present Minister of Finance holds views similar to those of his predecessor the findings of the Carter commission will remain inoperative and the commission will have proved to be a complete waste of the taxpayers money. It will have served no purpose whatever except as a subject of academic conversation.
I turn now to the request in these estimates for $668,000 for the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. I look upon this vote as being a further waste of money in addition to the $5 million or $6 million which has already been spent on this commission. This commission was appointed in the first instance as a result of a particular political party seeking to gain a political advantage in one of our provinces, namely, the province of Quebec. I do not want any of my remarks to be considered as anti-Quebec or anti-French speaking or anything of that sort, but I believe it is a political fact of life that before the federal elections of 1962 and 1963 the Liberal party was groping desperately for something which would appeal to the electorate in the province of Quebec and finally conceived the idea of a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. The origin was political. As a matter of fact, as I said earlier in this house, I fail to see how there
10S4

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council can be such a thing as a bicultural situation. A person is a part of a culture, or he is not; it is not capable of division within an individual. The question of linguistic ability is something else.
The commission's latest report has in my submission invaded the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces when it deals with the subject of education. To my mind this commission represents money wrongly spent, taxpayers' money spent on a royal commission which does nothing more than make recommendations concerning what the provinces should do in a field over which they have clear constitutional jurisdiction, namely, that of education. This jurisdiction is defended with great vigour by the very province which seems to have the greatest interest in the subjects placed before the commission. If anyone at the federal level were to say that Quebec should do certain things in connection with education it would immediately result in a reaction from the various authorities in Quebec who resent intrusion into this particular field. Yet we have spent millions of dollars on a royal commission whose recommendations infringe the jurisdiction over education which many provinces guard so jealously.
I shall not resort to the formality of voting against this item in the estimates when it is called. I read in the newspapers not long ago accounts of steady requests from this royal commission for an extension of time to permit it to continue its studies. I understand that these requests have so far been granted. But I think we should now tell the commission: Make your final report; we are giving you no more money; six or seven million dollars is sufficient for the study you were charged to make. Then we should let the matter rest, because in my opinion we are pouring money down the drain at this stage.
As I say, I shall not vote against the item, because there are a number of other expenditures included in it. I simply wish to express my disagreement with proposals to spend additional sums of money on a royal commission which so far has not made any suggestion that has been generally accepted, other than to say it is in favour of intrusion upon provincial jurisdiction relating to education.
It is possible to argue as to the value of other royal commissions, whether anything worth while comes of them. I simply wish to express the feeling that when the government appoints a royal commission it is in my view admitting, first of all, its inability to cope

with a particular problem and, second, that the vast resources of our public service, with all the scientists and experts it contains, are likewise insufficient to produce an answer. It seems to me we should not perpetuate a system whereby we spend millions of dollars upon what we consider to be the best professional minds available to us in Canada, and then say to them when we are faced with a knotty problem: We do not consider you are competent to deal with this matter; we shall set up some other group to cope with it. Generally speaking, money spent for this purpose is money wasted. Why cannot we employ the good minds which are available to us within the public service to find an answer to these questions rather than appoint royal commissions which in many cases come to nought and merely represent a source of additional expenditure? If the government is really serious about curtailing public expenditure I suggest this is one area in which it could exercise common sense and halt the squandering of the taxpayers' money.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a few moments on the subject of ministers who are not available during the question period to answer questions raised by members on the opposition side of the house.
We all know that questions asked during the question period must be of immediate consequence and of national importance. If you look at the schedule, Mr. Chairman, outlining the days when ministers are supposed to be in the house to answer questions, you will find that the third minister on the list is the Secretary of State for External Affairs who holds about the most important portfolio of all. You will see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is required to be in the house only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. This means he is absent on Mondays and Fridays.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Matters that come up that fall under his jurisdiction are matters of great national and international importance. They are immediate questions, questions that require an answer right away. If today a question arises and it is immediate, as it must be to be recognized by the Chair, and it is asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs today it cannot be answered until five days later, next Tuesday. That shows how ridiculous this whole system is because by next Tuesday that question will be as dead as yesterday's newspapers.
October 11, 1968



Another matter that shows how ridiculous this whole system is is the fact that it is supposed to save ministers from the wear and tear of parliamentary duty.


Thomas Miller Bell: They are afraid.


George Harris Hees: Of course they are afraid, but the theory the Prime Minister has put forward is that ministers should be saved from the wear and tear of parliamentary duties so that they can devote more time to parliamentary committees, cabinet committees or some other kind of work. But everybody knows that in any country the man upon whom the great responsibility falls is the Prime Minister. He is the one who has to make the decisions. Of all the members of the cabinet, if anybody is to be saved for decision making and relieved of the wear and tear of daily parliamentary life, if that is necessary-and this Prime Minister seems to think it is for his cabinet-the Prime Minister is the one man who should be preserved for more decision making, thinking and planning and not put through the daily wringer of the House of Commons. But the Prime Minister is the one who has decided that he will be here all day each day and he, because his ministers are absent a great deal of the time, will have to do a lot of answering for them because they are not here to do the answering for themselves.
Anybody who has been in government will recognize that for a minister to be in the house every day is the best thing in the world for him. Knowing that he is going to be subjected to questions each day requires him to be far sharper, far more on the job, far more alert to anything that may be going wrong with his department or with matters under his jurisdiction. If he knows he has to be in his place each day in the House of Commons and answer all manner of questions about matters under his jurisdiction then he is going to be far better informed day by day on the things he should know about for the good of the country.
So, Mr. Chairman, this whole plan is wrong from start to finish. It saves the wrong people. It overtires the man who should be saved the most, the Prime Minister. It provides for the absence for five days in a row, from Thursday until the following Tuesday, of the most important minister in the cabinet next to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Any question that is asked of him must be of great importance. It is of national and international importance, but by the time that five days have rolled
Supply-Privy Council around the question is of no importance whatsoever.
Once again, we in the opposition ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the decision he has made to bring about this change, not because we want to be small about this matter or dictate to the government how it shall operate but simply because we have been through the same procedure that the present ministers go through each day. We have been a government. We who were ministers know what it is like to answer questions. We know whether it is a good or a bad thing for a minister to be in the house each day to answer the questions put to him. We know, and ministers across the aisle know perfectly well, that it is a good thing for them to be in the house each day knowing they have to be prepared to answer immediately any question that is put to them about matters under their jurisdiction.
Therefore, once again on behalf of our party and on behalf of the opposition I appeal to the Prime Minister through the government house leader, who is in the chamber, to reconsider this plan because we think it will be for the benefit of the better functioning of parliament and the better running of the affairs of this country if these ministers are available in the house each day instead of being absent, as so many of them are each day because of this rather ramshackle, hit or miss plan that has been thrown at the House of Commons with very little consideration by the Prime Minister. We ask the Prime Minister to be a big enough man to say: We tried it; we do not think it is good and we will go back to the former method of making ministers available in the house at all times.
To the newer ministers in the government I can say they will find out as time goes along that there is only one thing worse than being asked a lot of difficult questions each day and that is not being asked any questions at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, I must say it is very useful that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has taken the opportunity to comment on this matter, not because of the argument he makes but because of some of the misconceptions demonstrated in the point of view he is taking. It is not without significance that he should have referred in particular to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and should have advanced the proposition that willy-nilly, come what may, whatever the



COMOMNS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council arrangements, five days a week the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be in the House of Commons during the question period to answer questions. We should pause and reflect on this attitude of the hon. member.
In the first place, in the state of modern diplomacy, in the state of the many responsibilities of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it has been traditional during the government of which the hon. member was a member, during the government that preceded this one and now during the present government, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be absent from the House of Commons for long periods of time, not absent because of any lack of respect for the house or lack of concern about his responsibilities in the house but absent because the proper discharge of his office requires that he be absent. For example, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just returned from participating in the general debate at the United Nations General Assembly. That has been the custom over the years. Having participated myself in a general assembly session I know of what value it is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and for the foreign ministers of other nations to attend the general debate, to participate in it, and to have the opportunity it provides to discuss current trends in international relations with the representatives of other nations.
But the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings would not have this. He says that external affairs is the second most important portfolio and that the minister should be here come what may. I must say I would disagree with this.
George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I never said at any time that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be here come what may. I obviously said that he should be here if he is in Ottawa, not at the United Nations or at some other foreign conference where of course he has to be present. All secretaries of state for external affairs have always attended these conferences and we have wanted them to attend. I simply say that if he is here in Ottawa he should be here in the House of Commons, not in his office. He cannot be here if he has official duties in New York or some other foreign capital. Don't be stupid and make a statement like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am glad the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has recognized-


George Harris Hees: Stupidity annoys me very much indeed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that while we find that quality in him we have always found it to be charming.


George Harris Hees: You just do not have the knack of being funny.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You seem to be the only one who thinks so. I think it is interesting that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings speaks almost better from his seat than on his feet. I am glad the hon. member has clarified the situation because it was clear from his previous remarks that he insisted the minister should be in the house. I am glad that at least he has clarified his party's position from this standpoint.
There are two things about the proposal before the house which I should like to emphasize. First, we are not talking so much about the importance of individual ministers being available here during the question period as we are of the importance of having them answerable on certain days in the house for their departmental and functional responsibilities. Second this system has been in vogue in the British House of Commons at Westminster for very many years. The system we are proposing provides a much better opportunity than does the British system for the questioning of ministers. It has been suggested that this system is undemocratic and is not in the interests of effective parliamentary democracy. All I can say is that if that criticism is justified then it must apply a fortiori to the British system.
We feel that an appearance three times a week by a minister to answer questions on matters concerning his departmental and functional responsibilities gives a first class opportunity to members to raise questions within the limits of the minister's responsibilities.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings referred to the fact that many ministers sit through entire days without being asked a question. The question this automatically raises is whether this is really the best employment of a minister's time, that is, to have a minister sit here for up to an hour, after having had to prepare for the event,
October 11, 1968

just so that he will be present if someone wishes to ask a question not perhaps for the purpose of seeking information but rather for the purpose of tendering information, especially when, as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings indicates, the questions are very often ruled out of order.
I think ministers have a responsibility in respect of answering questions in the house but I also believe that ministers should also have an opportunity to attend meetings of cabinet committees and to deal with other departmental matters during some of this time. In this regard a conflict occurs in the parliamentary system because ministers are required not only to be executives but also to bear their responsibility as members of parliament and be present in this house. It would seem to me that the system we are putting forward is the only way under a modern and effective system of government that we can assure that there is an opportunity for parliamentary questioning and also an opportunity for the ministers to engage in their departmental responsibilities.
I have made reference to the British system. There seems to be some considerable misconception about it. It might be useful if I were to address a few remarks to the house on this point. First of all, the British system requires that questions not be asked, as the vast majority of questions during our question period are asked, without advance notice to the responsible minister. It requires that written notice of the question be given to the table. It reserves to the table, or to the clerk of the house, the responsibility to decide whether or not the question is in order. Apart altogether from the question of order it reserves to the decision of the Chair whether or not a particular question should be accepted at the time just from the standpoint of the sheer volume of questions coming forward.
In the United Kingdom parliament-and I do not think it is an undemocratic institution-the ministers are not required by the rules of that house to be in the house every day five days of the week. Rather, a roster is established whereby in practice a minister may be questioned in the house perhaps only once every three weeks or so. If I may use the Canadian ministries as an illustration, the situation there is that the roster would call for, first, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, second, the Minister of Finance and, third, the Minister of Agriculture. In the British system all outstanding questions of which notice had been given to the secretary of state
Supply-Privy Council for external affairs would be called and spontaneous supplementary questions would be allowed at that time. The effect, therefore, under the British system of government would be that a question after it has been accepted by the Chair might not be responded to for as much as three weeks after having been put forward.
I believe it can be fairly said that in an attempt to provide at the same time an opportunity for a minister to take care of the heavy demands on his time and an opportunity for members to pose questions in the house, the proposed arrangement is very reasonable. Hon. members are not being asked to do what I understand was the practice at one time in this house, that is, give advance written notice, even the courtesy of advance written notice as little as an hour beforehand. Members may ask questions without any notice at all to the minister. They may direct a question on three days of the week either to the minister directly responsible for a particular department or to the acting minister. If the purpose of the question really is to seek information, then surely it obviously is better that the minister be given at least the courtesy of an hour's notice of the subject involved in the question which the hon. member proposes to ask him.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister allow me to ask a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


George Harris Hees: Does he think for one moment that during the six years we were in power either Mr. Pearson, Mr. Martin, Mr. Chevrier or Mr. Pickersgill ever gave any minister notice? I can assure him they did not.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I see. Well it seems to me that that only brings forth the observation that two wrongs do not make a right.


George Harris Hees: Then for heaven's sake stop preaching to the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have difficulty preaching to the hon. member. I wish he would open his ears as freely as he opens his mouth.


George Harris Hees: I am opening my ears but I simply object to a lot of the nonsense you are uttering.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not trying to provoke the hon. member and I am sure he is not trying to provoke me. I hear some very

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council useful advice from the hon. member for Saint J ohn-Lancaster.


George Harris Hees: You had better stick to the straight line. You are not funny.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is obvious that in our parliamentary system we must make some adjustment because of the fact that there is now more business to be dealt with and the matters to be dealt with are of increasing complexity. I think it is important to recognize that the parliamentary institution which we have inherited has grown and evolved over the years. It will continue to evolve and grow but we hope to find on the other side of the house a greater receptiveness to this kind of parliamentary change instead of the negativism that would indicate that, because things have not been done this way in the past, no changes should be made.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, now that this subject has been opened again I should like to make a few comments. I agree with the President of the Privy Council that it would be ridiculous to insist that every minister be in his place in the house every day of the session. There are people like the Secretary of State for External Affairs who occasionally have to be away for a day at a time and sometimes for a week at a time. In fact, this is true of all the ministers of the cabinet. There are times when their absence is imperative either because of an important engagement in some other part of the country or elsewhere or because of illness. We recognize the fact that to have 100 per cent attendance on the part of cabinet members every day is impossible.
What we think complicates the situation is that the Prime Minister, on top of these absences that take place naturally, has imposed what seems to be a requirement or an order that on certain days certain ministers shall stay out of the house, whether or not they have to be somewhere else. We have already experienced the situation where ministers, according to the roster, are not supposed to be here for the question period and they come in afterwards. I do not know where the President of the Privy Council was this morning. He was not here during the question period but he came in afterwards.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What would you say if I told you I was at a cabinet committee meeting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
that the answer for the 18 or so ministers who were absent this morning? Were they all at the same cabinet meeting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member's observation perhaps I should state that while I am not at liberty to say who was at the committee meeting there was a cabinet committee meeting this morning and a substantial number of my colleagues were at that meeting. I think it is appropriate that we have such meetings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope the President of the Privy Council will not have his knuckles rapped for having made a cabinet leak, but I can tell him that I regard this as a legitimate reason for a minister being absent. It is legitimate for ministers to be absent when some emergency arises and a cabinet committee meeting takes place. It is precisely because there are so many of these legitimate reasons-appointments at the United Nations and throughout the country, and cabinet meetings, or because of illness-that I think it is unfair to the house to say that over and above these there are certain days on which certain ministers will not be here because of the roster.
The second comment I should like to make is this. The Prime Minister assured us when he announced this system in the first place that it was not his intention to impose upon us a notice requirement any more stringent than now prevails. Of course, there is no notice requirement at all. At any rate, this was the assurance. Later on when this issue became a rather warm one we were assured again there would always be someone in the house for each department. We were assured that the minister, the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary would be here to answer questions. Failing that we were told the Prime Minister would be here. In this way we could get an answer of sorts on any day.
This situation seems to have changed. This morning the Prime Minister told one or two members to be here on Tuesday or Wednesday to ask their questions at that time. In other words, we are being shoehorned into a system under which we must ask questions about certain departments on certain days whether or not there is an emergency.
The whole effect of this is a weakening of the question period, making it less important and cooling it off. I think this is bad for parliament. Sometimes we do not get as much
October 11, 1968

information during the question period as we would like but the question period is, I submit quite frankly, not just a time for asking and receiving information. It is a time of straight political warfare. I see nothing wrong with it. I think it is part of the parliamentary process. It is an opportunity for the opposition to keep the government on its toes. The question period is one opportunity we have to do this.
It is my submission that if the government continues as it did this morning, and this takes place every Friday, we will have trouble keeping the opposition members here. They will ask: What is the use of being here on Friday? I think this is a serious attempt to make the question period much less effective and less important. I believe the government is doing a disservice to parliament because of this course which is being followed.
Every time this discussion about the question period is raised someone tells us how this is handled at Westminster. The President of the Privy Council was not ploughing new ground when he did this today. It was interesting last February that there was almost a unanimous feeling on the part of the members who visited Westminster that Westminster had much to teach us, but not in this area. When members of this house went over there and saw how their question period operated they said: This is not for us. Some of the members of that committee are in the house at this time and I am sure they agree with me.
The other point I want to make is that you just cannot compare the two systems, because they are completely different. The minister suggests that over there written notice has to be given in respect of every question. This is 99 per cent true, but there are such things as very urgent and "super-urgent" questions which the front benchers on the opposition side can ask. But for the most part questions are put on the order paper. In addition, there is roughly an hour every day which is virtually an hour of debate or political warfare.
The minister says that on most days only one minister will be answering questions. That is true, although on some days there can be two or three. We all know what happens here. The parliamentary secretary gets up and says questions numbered so and so are answered. Over there the minister gets up and goes to the dispatch box to answer questions. After each answer there may be six or eight supplementary questions and a debate
Supply-Privy Council
of the kind we have here on orders of the day.
What bothers me is that ministers like the President of the Privy Council want to adopt the aspect of the British system which requires that notice be given of questions but do not seem to want to adopt the practice of having the discussion period which they have over there. I think it is quite unfair to make this kind of a comparison. Even with the liveliness when the Prime Minister was on the griddle we felt there was something lacking because members were not able to put questions to other ministers.
Let me remind you that the responsibilities of the United Kingdom house are much broader than ours. We sometimes refer to the fact that theirs is a unitary system of government while ours is a two level system. They have what amounts to three levels in one. They are dealing with matters that we deal with federally, provincially and municipally. These matters are all dealt with on the floor of that parliament. On top of this they have their debates on adjournment motions. There are all sorts of opportunities for venting grievances and airing things that bother them.
If I felt this government was trying to move in the direction of creating more opportunities for legitimate political warfare, such as is involved in the question period, I would go along with it. I am thoroughly convinced that the government is not trying to move in that direction but is trying to move in the direction of cooling off the question period. If we have many more mornings like today with only six or eight cabinet ministers here we will have fewer members on the back benches and Friday will be a worse day than it is now.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, speaking of questions, my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East asked a question this morning in the absence of the President of the Privy Council, who we now learn was at a very important cabinet committee meeting, about the announcement that all the organization meetings of committees slated for Tuesday have been cancelled, not just this one or that one but the whole works. I am told the external affairs committee will still meet on Tuesday morning, but all the organization meetings of committees on Tuesday have been cancelled.

October 11. 1968
Supply-Privy Council
This was of concern to my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East, who prefaced his question by referring to the importance being attached to committees and getting them going and asked, therefore, why the organization meetings have been cancelled. I have a suspicion as to why they are being cancelled for Tuesday. Monday is a holiday and the fear is that there will not be as many members here on Tuesday morning as there would be on a normal Tuesday morning and therefore we might just as well not hold the meetings.
I mention this in the same vein as when I talked about the downgrading of the question period. We have enough trouble as it is getting members to be here. We all live in glass houses in this respect; all parties in the house have this trouble. Therefore, let no one try to throw stones, because he is in the same trouble himself.
I submit that this downgrading of the question period will add to the problem of house attendance, and I hope the government will consider my suggestion. I still feel that it was rather strange that this system should have been started the very day after we had agreed to set up a committee to study the rules and procedures of the house. The Prime Minister rose and unilaterally announced this change and we just had to take it, whether we liked it or not. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do not like it, mainly because we think it is doing damage to parliament.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been useful in this regard, as it generally is on procedural questions, because it opens up a number of avenues for further consideration of this question. Also, I think it perhaps sheds just a ray of light on the solution to the problem of the question period.
The hon. member conceded that it was entirely legitimate that I and other colleagues, who shall remain nameless, who were members of a particular cabinet committee should have been absent from the house this morning. From that concession there seems to flow a further logical principle. Given the fact that the governor general in council, that is, the executive of this country, is required by our system of government to make a very large number of decisions, many more than can be handled in one or two cabinet meetings a week outside of the ordinary business of the house, it is inevitable that there will be more than one committee

meeting that will conflict with the sittings of the house. I think it follows equally logically that if there is this great volume of business coming forward at cabinet committee meetings, they should be scheduled so that ministers can engage in the executive work which must necessarily be performed by the cabinet. As the hon. member said, if there is legitimacy in one particular case of having such a meeting, there is legitimacy in establishing over the period of a whole week a framework of cabinet committee meetings so executive decisions can be made and the work dealt with on a regular and systematic basis.
The hon. member said that parliament as a whole will decline if the question period is downgraded. I think he may have made that remark for rhetorical effect. I believe that parliament is very much more than the question period. I am very much intrigued by his reference to the practice followed in Great Britain as a lively hour. Questions appear on the British House of Commons order paper and those requiring oral answers are called by prearrangement for the minister responsible to answer them in the house. Apparently an hour is taken up with this procedure. I think this might be a practice to be followed in our house. I believe there is merit in what the hon. member said.
I refer to one of our current rules which it seems to me has become a dead letter. I am talking about the institution of starred questions in this house. I put this suggestion forward for the consideration of hon. members opposite and perhaps we will at a later date have an opportunity to discuss it. I think it would be advisable to adapt the starred question procedure in such a way that we would have the opportunity not only of advance notice of starred questions, which come not only to the attention of the minister and the department but of all hon. members and of whoever may be watching us in the house, but also an opportunity for the minister to give a prepared reply. Then there would be further opportunities for hon. members generally, but particularly the initial questioner, to ask supplementary questions following the minister's reply. I believe this could be a very useful practice within the framework of the question period.
The hon. member said that I appeared to be trying to take one aspect of the British question period and not others. I remain very flexible in this regard. This is another aspect of the British question period that might be considered. Perhaps we will be able to consider it in the not too distant future.
October 11, 1968


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the President of the Privy Council permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the suggestion the President of the Privy Council is now making, that there are matters we might discuss and consider, does he not agree that it would be better to arrive at changes that way rather than by the method of just announcing them unilaterally from the government side of the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister and I have conceded that this system is experimental. I think it would be advisable to continue the experiment. I will have the opportunity to discuss these matters with the house leaders of the other parties, but I think it would be useful to carry on with the experiment. If it does not work, I would be the first to suggest that it be abandoned. I say, on the other hand, that objections to the system on the very first day it was put into practice should be taken with a grain of salt, because after all we are without any practical experience of how it will work. As I say, I think we should continue the experiment.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a few minutes to deal with one or two points that I believe should be emphasized. The first is the question raised by the President of the Privy Council when he concluded his remarks, namely, that objections made on the first day of the system being put into effect should be taken with a grain of salt. I think the President of the Privy Council must recognize that the government took absolutely the wrong approach to the problem in an effort to do something that should be progressive. In this case I hope the objective was to make the question period more useful to parliament. The point is that instead of doing so the result has been the opposite.
We are well aware that it is difficult for ministers always to be in the house during the question period. We all recognize that it is extremely difficult for them to do this. We also recognize that it has always been one of those things that they wish they could avoid. There are so many other things they have to do, so many questions that they perhaps are not quite up to, so many things that might be asked.
As has been pointed out, ministers also have duties overseas at times or in other 29180-70
Supply-Privy Council parts of the country and, although I will not go as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did, they also have to attend emergency meetings in the parliament buildings. But it has always been the practice, and as far as I know there has been nothing wrong with it, that ministers should, whenever physically possible, be in the house for the question period of 30 minutes on Wednesdays, one hour on Mondays and 40 minutes on the other days. This is not a long period. More than that, it is a prescribed period; they know exactly when it is going to take place within the minute, unless motions are made which mean that the question period is extended.
There has always been the understanding that ministers have a problem in this regard. I think the house has always been willing to recognize the problem. The house has always been willing to recognize that when a minister is out of Ottawa on government business he is certainly not available here for questions. This is the flexible way in which the question period has always been approached and I believe it has worked out satisfactorily. Of course there have been problems, but it has never been the case that ministers present in Ottawa have sat in their offices instead of being present in the house to answer questions.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The new system would work perhaps if there were a guarantee that an absent minister would be here on the day he is supposed to answer questions. Perhaps there is something in the suggestion that he may have to be away on a certain day but that he will be here the next day. I think we might even go along with that if the Prime Minister could say the absent minister would be present the next day. But the fact is that on a day the minister could be here he sits in his office upstairs, while on the day he is supposed to be here he gets a call to go somewhere else.
This week we had the strange situation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources sitting in the house during the question period on Monday presumably ready to answer questions-I am sure he saw me rise to put a question to him-but drifting away so he would not be caught in the house on a day when the timetable said he should not be here. But on Wednesday, when he was supposed to be here during the question period, in answer to my question the Prime Minister said the Minister of Energy, Mines and

October 11, 1963
Supply-Privy Council Resources had gone to a meeting of the council of resource ministers in eastern Canada so he certainly could not be here. The minister must have known he was going-there was no emergency-and he should have made himself available on Monday and Tuesday when he was right here in the building. This is where the whole system is failing. Whoever dreamed up this idea, whether it was the Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council or anyone else, instead of making the system more flexible and realistic has made it so rigid that it will never work.
We are not trying to oppose it for the sake of opposition or to cause the government embarrassment. That is not our sole reason. I recognize that we have to make our point by ridicule, but that is the only way in which we can do it in a ridiculous situation. That is all we can do in these ridiculous situations. We cannot meet the weight of the government's majority by just sitting here and being walked over. We have to point out to the public and to the house that this is a ridiculous situation. This is the only way in which we can deal with it.
This system might as well be dropped because it cannot possibly work in this rigid way. The very success of the question period depends on its flexibility and the ease with which unexpected situations are met. The ministers should be here when they can be here. Of course, if they are away for long periods of time, although it is difficult to understand the reason for it we would certainly not make an issue of it. When we know the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in New York, no one rises and asks why he is not here unless we have a suspicion he is staying down there to avoid questions.
If we had been given an opportunity we could have explained to the government before they initiated this system why it would not work. However, they decided not to consult us about it before they brought it into effect.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is	the	hon.
member saying that the opposition was not advised of this matter?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister is using the very word which points out what the government did. It advised the opposition, it did not consult us.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is	the	hon.
member for Peace River saying he did not know about this proposition?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, we are not saying that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am saying that the President of the Privy Council advised us, but that is not consultation. Is that the way the President of the Privy Council will handle the committee on procedure? If it is and if he is only going to advise us what he will do, he will find some other proposals in as great a mess as they are now. There are a few members here who are perhaps not too brilliant but who have had a few years of experience. I know some of these proposals will not work because they have been tried and they failed. There is no use in the government coming along and saying they have a mandate, so they know everything. It is wrong for them not to consult us. We will accept a new idea if it is good, but this was a very bad one.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think there are some useful concessions in what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said. In the first place, he was kind enough to indicate there was no sinister intent in what we did, although some of his colleagues have not been so generous in admitting that. But I would say to him in this regard, and I will deal with his last remark first, that I do not agree with his theory that the opposition should have a veto in this matter. I am prepared to concede that the hon. member may genuinely disagree with me on the way in which this house should operate, but just because he disagrees with me does not give him the right to say we cannot do this because he disagrees with it. I want to make this perfectly clear.


George Harris Hees: No one said that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was very successful in finding fault with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. He conceded it was not to be expected that ministers would be here at all times when questions might be put. It seems to me it is obvious common sense and therefore it should be accepted that ministers cannot be in the house at all times. This is the fallacy in their argument.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I never said that at any time. It has always been recognized that ministers have to be away. When they do not have to be away they should be here in the house to answer questions, but when they are away on important business we have always agreed this is right and no questions have been raised.
Ociober 11. 1968


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. member because it seems to me that there can be no more important business than the conclaves of the cabinet and its committees, and when the cabinet committee is sitting to consider important executive business that is reason enough for the minister to be away.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I was addressing a few remarks to the question of the roster of ministers during the question period. There is a final observation I should like to make on the underlying reasons for this practice. It is related basically to the importance of making sure that there be effective political control if I might use a pejorative term, of the bureaucratic establishment. The function of a minister, as I said before, is not only to be here in the house and respond to questions. I accept the general legitimacy of that proposition. It is also important for a minister to assume responsibility as political head of a department in dealing with the vast apparatus of modern government which has grown up.
One underlying reason that has necessitated the practice the government has followed has been the importance of balancing a minister's time so he could be involved not only in dealing with the executive decisions made in cabinet committee but also that he will have a more effective opportunity to keep in contact-and I do not think the word is too strong-and in control of his department. It is for this reason, in addition to the other reasons I have stated, that I think the change is not only a reasonable but a desirable one considering the need to maintain political control of the establishment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I make no apologies for the fact that we have had this debate. I feel it has been very useful. I think we are probably developing in the open here the discussion that might well have taken place in a committee room had there been the consultation to which the President of the Privy Council has referred rather than the arbitrary imposition of this practice. It is a 29180-701
Supply-Privy Council question of advise and consent, which is a term we all know as applicable to the United States Senate. I understood the President of the Privy Council to say he had advised us of this proposal. He did advise, but that does not mean consent nor does it necessarily imply consultation.
I think this is the real problem before us today. Legislative bodies in democratic societies all over the world are puzzled and perplexed by the problems which confront them. The problem is to balance the necessity of putting together the facts that ought to be explained and the responsibility of the legislative branch to make sure that the best interests of the people are served. I think this is our problem. It is easy for the government to produce proposals. They are satisfied those proposals are right and, with all the conscientiousness of virtue, they suggest to the House of Commons that our task should be limited to that of a simple protest.
I am not going to go into all the details of this subject. It is a debate that is world wide. This issue brings us right down to the root of the problem. When the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister say, we told you that it was going to happen, they remind me of the phrase, "Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he has grown so great"?
The question period is predicated upon the issue of urgency. What might be urgent on Thursday or Friday may cease to be urgent on Tuesday or Wednesday. I believe Mr. Speaker would be justified in saying, if a question asked on Thursday can be answered next Tuesday, that it ceases to have the characteristic of urgency which is a condition precedent to the question being asked. We had an illustration of this situation during the question period today. I think the government is wrong. However, there are ways and means by which something might be worked out. I can readily understand the desire of the government to secure notice of certain types of questions. Something might be worked out with regard to some of these questions along the lines of the principle involved in the United Kingdom which provides for private notice questions. The proposition is that you reward those who give notice rather than punish those who do not give notice, which seems to be what is in the mind of the government here.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council are in fact saying that if we do not give notice of a question then it is going to

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council be made much more difficult for us. I do not accept that proposition either. Through proper consultation and reasonable discussion I think this area of difference between us might well be worked out. I make the simple statement of fact to the government that every day this method continues to be perpetuated makes it that much more difficult to work out a logical, sensible solution such as we must have.
I do not mind saying that probably I was one of the members who was in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he talked about the trip to England. I do not mind admitting that the memo I gave to the special committee on procedure contained the suggestion that we should have a look at this system. I attended the question period at Westminster almost every day. I talked with private members, ministers, some former ministers and former privy councillors. I say to you, sir, and to this committee that the system has been a complete failure in the United Kingdom.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The other day I read a book entitled "The Power Of The Prime Minister" by Humphrey Berkeley, who is a liberal-minded member of the Conservative party. He has been most interested in this problem and its ramifications with regard to parliamentary procedure. In the book he expounds his views and recommends many things. Most emphatically and categorically he says that the present system in the United Kingdom is a complete failure. It simply does not work. He cites examples showing that members sometimes have to wait four, five or six weeks to secure an answer. That is not good enough.
I know that ministers have responsibilities which necessitate their absence from the house. It is wrong, however, for the government to invent additional, artificial reasons for ministerial absences. If committees of cabinet must meet during the question period I shall not object, nor would any other member, I am sure, on this side of the house. Yet I suspect that to justify or rationalize its proposals the government may schedule cabinet meetings to take place during the question period. Perhaps I am overly suspicious, but I confess that thought ran through my mind as the President of the Privy Council was expounding his views.
Ministers of the crown have behind them all the resources of government. There are ministers without portfolio and 16 parliamentary secretaries, and there is no reason for

not giving immediate answers to questions that are asked in the house every day. Perhaps on a matter of great importance a parliamentary secretary or acting minister may say, if the minister is absent, "We shall take the question as notice and provide an answer later".
In dealing with their responsibilities ordinary members of parliament do not have at their disposal the resources of the government. We manage to be here. We are not worried so much about the questions that are to be asked during the question period; we are concerned about the answers. We are here to ask questions.
With great sincerity I urge the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister to review their decision which would arbitrarily impose this new arrangement on us. The matter ought to be referred to a committee and discussed in much the same way as some hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, have suggested other proposals ought to be discussed in committee. Then, hopefully, we may reach a plateau in our parliamentary procedure which will benefit us all. This must be done in a spirit of good will and co-operation.
No doubt the government, in trying to justify its position when it places before this house certain items of legislation or certain matters in connection with estimates, may feel that certain methods of procedure ought to be adopted. At that time the matter may be put to a vote. Nevertheless, I say to the President of the Privy Council and to the Prime Minister that in most of these areas, if there is a little give and take on both sides, we shall arrive at an arrangement that is reasonably acceptable to all members of the house.
I end by saying that the rules of the house belong to the members of the house. They are not for the benefit of the government or any political party. They belong to the private members of this house, to be of assistance in the discharging of the responsibilities which have been placed on the private members by the people of Canada. It is not good enough for the government to say: This is easier for us; therefore it must be so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: When the hon. member speaks of private members of the house is he intimating that members of the privy council are not private members and therefore not competent to participate in the enactment of rules?
October 11, 1968


Gerald William Baldwin: The President of the Privy Council is a private member of this house as well as a member of the cabinet. I am speaking primarily about private members, meaning by that most of those who make up the membership of this house. The President of the Privy Council came here as a private member. Since then he has been given additional responsibilities which he may not at present be too happy about.
Under the provisions of the Canada Elections Act the majority of the members of this house need not represent the majority of the people of this country, and the government must bear in mind that today the opposition parties represent in total a majority of the people of Canada. There are private members on the government side as well as on the opposition side and it is of great benefit to all if the views of those representing Canadians can be put forward in the house. Members of the government need not travel all over Canada in order to gain an idea of what the people of Canada are thinking on any topic. The representatives of the people will inform the government and in that regard the individual members form the best pipe line the government has to public opinion.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, although my experience is limited and although I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, I have listened with interest to the debate. I think we need to bring some perspective to bear on the problem. The house leader for the official opposition has suggested that the rules of the house are the property of the members of the house, and I do not think anyone questions that. It is for the house as a whole to determine what the rules shall be and how they shall be changed. In the present instance no change is to be made in our rules. The Prime Minister made a substantial and useful offer, the reception of which has not been universally happy. One reason for that has been indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He said quite honestly that the particular period we are discussing, the question period, is devoted to political warfare. One cannot expect one side in any warfare to offer concessions gratuitously to the other side.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is genocide, not warfare.
Supply-Privy Council [DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, if I am to be interrupted I would say the approach taken by the opposition would appear to be one of suicide rather than genocide.
The Prime Minister's offer was not couched in terms of the conduct of political warfare in the house. As has been indicated, there are a number of demands on the time and energy of the executive. One of those demands has been the customary, though unwritten one, that ministers attend in the house each day for a period varying from 30 minutes to an hour whether they are needed or not, whether anyone cares they are there or not. Though their presence may help the arithmetic of filled seats it is often the case that otherwise they carry out no useful function.
In order to make better use of the time of the executive, certain changes have been proposed by the Prime Minister. Under past practice, members of the opposition seeking information had to take their chance on the attendance of a minister. If he was absent they expected, and sometimes received, no answer at all; they were invited to wait until he returned, however long that might be. What the Prime Minister is proposing now is that on specific days of the week in relation to government departments, a definite number of departments should be answerable. Out of a total of five days, on three of those days, according to the choice of the opposition, the executive will organize itself in such a way as to produce answers to questions which are asked in relation to each department. This will be done either through the physical presence of the minister responsible for a department or through the adequate briefing of his parliamentary secretary or of an acting minister. Thus, on these three days, in respect of the departments designated, answers will be provided.
This has never been done before. This undertaking to answer, to give an accounting for stewardship at specific times, has never been offered before. Hitherto the opposition has had to depend on the physical presence of the minister concerned, governed by a number of external considerations, in order to secure information or answers. It was an adequate reply, in a minister's absence, to say he was away on public business. In the case of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for instance, he might be absent for as long as 11 or 12 days at the United Nations General Assembly. For the first time the government has offered, on three of the total of five

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council days, to see that answers are provided either by the minister or by the acting minister or by the parliamentary secretary. This willingness of the government to account for its stewardship and inform the opposition is a distinct advance over past practice.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North-


Some hon. Members:: Winnipeg North
Centre.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To me, he is not a man of the centre; perhaps that is my problem. In any case, he has drawn attention to the crux of the intellectual conflict which is going on here, namely, that the question period is regarded by some as political warfare and that rules which tend to make that warfare more orderly lessen its fun and people do not like that.
While this proposal may detract from the fun of the warfare, it must be recognized by anybody who is honest about it as constituting a step forward inasmuch as it provides for the public and for members of the opposition a more certain and more orderly way of providing information or giving an account of stewardship. I must say I am surprised it has not been so accepted by the opposition. One is driven to the conclusion that the only reason they have for opposing it is that this move will project the image of a government which is serious-minded, purposeful and coherent in connection with the transaction of the business of parliament, rather than engaging in fun and political warfare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am somewhat surprised at the remarks which have just been made by the minister. He based his argument chiefly on the assumption that the system he proposes would provide more certain answers to hon. members' questions and lead to better order by guaranteeing replies to questions at specific times when ministers would be present in the house. I submit this is a complete illusion. It is exactly what has not happened. From this point of view the experiment has been a complete failure.
Yesterday, five of the ministers listed on the schedule, ministers who were supposed to be here, were not present. I wrote their names down at the time, intending to raise a question about it, but I did not get round to doing so owing to the direction which the question period took. At any rate, members of the opposition were obviously unable to
[Mr. Drury.1
address questions to those particular ministers.
Today for about half of the question period there were eight ministers present out of a total of some 28 in the cabinet. Later another minister came in, so there were nine. But throughout the entire question period fewer than a third of the members of the cabinet were present to answer questions. Questions to the Prime Minister in the absence of ministers responsible were answered in a flippant manner, words such as these; I hope the hon. member will be able to contain his curiosity until the minister is here on Tuesday next.
If this experiment was designed to make certain that members would know when they could expect to get answers from specific ministers, it is a complete failure. Ministers who were supposed to be here, according to the schedule, have failed to attend. And, of courses, others who were not on the schedule were also absent. So far this arrangement has served as a means by which ministers can evade to the greatest extent possible their responsibility to members of the House of Commons. This is a most serious matter.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
According to our basic constitutional practice ministers are responsible to the House of Commons and are required to answer questions put by hon. members. In my view this experiment is an effort to place ministers in a situation in which they need no longer answer to members of the House of Commons-by absence for a good deal of the time or by the nature of the answer given on their behalf by whoever is supposed to be representing them, that questioners will just have to wait a few days for a reply. The whole trend is to erode the rights of parliament in this regard and weaken the principle that ministers are responsible to the House of Commons and are required to answer to members of that body. If this so-called experiment is continued we will have a very rapid erosion of one of the basic principles of our responsible, representative form of government. This is the most serious aspect of the matter.
The minister stated that members would be able to get answers at definite times. Can he give me any specific instances, during the two weeks that the new system has been in operation, where members have actually managed to get answers from the ministers concerned, at least in so far as the majority of the questions are concerned?
October 11. 1968

It used to be the case, and as a matter of fact this is the way the system should work, that if a minister was necessarily absent on government business, somebody else in the cabinet was acting minister and answered for him. During the upwards of six years that I was a member of the cabinet I was at different times the minister of two departments but I was also acting minister for one or two other ministers if they were away. At that time we considered it our responsibility as acting ministers to take notice, if we could not answer a question immediately, and bring in the answer the next day. The fact that ministers have to be away from time to time on government business is no reason in the world why they should not be in the house when they are in Ottawa, and when they are away an acting minister or parliamentary assistant should be able to take notice and answer a question next day. I can see nothing but a gradual decline in our whole constitutional situation and the effectiveness of this house if this experiment is continued.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Without being provocative, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks from the point of view of a member who is not on the front benches. I spoke on this matter the other day and I am not going to belabour the point. Having seen this experiment in operation for a week I can say it is a perfect example of theory which does not work when applied in practice.
To echo the words of the former minister of agriculture, if hon. gentlemen opposite had had the luxury of sitting in opposition and observing the practice of the question period from that point of view they would see how this theory does not work. The President of the Treasury Board supported the proposition that often theory does not work in practice, and I agree with him, not to mention the President of the Privy Council who said that the theory sounds logical, reasonable and businesslike. But the President of the Treasury Board says that this system represents an approach of a government that is serious and sensible and that this will be reflected across the nation.
If I were sitting on the treasury benches and had this rotation system imposed upon my movements, with the Prime Minister answering general questions and questions of policy, it would be an indication of how the Prime Minister regarded my competence in answering questions in the house. As we have seen during the past week it is the Prime Minister who is overexposed to handling
Supply-Privy Council questions from the opposition and he has to turn many of them aside for the responsible minister to return.
Because of the pressures of work there is a natural rotation of cabinet ministers. We all admit that no cabinet minister worth his salt, and even no private member, can sit in the house day in and day out. We and the cabinet ministers have other business to attend to outside the chamber. But to have an arbitrary rotation system imposed upon the natural rotation system is unnecessary, and the explanation given by the President of the Treasury Board of the arbitrary system proves the case for the opposition.
Only this morning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) were not in their places to answer questions even though they were supposed to be here under the Prime Minister's rotation system. In fact, as already mentioned, there were only eight ministers present.
Under the Prime Minister's system, if a minister appears in the house three times a week he will spend a maximum of two hours and ten minutes in the house, 60 minutes one day, 30 minutes another day and 40 minutes on the third day. If he is on the short side of the rotation system and does not have to be present during the weekly one hour question period, he will spend only one hour and 50 minutes in the house. I admit that with motions and other measures ministers will spend longer in the house than that, but their attendance will vary from a maximum of two hours and ten minutes a week to one hour and 50 minutes a week during the question period. The Canadian people expect a little more seat time than that from our cabinet ministers.
The Prime Minister said that his system was logical and reasonable. Under the new system we have to give notice of a question. If it concerns a related department it will have to be repeated next day. There is also the functional problem of inter-related questions where, depending on the answer from the original minister, a supplementary question may be required to be directed to the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance.
According to the Prime Minister's new system, which is a complete change from traditional practice, departments will receive questions. He says that if the opposition

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council
organizes its questions someone responsible in a department will take them as notice. I repeat that this morning four ministers who were supposed to be here to answer questions were not present, and several times the Prime Minister asked hon. members to defer their questions to another day.
Reference has already been made to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Under the new system the Minister of Transport will be lost to the house at six o'clock on Wednesday and will not have to appear again until the following Monday. We know that that minister is engaged in housing discussions and talks and this week has appeared in the house only once. Therefore the Prime Minister's theory, which seems so logical as a theory, breaks down in practice.
From our experience of the past week we have seen that departments do not give answers to questions. Just to direct a question to a department, with only an acting minister or parliamentary secretary in charge of it, is as effective in getting an answer as the job a eunuch does in a house of ill repute.
There are two principles involved in this matter, one a small one and the other affecting the parliamentary system. We have already spent one or two hours today discussing this matter on the estimates of the Privy Council. If matters proceed as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested and the whole procedure is reviewed and reformed, there might not be the reaction and negative criticism of this system that we have experienced to date. The small principle involved is that the house gave unanimous consent to setting up a procedure committee to review all the rules, and the next day this rotation system for ministers was introduced arbitrarily. That did not help breed the confidence and respect that the cabinet must have.
This brings me to the larger principle so far as efficiency is concerned. To use the logic of the President of the Privy Council, if it is a question of numbers that is involved, often we might need only the Prime Minister in the house. If we extend the logic of the President of the Privy Council to its ultimate conclusion, there will be days in this house when one, two or perhaps at the most three ministers will be involved in the actual cross-fire and when the Prime Minister, as the person ultimately responsible for the government, will be the one accountable from this point of view.

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
There is another point which I direct to the President of the Privy Council. Again it flows from some of the discussion which has taken place today. As a member of the house and as one who has practised before the bar he is aware that there are all sorts of rules. We have heard of the work to rule provision. I suggest that notwithstanding the rules of law there must be, for the effective prosecution of justice, some confidence built up between the protagonists. Justice prevails in the courtroom because both counsel have a mutual respect for each other which they have developed through their trial experience. In like fashion somewhat the same principle must guide us in this chamber.
There is no doubt that the government has sufficient numbers to steamroller the opposition. One member mentioned ridicule. Sometimes it is necessary for the opposition to revert to this type of thing in order to defend itself. I believe, however, that in order to pursue some of the objects the President of the Privy Council has in mind there must be some mutual respect and confidence between members on both sides of the house so that they will be able to develop the pros and cons of the problems and experiments without becoming lost all the time in political warfare. I am not suggesting that the question period is not the time for political capital or political deficit, depending on how the answers come forward. But after we have had this trial for a period of a week, have seen the question period really start to degenerate and have heard what the minister said this morning, I believe, having in mind the desire of the rules committee to look at all these rules, we should build up the respect and confidence between members when we experiment from time to time rather than say arbitrarily that we will proceed in a certain way because this is what has been decreed.
I believe we can say that this system has not worked. In this new parliament with 97 new members I believe some respect and confidence must be built up with regard to members across the way because our whole purpose in many instances is identical. There cannot be that respect when an arbitrary and unilateral move is made in an area where it ought not to be made, that is, in the reform of the rules of this house.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very carefully but I am at a loss to explain in a convincing way, at least to
Oclober 11, 1968

myself, why there is all this fuss about this new measure, the roster of attendance for ministers. I have listened particularly to the observations of the opposition house leader. I listened to him very carefully as I have done in the past because he is an hon. gentleman for whom I have a good deal of respect. It struck me that he asked for the cooperation of the government. He suggested there might be ways and means by which to find a reasonable arrangement. I believe that is exactly what the Prime Minister asked in proposing this measure to the house. He asked for the co-operation of the opposition during a trial period of a few weeks or a few months, whatever the period is.
I should like to remind my friends on the other side that co-operation should work both ways. I do not believe that the opposition has co-operated in the last two weeks. They have been systematically shooting down absent ministers. They know the reason the Minister of Transport, for instance, is not here. They know because they read the newspapers. They have been shooting at the Minister of Transport more often than he would ordinarily have been shot at. I suggest that the members of the opposition should look both ways. Even if it should be true that the members of the opposition might have been more fully consulted, I should like to remind them of the saying of a United States president that to the victor belong the spoils.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You are the master and will do what you wish because you have the votes.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I know it hurts. I know how much it hurts because I have lost a few elections myself.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would you have been a victor this time as an independent?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Although I do not wish to be repetitious, I should like to remind members of the opposition that to the victor should at least belong some kind of leeway in administering this country because it is its responsibility. It is very easy for the opposition to criticize the government because the opposition does not have the responsibility to administer this country under present circumstances. The government, therefore, must be granted some kind of leeway somewhere. I think this is reasonable.
I have done some research. I have gone through Hansard over a period of several 29180-71
Supply-Privy Council years, especially during the period when a Conservative government was in power. I thought I would find there a demonstration that their ministers in those days gave very precise answers on all occasions and that their attendance was near perfection. Well, I must say my observation is that the ministers in those days most of the time gave vague answers to the questions. Not only did they frequently not answer the questions, they frequently said that they wished to study the question before attempting to answer it. I might add that my research indicates that these ministers also were absent.
I believe that if the opposition had cooperated during the last two weeks we would have experienced a lot less difficulty. Even if I were to adopt the point of view of the members of the opposition that they should have been consulted further, it is a fact that this measure is now in effect. Therefore I believe it is only reasonable that the opposition should co-operate in respect of this measure and, if it does not work properly, we on this side of the house will be the first to find another reasonable arrangement. The opposition during the past two weeks has not cooperated and now is asking for co-operation. I suggest that this should work both ways and not only on one side of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask a question?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: If I can answer it I will be very happy to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the hon. member saying in effect that we should relax and enjoy it?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I should like my hon. colleague to tell me what it is he would be enjoying. I hope it is not my speech. I understand that it is the duty of an opposition to oppose. I know this. We cannot blame the opposition for criticizing the government. The members of the opposition are paid to do that; that is their duty. We understand that up to a certain point.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We need action and we need co-operation today. I was not the first one to talk about co-operation. The opposition house leader spoke about co-operation. Co-operation must work both ways. If we can count on co-operation from the opposition I am sure things will work out better. If things do not work out better then I would suggest we should make a change or find another reasonable arrangement and solve the problem in this way.

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. How can we in the opposition oppose someone who is not here?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I will have to ask the hon. member to repeat his question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: How can we do our duty as opposition members in opposing the wishes of the government when members of the cabinet to whom we wish to direct questions are not here? How can anyone oppose someone who is not present?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I do not think my hon. friend is being serious. Members of the opposition have many opportunities to oppose the government by voting and making interjections. Those ministers who are not here at the time of questions will be here at some time. I do not think there are very many questions of such urgency they must be answered the same day.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to express my views which could boil down to a few points.
First of all, it seems that this decision by the government lessens the importance of the representatives of the people. One would think that because the government has been elected by the majority, it is leaning on the power of numbers to lessen the importance of the opposition. One gets the impression, especially after listening to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), that the party is arrogant enough to think that it can do anything because it is in office. That is what the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has just made clear to us.
It seems to me that the importance of being a representative of the people in the house should not be undermined to that point. If the cabinet does not feel strong enough to answer the opposition adequately, the consequences should not be borne by the representatives of the people. That is my impression; and how can it be explained that ministers are not there, as responsible ministers, for a few minutes every day, to answer questions. Is that not a clear indication that the representatives of the people have no importance and that it matters more to give precedence to something else over them? That is my impression.
It is for this reason that such arrogance displayed by the government, by its decision

which deprives us of the possibility to question the ministers as we would like, is unthinkable. Why, Mr. Chairman, should these questions be postponed, as suggested by the government? It is very difficult to get an answer to an urgent or spontaneous question when the minister who would be able to give us the information we seek is not in the house. That is why it is absolutely necessary for the designated ministers to be present in the house. Everybody, even those who have an urgent question to ask, will understand that it is quite natural that the representatives of the people be the first to put their questions to the ministers concerned. I think people will not only understand that, but they will agree to put off a meeting till later, in order to allow a minister to defend his department in the house. I do not see why a matter of a few minutes or at most a few hours should inconvenience a minister so much.
Then, we get the impression that the government wants to reduce the importance of the whole house, especially of the opposition, by shortening the question period, or by boycotting it purely and simply.
Once more, I come back to the fact that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has unquestionably demonstrated, by his own arrogance, that this is indeed the attitude of the cabinet, which has almost decided to boycot us.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would my hon. friend allow a question?


René Matte: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend talked of regular attendance in the house and I am going to ask him a very polite question. Has he ever counted how many times the leader of his party has been absent from the house? He too was elected in order to sit in the house.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Trois-Rivieres has just pointed out that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) is absent. I must tell him-he probably does not know and cannot be blamed-that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the member for Temiscamingue, is not here because he is now in his riding due to the passing away of his father-in-law.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, it is customary in the house to express our condolences when someone passes away. I therefore take this opportunity to extend my condolences.
October 11, 1968

However, my hon. friend has not answered my question; he has not dealt with the topic under discussion. I put a simple question to the member for Champlain. I did not ask why the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste was away today. I said that of all the members he is probably the least regular at the house since the beginning of the session.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres should know that on those days where the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste was away from the house he was, as a Canadian delegate, attending a meeting of French-speaking parliamentarians in Paris. The leader was away only on those days, except for the absence the member for Abiti-bi has just mentioned. I feel that the responsibilities are even greater in the case of ministers. Obviously, making comparisons of the type the member for Trois-Rivieres has just made is just too easy a way of trying to settle a question of principle. And it is not because the honourable member for Trois-Rivieres has managed to find a good place for himself, that he should attempt, with his arrogance-and I say it again-to influence us.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
My honourable colleague for Champlain said that the honourable member for Trois-Rivieres has found a good place for himself; that expression is already disparaging. He also adds that the honourable member for Trois-Rivieres shows arrogance which is also disparaging. I should like to point out to him that he has not been in this house very long and we just realized it, after hearing his last remarks.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. There is no question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, you do not know whether or not I am rising on a question of privilege. You did not give me time to finish-


Mr. Perrault:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the arguments which have been advanced during the past few hours with respect to the rights, privileges and freedoms of members of this House of Commons. I speak as one who has had considerable experience as a member of an opposition.


An hon. Member:: Hurrah.
29180-71i
Supply-Privy Council


Raymond J. Perrault: I appreciate the importance of the opposition. A government is only as good as the quality of the opposition. I should not like to see any rights taken away from the opposition in this house or diminished in any way. However, I should like to suggest-


Harold Warren Danforth: Now comes the brick.


Raymond J. Perrault: -that the attempts to establish a case in the past few hours by the members of the opposition are based on a vastly overstated position regarding what we are discussing in this house.
We have heard some strong language. The word "arrogant" has been used. We have heard hon. members talk about the government "muzzling" their right to speak. We have heard members suggest that there are restrictions on their freedom contemplated by this proposal of the government to make ministers of the crown available for questioning on three days each week.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It has been suggested to this House of Commons that in some fashion democracy in Canada is being subverted. Let me tell you this, that after being a guest in many legislative assemblies across this country, after serving in my own legislature for nine years and after visiting the House of Commons of Great Britain, one of the most profound impressions I have received thus far is that the degree of democracy which exists in the House of Commons of Canada is as high as, if not higher than anywere in the commonwealth. I suggest to the opposition that they will be unable to cite any other assembly in the commonwealth where the opposition is granted more rights and freedom than right here in our house. In the light of what is very much a fact, it seems to me the language being employed in this house by the opposition is patently political and the motivations are political. If we compare our rules of procedure with those which exist in other parliamentary forums, we find that as much democracy exists in Canada in this house, as in any forum in the world one could mention.
We have an oral question period. In many parliamentary systems they do not have an oral question period. I think this institution is a great advantage. But it seems to me that the oral question period also imposes on the opposition a responsibility to be reasonable. Many questions are good, but, at times I have listened aghast to some of the questions from opposition members. On these occasions, it is

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council
my view that parliamentary traditions and principles are subverted by the facetious nature of some of the questions directed at government by the opposition. In addition to the oral question period, members have the opportunity to place questions on the order paper.
There is no suggestion-and it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise-that somehow it is impossible to ask questions of ministers. Really, Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous to make that suggestion. Not only are oral questions permitted five days a week, but a wide range of questions can be placed on the order paper. There are also opportunities to ask questions during the consideration of estimates and on many other occasions. It is to be noted with interest that no disapproval has been expressed by the opposition in this house to the proposal advanced by the government to provide special research assistance so that the opposition can do a better job this session. Apparently that proposal is acceptable; yet none of us has heard one word from the official opposition commending the government for its unprecedented action of extending this special assistance to the opposition.
I do not want to belabour the point, but surely government today is so complex that it is not unreasonable to suggest that ministers are not able to spend every day of the week for a certain period of time waiting to be questioned-yes, and waiting to be pilloried at times for on occasion the question period becomes little more than a political baiting carnival. If we are honest, we will admit this fact.
I believe that the role of the opposition today-and I speak as someone who has served some years in opposition-is not the outmoded concept of opposition, namely to oppose and oppose and oppose, but it is to oppose responsibly; and this includes using the question period to the best effect. It is my impression as a newcomer to this house that if questions were properly developed in caucus before opposition parties came into the chamber, the necessary questions could be asked intelligently and reasonably, and reasonable answers could be given. But if we refer to Hansard and read some of the questions which have been asked since the opening of the session, I do not think any hon. member of the house can take pride in the quality and motivation of many of them.
I simply reiterate what was said by my colleague, that surely this is a time when we

should give the government's new proposal a fair test period. Let us see how it works. I assure members of the opposition that members on the government side of the house are just as concerned about the necessity for a strong opposition as are they. If this system does restrict freedom, I can tell you that I for one will seek to have the system changed, but it should be given a fair test. It seems to me we have belaboured this point long enough and that now we should set to the task of working constructively for the people of this country.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak only briefly on the estimates of the Privy Council. A survey of the expenditures is very revealing. We see a saving of $300 in the maintenance of the Prime Minister's residence, half a million dollars on general administration, half a million dollars on royal commissions, and $2J million will not be required this year for visits of state, as in 1967. Obviously there are other savings that could be made, and if the members of the cabinet, or supporters of the government, will but take the time to keep in touch with the grass roots, the average working man, I am sure they will learn that his chief concern and the concern of Canadians generally is the rising cost of government and its wasteful extravagance.
We in the opposition have expressed our concern in this regard. We are concerned about the principle implied in the roster of ministerial attendance supplied to us by the Prime Minister. Here we are, with the largest cabinet in this country's history, the biggest crew, if you will, on board our ship of state that we have ever had, but now we find that the main reason for increasing the cabinet seems to be used as an excuse for more ministers being absent from the house when we wish to put urgent questions to them.
In my opinion it is the responsibility of the cabinet to be in this house to answer urgent questions when they arise. It should not be necessary for us in the opposition to have our questions juggled back and forth, like a yoyo, while we wait for replies from the proper minister. In sailors' terms, we in the opposition today are bucking a headwind. We have urgent questions to ask, and we must tack back and forth over the whole spectrum of the cabinet while we wait for replies.
When I have an urgent question to put to the cabinet, it may not of necessity be an urgent question to me; but each of us, due to
October 11. 1968

the redistribution act, represents approximately 75,000 people in this house. We are all equal, therefore, although I must admit that, if one may use a well-known expression, some are more equal than others. When 1 pose a question to a minister, it is posed in the question period because we can ask questions at that time only if they are of an urgent nature. Of course, if we must wait for two, three or more days for a reply, this destroys the very purpose for which the question period was established.
The estimates we have before us also make us aware of the fact that in government, as with a ship at sea, there is a tendency for barnacles to become attached to the hull, and nothing short of a complete refit will remove them. For example, we still have listed the expenses of the royal commission on pilotage, the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, the royal commission on farm machinery, the commission on security procedures and the commission on the status of women. I want it clearly understood that I am not anti-French Canadian, but I point out that the bilingualism and biculturalism commission has already spent over $7 million of the taxpayers' money.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I believe that Canadians generally would welcome the termination of this most expensive royal commission in our history as an economy measure. I would be the first to state that the commission has been helpful. It has pointed out to us the necessity of giving certain recognition to those in our country who are of French ancestry. But we are facing serious economic problems at the present time and there is a need for a reassessment of some of these commissions.
The same thinking would readily apply to other commissions that are now sitting. For example, over half a million dollars are being set aside for the royal commission on the status of women. I criticized this expenditure during the recent election campaign, and I still believe the government could and should terminate this commission's sittings immediately. Canadian women today are well aware of their rights, their status and the place of importance they occupy in our society. They have the right to own property and to vote, they can run for the town council and the provincial legislature, and we have one lady member in the House of Commons. I believe there is more concern today over the rising cost of everything in our society, and it is the cost of these royal commissions as listed in
Supply-Privy Council the privy council estimates which is constantly increasing some of our costs and making it extremely difficult for women in all classes of society to make ends meet.
With these brief comments I will take my seat, but I do hope the government will give some thought to the matters I raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to cut off the discussion of ministerial absenteeism in the question period. Others who wish to continue may do so, but just as a little interlude I thought I might ask a question or two about the item that is before us. I am afraid that if I do so I will disprove a point I often make. I have often contended that we do not deal with the estimates here on the floor of the house, that we use the estimates as pegs for debates.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Do not disturb the practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There speaks a conservative. This is one of the reasons I have argued for a greater use of the committees. I think that that is where estimates should be gone over with a fine tooth comb. But just as an interlude, let me get out my fine tooth comb and ask a question or two about this item. It is item No. 1, maintenance and operation of the Prime Minister's residence. We are being asked to vote $40,300. According to the blue book in front of us, that is $300 less than we were asked to vote for the previous fiscal year.
The book that is before us now is called the revised estimates. Before that we had the unrevised estimates, and in it the figure was $41,100, so that it looks as though there is a cut of $800 in the expenses of running the Prime Minister's residence. This so called cut received very wide publicity, not only in the papers but in that program which perhaps is the best source of news, namely Max Ferguson's show in the morning. I think we all recall the interesting reception of businessmen which was held at 24 Sussex Drive one night just after this cut was announced, and of how the cleaning women were there at night because they were put on reduced wages and had to get employment elsewhere during the day, while at night they were cleaning the Prime Minister's residence. We also recall when the Prime Minister telephoned for taxis to get the businessmen away, because if they stayed much longer he would have to feed them. So a great deal of attention was given to the tremendous stroke of the Prime Minister in reducing by $800 the

October 11. 1988
Supply-Privy Council amount that was going to be spent on the maintenance of his residence.
But if we turn from page 380 to page 382 we will discover that according to this book- and I can only assume it is correct-the amount expended in 1967-68, although it is marked as estimated, was only $37,780. So when we are being asked to vote $40,300, if I can add and subtract, it looks to me as though instead of spending less on the Prime Minister's residence we are voting $2,520 more than was spent on the operation and maintenance of the Prime Minister's residence in the previous fiscal year. On the theory that this is the committee of supply in which we examine estimates in detail, could someone explain this to us and in particular tell us what one is to think about this business of giving the nation the notion that a saving of $800 is being made when in point of fact we are being asked to vote $2,520 more than was spent in the previous year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that anybody made representations that savings were being made. Perhaps these were the conclusions drawn by those who did not analyse the figures put forward as thoroughly as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If he looks at the detail on page 382 to which he has referred he will see that the principal item in the cost of running this establishment is salaries and wages; and I think he will be aware, as most of us are, that during the course of the current year we have been engaged in extensive collective bargaining, the result of which has been generally an increase in the total emoluments paid by the government and received by its employees. One would expect that running the same establishment with the same staff and providing the same degree of facilities would cost more in the current fiscal year than it did in the previous one. As the figure shows, this in fact is borne out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think it is now time for me to return to the minister the compliment he paid me a while ago. He told me I was describing the question period honestly. In return I congratulate him on his honesty. He is now making it clear that despite all the publicity about cutting down the cost of running the Prime Minister's residence we are actually going to spend more in this year than we did in the last.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct. The hon. member knows that we do not control Mr. Ferguson in his programs.
IMr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps Mr. Ferguson will note this increase and give us another show on it next week.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks today, and hope they will not be taken as a sign of criticism, or as a complaint. I really want to raise a question about which members of parliament and the public should be concerned. There have been frequent reports from the press in recent months about the very sharp increase in the staff in the Prime Minister's office. I do not have the press clippings here with me today and I do not think it is important that I should read them, but in fact there has been virtually a doubling in the number of people working in the Prime Minister's office. I am not necessarily objecting to this.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
When I think of recent Canadian elections in which attention has been focussed on the leaders of the various political parties, when I think of the results of the 1958 and 1968 elections, it seems to me obvious that the Canadian people-and I am not being critical-are paying a good deal more attention to the leadership of the political parties, and are increasingly voting for the candidate to the Prime Minister's office. They cannot do it as directly as do the people of the United States, when they vote for one candidate for president. The people in Canada vote in their constituency for the candidate of the party whose leader they want to be prime minister. I can remember that in the 1958 election in my constituency people came into the polls and wanted to vote for Mr. Diefenbaker. They were surprised when nobody would tell them who Mr. Diefenbaker's candidate was. This was the only time in the last 50 years in which a Conservative was elected in that constituency. As I say, I am not objecting to this. The people of Canada have a right to make this choice if they wish. However, it does seem to me that if we are going to do what, in effect, I think we are doing, that is moving toward a presidential system, then some changes would seem to be necessary in relation to the form of government we have had in this country for many years.
It seems to me that to the extent the Prime Minister's office becomes more important, to the extent the Prime Minister has a larger staff of experts and technicians dealing with general policy matters which traditionally have been dealt with by government departments, the importance of the cabinet is reduced. The Prime Minister's office takes on
October 11, 1968

more and more authority and more power. I cannot vouch for the stories current in Ottawa that one gets from the newspaper people, and all sorts of other people. These stories are to the effect that the situation has reached the point where, if a cabinet minister wants to speak to the Prime Minister, he has to go through somebody in the Prime Minister's office.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Nonsense.


David Orlikow: The President of the Treasury Board says it is nonsense. However I am told by what in the past have been reliable sources that this is so. It seems to me if we are moving in this direction, and at the moment I am not saying it is bad to move in this direction, then the members of the committee and the general public are entitled at some point to a statement from the Prime Minister outlining precisely what the reorganization on the Prime Minister's office has been. What has been the increase in the staff? How many people are there and what responsibilities do they have? In what way, if any, has this affected the responsibility of individual cabinet ministers to deal with the subjects that come under their departments?
This raises other questions for some of us, Mr. Chairman. For example, yesterday some hon. members were asking about an important problem, namely the facilities for drying damp, tough wheat. Does one go to the Minister of Agriculture with this problem, or would he go to one of the regional desks which the press have told us have been established in the Prime Minister's office? I do not know, and I doubt if any other hon. member in this house knows what the answer is. However, it does seem to me that at some point, and I am not saying it should be today because I did not give notice that I intended to raise this question, we ought to have an explanation from the government as to just how they see the changes in government structure they are making.
I want to make it clear before I sit down that I am not objecting to change. I am one of those who believe that life in the 60's and 70's will be a great deal more complicated than it was in the 30's and 40's. The government will have to play a much more important role in the life of the country than it has in the past. I believe we are going to have to have a great deal of change in government organization, but it seems to me we ought to have an explanation of the kind of changes which have been made.
Supply-Privy Council


Jack Marshall: If I may, I should like to revert to the question of absentee ministers for a moment, because this is the first opportunity I have had to mention the subject. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres talked about co-operation. The best way I can deal with my point is to say that I am not interested in political warfare but rather more interested in the political intrigue that goes on in this house. I was not a member of the legislative assembly for nine years, nor was I in this house before September 12. I asked a very urgent question on behalf of my constituents.
I asked it by telephone on August 19, and came up to Ottawa on a special trip to get an answer. I went to the ministry of forestry and rural development; I went to every staff member, every assistant and every private secretary. I put the question on the order paper on September 16. I have been calling that particular department every day since then and I still do not have the answer, although it has been promised daily. They can talk about co-operation, but I did not even ask the question in the house. I went through the proper channels and co-operated.
The members on the other side seem to like sincerity, Mr. Chairman. All I am going to point out is that I have co-operated in every way possible but I cannot get an answer to a normal question that concerns my riding. I feel definitely there is a lack of sincerity on the part of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask where in the estimates is the money for the Prime Minister's staff?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the answer to that is vote 10, the details of which are given on page 383.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Specifically, that seems to be for the staff of the privy council office, of which the President of the Privy Council is minister. I understand the operations of the privy council. There is a distinguished civil servant who is Clerk of the Privy Council, and it handles all orders, regulations and so on. What about the people who are attached to the Prime Minister's office who hold down these various desks and who are part of the personal staff of the Prime Minister? I am referring to the staff that works for the Prime Minister; are they included in this vote with the people who work in the privy council office?

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am told that they are included in this vote. This means that within this vote there will be a number of people, some of whom are appointed through the civil service mechanism, mostly in the privy council office, and some limited number of whom are appointed by order in council to the staff of the Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
there no way of looking at these estimates and getting an exact picture of the Prime Minister's staff as such? No matter how long I ask questions, I would not get an answer today, would I?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am afraid not. This has been a source of regret to a number of us. I do acknowledge that this method we have employed in the past of putting total expenditures, I will not say "is designed to conceal", but it has this effect. I hope to be able to present to the public accounts committee a different and more effective system of setting forth the estimates so that one can distinguish main purposes, objectives and programs rather than have this global explication which does not explain too much.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
the contention of some of us that all this could better be done in a standing committee.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: My being here this afternoon is not my idea; I am here at the request of the house. The house chose to consider these estimates in committee of the whole rather than in a standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the President of the Treasury Board is putting through the estimates of the privy council, may I ask whom he is representing?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I represent the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I pass. It is hopeless.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a wise move.


David Orlikow: When I spoke earlier, Mr. Chairman, I was not being critical of the government. I am looking for information and have no desire to prolong discussion on these estimates. Could the President of the Privy Council or the assistant to the Prime Minister tell the committee-and I do not insist on great detail-how large is the staff in the Prime Minister's office this year as compared

with last year, and whether any changes have taken place. Are newspaper reports correct when they say that staff has doubled? Also what are the responsibilities of that staff?


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member asked this question, since it was answered fully in the press release of July 31, 1968, which dealt with the reorganization of the Prime Minister's office and named those who are filling particular categories.
To answer an earlier question I cannot, as the President of the Treasury Board said, pin down to specific figures salaries paid in the Prime Minister's office. Job classifications in the office are described in the press release, which I commend to the hon. member.


David Orlikow: Surely we have not come to the point where the government does its business through press releases, although I do not object to press releases. I asked a legitimate question and I should like to have an answer which can be printed in Hansard, and thus form part of the official record. By that I am not asking the assistant to the Prime Minister to read into the record a lengthy press release. Could we not have an answer which could be printed in Hansard? For instance, are there 30 people in the Prime Minister's office now, as compared with 15 formerly. What are their responsibilities and so on? It should not take the assistant to the Prime Minister long to answer such questions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It might help the President of the Treasury Board and the parliamentary assistant if this matter were approached from a different standpoint. In considering the office of the privy council, as distinct from the office of the Prime Minister, I should like to know whether there have been increases in staff positions in the former office. The vote before us indicates that, as between one year and another, there has been an increase in man years, but that is incidental to my question. What has been the staff increase in the privy council office? The answer to that question will determine whether I shall ask another one. In other words, under vote 10, what increase is to be ascribed to the office of the privy council and not to the office of the Prime Minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those really ought to be separated.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat difficult to separate those categories. Those who are aware of the physical workings of the operation will know that both operations
October 11, 19G8

are housed in the same building, and there is some degree of intimacy in the work and objectives of both staffs. While in general the function of the privy council office is to serve as a secretariat for the cabinet and for the Governor General in Council, it is obvious that a number of functions carried out under this head will serve the secretarial needs of the Prime Minister in his capacity as representing Canada at federal-provincial conferences. To try to separate the two functions in a clear-cut way is difficult. Frankly I am not sure of what the hon. gentleman is getting at; it is difficult to know. I regret that in their present form our estimates do not show the cost, in terms of total resources and dollars and cents, of performing a specific function, because the functions are lumped together. There are distinctions between different grades of personnel, but none is made with respect to total resources required for a particular function.


Mr.   Malle@: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who spoke earlier about the Royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. There was no need for him to apologize about his anti-French-Canadian feelings since I am in full agreement with him.
That completely useless item should be removed from the estimates and here is why: Everyone is perfectly aware of the situation in Canada and no inquiry is needed to bring it to light. In addition, there are organizations which will be happy to give us information free of charge and to divulge the facts without our having to spend millions of dollars to do it. For years the French-Canadian minorities of the nine other Canadian provinces have compiled numerous documents about the bilingualism and biculturalism of minorities throughout Canada.
As far as Quebec is concerned, we have been aware of the situation for a long time and the Societes Saint-Jean-Baptise have been fighting for years for the French fact. It would have been possible, and it still is, to secure all information from them, and better still, free of charge. Moreover, the Estates General of French Canada, thanks to their working groups, could also provide all necessary information.
Hence, this royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism constitutes an unnecessary expenditure and I would like to know
Supply-Privy Council the exact amount of salaries paid to the cochairman of the commission, Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Does the hon. member for Annapolis Valley wish to speak while the parliamentary secretary is getting this figure?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to direct two questions either to the President of the Treasury Board or to the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister or to the President of the Privy Council.


An hon. Member:: He is right there.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The President of the Privy Council is right over here. What is the complement of the Prime Minister's office today as compared with a year ago? I should like to ask the same question with respect to the privy council office. I am not worried now about the dollars and cents; I simply wish to know the number of bodies employed as compared with a year ago. We are dealing with the privy council and I do not think it is asking too much to expect the President of the Privy Council, who is present in this chamber, to answer these simple questions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member has asked me about the complement of the privy council staff. May I say that, except with respect to the parliamentary returns branch which has been transferred from the Department of the Secretary of State, I do not have direct responsibility for any aspect of the privy council office. This falls within the responsibility of the Prime Minister who is represented here today through his parliamentary secretary. The President of the Treasury Board is also present to give details in connection with his responsibilities.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the President of the Privy Council not agree that this is a perfect expression of the difficulties encountered during the question period in determining who has jurisdiction? I asked the hon. gentleman for an answer, but I did not get one. This illustrates the value of having as many ministers as possible present in the chamber during the question period. But since the amiable and genial parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -is sitting just across the way, may I ask him whether it is possible to get an answer to those two simple questions I raised, or whether it is impossible?


David James Walker: No, it is not impossible; hut it is not possible right at this moment. It is impossible for me to separate all the positions listed on page 383 under general administration, and say that so many are included primarily in their capacity as part of the Prime Minister's staff, and that so many others are employed in the privy council office. As the President of the Treasury Board said earlier, some of these people are working in both the capacities I have mentioned. I am pleased to give this answer to the genial hon. member for Annapolis Valley and trust he will be amiable enough to allow us time in which to get the information he wants, letting these estimates go through in the meantime. I will undertake to see that the type of breakdown that he wants is produced.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That proves how able and amiable the parliamentary secretary is, because his suggestion is quite agreeable to me. Whether it is acceptable to the hon. member for Winnipeg North is another matter.


David Orlikow: I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly. I have looked at the press release which the parliamentary secretary sent over to me, which lists 17 or 18 positions. I guess that about 20 people work in the Prime Minister's office. I should like to be given a statement by someone representing the Prime Minister-a statement, not a press release-telling us first of all how many people work in the right hon. gentleman's office. I differentiate between these people-and I am not saying this in a critical sense-and the staff of the privy council who are, I presume, civil servants and stay on regardless of who is prime minister. I should like to know how many were on the staff of the Prime Minister in 1967, and how this number compares with the number on the staff in 1968. I should like to know who these people are, I should like to be informed as to their background and qualifications, and further-and this is of particular importance to me-what their responsibilities are. I do not insist that this be done today, on a Friday afternoon. But at some point we shall be bound to face up to the changes which are taking place in government, and to the implications of the much more important role which the Prime Minister's office is playing now as compared with

the days when Mr. King worked with one or two secretaries.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go into too many details; however, I wish to direct some questions to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), concerning-


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Chairman, please forgive me but I suspect the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) has not finished his remarks. He is merely waiting for the reply of the parliamentary secretary.
With your permission, I should like to put a question to him.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: should like to remind the honourable member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) that it is up to the President of the Treasury Board to decide whether or not he will reply to the question; in the meantime, I believe the debate should continue, and we can come back to the question when the President of the Treasury Board is ready to give his reply. That is why 1 recognized the member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board will probably not be able to answer all the questions which I want to ask him but he might be able to inquire.
With regard to vote No. 1, under the heading "Continuing establishment", we see that seven employees look after the maintenance and operation of the right honourable Prime Minister's residence. Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us, later if he cannot tell us now, and I am not asking that information for censorship purposes, what exactly are the duties of each of those seven employees? On vote No. 5, we see that in 1967-68, an amount of $15,000 was appropriated for the salaries of Ministers without Portfolio, while in 1968-69, the same vote amounts to $27,000, that is an increase of $12,000. I should like to get some explanation regarding that $12,000 increase.
I should like also to get some information regarding the following item:
Allowance to former Prime Minister, $16,667.
Could the minister also give an answer to that question?
I could perhaps put immediately a question with regard to vote No. 10.
Salaries and wageswhere we see a tidy sum of-

October 11, 1968

and
Professional and special services, $982,300.
For the time being, I shall be satisfied to ask this kind of questions only and to get some answers.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Chairman, may 1 now put my question?


René Matte: Yes.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Champlain was inquiring about Mr. Gagnon's salary. It is not on the basis of a salary. It is on the basis of a per diem, which is the same as all the other commissioners and, depending on the number of days, this makes up the total amount of salary. The commissioners on that commission are paid $100 a day.


David Orlikow: And they have worked longer than any other commission.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: According to the member for Champlain, the commission on bilinguism and biculturalism would be completely useless. I would like to ask him if he believes that the bill on official languages which will soon be brought forward in this house and which will give full rights to all Canadians is also useless. This is not what could be implied from his speech.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, when the bill mentioned by the hon. member is passed, I will have some comments to make. It is perhaps too soon to make up one's mind, but I would add this: just because an area is called bilingual we should not thinks that it becomes so.
For example, in my area, that of Saint-Casimir, in the constituency of Champlain-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I thought that the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) had completed his reply. He did well, a while ago, in saying that the matter could be discussed some other time. However, it is not his responsibility to answer questions such as the one the member for Cochrane has just put, for we are not discussing a particular item, and the responsible minister is the President of the Treasury Board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Privy Council
The following items were agreed to:
Privy Council Office-
Ministers without Portfolio-
5. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of Parliament, to each member of the Queen's Privy Co unci 1 for Canada who is a Minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a Member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $27,000.
10. General Administration, $3,117,300.
15. Expenses of the Royal Commissions listed in the Details of Estimates, $2,105,000.
Mr. Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two with regard to the royal commission which is inquiring into the price of agricultural machinery. I notice an item of $400,000 for its studies this year, and I would like to know when its report might be expected. Further, in view of the delay in receiving a report from the commission I would like to know whether the government is willing to take any interim action on the price of farm machinery? In view of the fact that the commission is going to spend at least $900,000 I think the government should make a statement on what it intends to do in the interim before receiving the commission report. It has taken so long for this commission to do its work that its data will be irrelevant. The farm machine companies are complaining about commissions such as this, and farmers are unhappy with them because they hold hearings, but the government takes no action on their reports.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, because I am not a member of the government I cannot give the hon. member a reply as to any interim measures that the government may or may not be contemplating. This question should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. However, I can give a specific answer on the work of the commission itself. As the hon. member knows, the commission was appointed in 1966. Work on the preparation of the commission's report is well under way and is expected to be completed, including translation, in June, 1969. The commission will be expected to terminate its activities shortly after that date.


David Orlikow: Can I get some information from the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister or from the President of the

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council Privy Council with respect to the second item on the same page of the estimates, expenses of the royal commission on security procedures. I had the impression that the commission had finished its work and made its report to the Prime Minister. Yesterday during the question period I tried to get Mr. Speaker's eye to ask the Prime Minister if my impression was correct.
In the vote for the commission for the coming year there is a sum of $226,000. How much longer will the commission take to complete its work, and when will its report be ready? I ask this for a very specific reason. The former solicitor general, who has now gone to another place, before he became a cabinet minister had a bill on the order paper which would certainly curtail, if not prohibit, the use of wire tapping and electronic eavesdropping. The present hon. member for York-Scarborough has a similar bill on the order paper now, and I also have one.
Up until now, when hon. members have raised questions about the advisability of passing legislation either outlawing such procedures or at least regulating them, they have been told they should not do anything until the government receives the report of the royal commission which is looking into security procedures.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I would be very interested in obtaining information concerning the status of that royal commission, when it might make its report and whether the government, once it has that report, will table it in the house.


David James Walker: I can report to the hon. member that the work of the commission is nearing completion and that the report is expected to be available to the government within the next month. This is the information I have.
I should also like to point out that on September 18, when the question of tabling the report came up, the Prime Minister answered in this way:
Mr. Speaker, it is conceivable that there will be matters in it which I will not want to table in the house. The report may concern security matters which should not be made public. I do not know; X want to see it first. The hon. member cannot ask me this kind of hypothetical question and expect an answer on the subject.
I hasten to point out that the question to which the Prime Minister was replying was not asked by the hon. member who asked the present question. It is my understanding that
[Mr. Orlikow.l
the report itself is expected within the next month.


David Orlikow: I might make the comment that of course one would not expect any government to make public a complete report which might very well deal in detail with security matters, and an investigation of espionage by our security personnel. At the same time I hope the Prime Minister will not expect members on both sides of this house who are interested in a law which would regulate and even prohibit wire tapping simply to take somebody's word that the report says we ought or ought not to pass legislation on this matter, without seeing at least that part of the report.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, earlier it had been my intention to engage in the debate relating to the presence of ministers in the house during the last couple of weeks. My hon. colleagues, however, have done such a commendable job in presenting the logic of the situation and in presenting the arguments for our side that I thought it unnecessary for me to take part in the debate in the present circumstances. I think the feeling of members of the house has been adequately expressed.
May I make one brief observation about the estimates. Some months ago the government in power made a decision in relation to the salt rebate which, of course, comes under the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. At that time $300,000 was automatically withdrawn from the Atlantic fishermen. I have just returned from having visited my constituency, where I found that 15,000 people faced a difficult winter as a result of the withdrawal of this so-called band aid policy.
Some weeks ago the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo attempted to justify the position of the government with regard to the abandonment of the band aid policy of support for the fishermen of the Atlantic coast. I believe it is generally agreed there was a great need for a long term plan or policy. How, therefore, can the government justify an expenditure last year, for example, of $600,000 to the commission on the status of women? I hasten to tell hon. members that on the east coast of Canada the women have a status equal to that of the women in eastern Canada. We do not take issue with this particular point. We are not attempting to suggest that we are not interested in a priority of this kind. We are wondering, however, how a government can justify placing the Atlantic fishermen in a compromised position while
October 11, 1968

spending last year $600,000 and this year $584,000 on investigating the status of women.
I could also refer back to the estimates of $668,000 and $1 million for the B and B commission. This is a total of approximately $3 million for two investigations. The people in the Atlantic region are very conscious of their responsibility in relation to these two areas of endeavour, but for the life of me I cannot see the logic of approving an expenditure of $584,000, on the royal commission on the status of women, and at the same time robbing the fishermen of the Atlantic region. My question is very simple: What logic is there in the thinking behind the decision to appropriate approximately $600,000 to support the royal commission on the status of women.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, what strikes me in the items under consideration in the house today is that, last year, we gave $2,658,000 for the various royal commissions. This year, we are being asked $2,105,000 for five different royal Commissions and we do not know how much those commissions will cost once their work is over nor how much we will have to spend in the future for other inquiries of that kind.
We recall, for instance, that the Glassco commission cost a lot and that the government has taken from it a few good ideas concerning the improvement of its services. But the cost of the royal commission, as against the practical benefits obtained by the government, is out of proportion.
This is what strikes me. Those commissions sit and spend government money. We do not know when they will be through with their work but we are being asked year after year to vote new items. What will be the final cost of all those inquiries?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
So, Mr. Chairman, in two years from now, we will have spent the tidy sum of $4,763,000 for inquiries only, and the government always seems interested in having new inquiries opened.
For instance, I should like the President of the Treasury Board to give us information regarding the royal commission on the status of women in Canada. Who were the members? What remunerations were paid? I should like that the assistant to the President of the Treasury Board to give us this information which I think he has. We would like to know, if possible, when this commission will end its sittings and when we shall get a report?
Supply-Privy Council


David James Walker: In answer to the specific question concerning the status of women royal commission, may I say that it is anticipated the report of the commission should be available by the end of 1969.
I wonder if I might say that I have considerable sympathy for many of the views concerning royal commissions that have been expressed here today. In speaking from this seat it may be difficult for me to express a personal opinion, but I do so in any event. I have often wondered-because there are some commissions which are better than others-whether some of the work done by commissions might not just as well have been handled by members of the other place, or by a special task force. I do not speak for the government in saying this, but I do believe that as members of the House of Commons we might look into something along this line in the future, so that our colleagues in the other place might undertake the work being done by some of these commissions. I hope this will not provoke an argument or discussion, but I should like to let the members of the house know that I certainly share some of the feelings that have been expressed here today.
[ Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I represent the riding of Abitibi.
With regard to item 15, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his explanations and I quite agree with him that the members of the Senate could very well do part of the work undertaken by some of the royal commissions. I should also like to say that I greatly admired the report of the Senate committee on aging. I think the members of that committee did a very good job and they should be encouraged to pursue their work in other fields. Indeed, I believe they would be prepared to do so, for we have noticed for some time past that increasingly younger representatives are appointed to the Senate, and I think they could accomplish some excellent work.
Now, I would like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) whether he knows if the government intends to establish other royal commissions in the near future, as we would like to know ahead of time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering about the usefulness of spending something over $600,000 for a royal commission

October 11, 1968
Supply-Privy Council studying the status of women when there are so many other problems to solve. I am thinking specifically of fisheries. I have difficulty answering some of the arguments which have been presented to me by my constituents. When I ask questions on behalf of the Atlantic people I am being very serious. I think one of our greatest problems here in the House of Commons results from the fact that when we talk about the serious fisheries situation many hon. members do not consider seriously what is being said. Very often these questions are interpreted as being facetious. Questions relating to this subject are very often glossed over or taken as a joke. I am very serious when I pose these questions to the parliamentary secretary and I should like a reasonable answer and I am not reflecting on your attitude, sir, when I make that observation: I am referring to the house generally.


David James Walker: I wish I could answer the hon. member's question in a satisfactory manner, but I am unable to do so. He has asked me to comment on the expenditure of a considerable amount of money on royal commissions when at the same time there are problems in respect of fisheries. This is not my role at this time. If the hon. member will take my word for this, he will realize that my role is not to explain the policies of the government to the house. My only role at this time is to provide whatever explanation I have available on these specific items. I cannot speak for the Minister of Fisheries, as I am not responsible for those estimates.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite who are speaking on behalf of the government this afternoon are experienced parliamentarians. They have both held seats in this house for some time. The people of this nation are concerned and familiar with the activities of royal commissions which have been given specific and important tasks. They know that the members of these commissions are appointed directly by the government and that their duties are set out in terms of reference. The people of this nation are concerned when they consider the tremendous amounts of money spent by these royal commissions and about what control the government has over them once they have been seized of their assigned tasks.
In view of my profession I am very much interested in the royal commission investigating the farm machinery industry. It was said this afternoon that the report from this commission can be expected about June, 1969. The terms of reference were given to this

commission in 1966. Many people would like to know what the government does to follow up on these terms of reference. How is time allocated, and how does the government go about getting these commissions to report back within a certain period of time? I know the situation varies in respect of the subject matters presented to these commissions, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and the number of people who wish to appear before the commission, but the government must have some control. I should like to know how this control is applied. Does the government make a preliminary survey and anticipate the length of time required to investigate a subject, or what is the procedure in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to give a precise answer to this question. I suppose the result in each case is a balance between two conflicting principles. The object in appointing a royal commission is to seek the advice, the knowledge and the skill of someone who is independent and will be able to look at a problem objectively. We cannot gain the benefits of independence and objectivity if we try to control these people by telling them what to do and when to do it. If we do so we are in effect hiring the dog and doing the barking ourselves. Apart from a general outline of the problem to be considered, the matter is left to the royal commission which has been chosen because of the knowledge, skill, dedication and objectivity of its members. It is left to them to select the means of finding the answer in the most appropriate way.
Human nature being what it is, naturally people with responsibilities such as mine cannot avoid urging royal commissions to hurry up and get their work done. We urge them not to spend so much money, but these are in the nature of exhortations rather than controls. This is the way it should be. Perhaps that is not a satisfactory or precise answer to the hon. member's question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have some concern, and I recognize certain temporal improprieties in discussing so briefly a matter such as a royal commission. I was very taken with the minister's simile about hiring a dog and doing the barking yourself; that is very good. I have only a little time to bark. In view of what he described as exacerbations, I am wondering if they are indeed exacerbations- and I am thinking about what has resulted from the bilingual and bicultural commission.
October IX, 1988



What are the results of this commission, apart from the attitude of people toward its goal and its contribution to national unity? I noticed a cartoon in the Globe and Mail regarding the appointment of a new co-chairman, where he is depicted as entering a room where the cobwebs have covered literally every person in the room, as well as all the equipment being used by the commission.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I see there has been a diminution of expenditure in the various fiscal years which have been listed. Can we assume from the cold, hard statistics, the $668,000 as against the $1,040,000 and the preceding figures, that in fact this massive exercise, research and study is approaching a stage where in all likelihood we can expect that this item might appear in next year's estimates as an expenditure not required? In other words, are we near the end of the line in the very, very important-I do not denigrate it at all-analytical job that is being done by this rather high quality commission.


David James Walker: Mr Chairman, I think the cartoon to which the hon. member referred did less than good service to the bilingualism and biculturalism commission, which I believe has in philosophy done something for the country in that it involved and interested many Canadians to the point that they tried to understand the mechanics of national unity in the country.
My patience might be as great as the hon. member's with regard to the length of time the report seems to be taking. However, I believe the sittings across the country have been completed and it is now a question of assembling the information and preparing the reports, some of which are prepared now. This is the work to be undertaken.
The hon. member questioned whether we could look forward to a continual reduction of the amount in the estimates. On the basis of the information I have, I believe this is so. The commission has now completed its deliberations on the education volume; it is in the last stages of proof-reading and editing, and will be ready for printing almost immediately. Would the hon. member like me to give some account of the volumes now under way, and the different stages they have reached within the staff?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That would be a good idea, Mr. Chairman.
Supply-Privy Council


David James Walker: All the data of information gathered from the public hearings is now being sifted, edited and put together, but I might well be misleading the house if I suggested that this would take only a matter of months. My information is that it would appear the commission's work will continue well into the 1969-70 fiscal year. I refer to the work of editing, drawing together and preparing the reports of all the work carried out heretofore.
It is perhaps pertinent in this regard to mention the great loss suffered through the death of the co-chairman, Mr. Laurendeau, who played a central part in the work of the commission. As hon. members know, this position has now been filled. I think we may run into the situation-and I hope I am right-where the expenses will be going down, but there is still many months work to be carried out, unless we are prepared to lose the total investment and not do anything with information which was gathered at great expense.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I would prevail upon the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to the committee that he will bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the remarks of my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate with respect to what we in Newfoundland consider to be a very grave injustice perpetrated upon Newfoundland fishermen.
I am sure the Prime Minister, with his great sense of justice and his just society, would want to have this matter corrected at least for the balance of the year. The salt rebate was cancelled at the very worst time, a time when the Newfoundland salt fishermen were getting well into their season. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, perhaps with a view to having the vote restored.


David James Walker: I had already made a note to do that, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a comment or two about the royal commission on the price of farm machinery. This inquiry has been going on for some time and many farmers in the west are now suffering a great deal of distress; their operations are being closed down because of the discrepancy that exists between their income and the price of farm machinery, and so on. This is becoming a matter of great urgency to the

October 11. 1968
Supply-Privy Council western farmer and, I presume, to the eastern farmer as well. I wonder whether the hon. member can give me some idea when this report will be forthcoming, and whether there is any intention to follow it up with some stabilization of farm machinery prices, and so on.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had replied to this question. I shall do so again. Work on the preparation of the commission's report is well underway and it is expected to be completed, including translation, in June, 1969.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17. Expenses of the Science Council of Canada, $377,900.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I intended to make some comments in connection with science policy. However, it is now nearly five o'clock and I find I can make my comments just as easily on the item which comes under Treasury Board, namely the National Research Council. In the interests of getting these estimates through, and on the understanding-which I am sure the minister will give-that I will not be restricted too much when we reach the item covering the National Research Council, I would be glad to leave my remarks until then.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would welcome that, Mr. Chairman.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I intended to make some remarks at this time, but on the same understanding I am agreeable to letting this item pass.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Economic Council of Canada-
20. Administration, $1,601,000.
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to begin my remarks now, or does Your Honour wish to call it five o'clock?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I hoped we might be able to take the one or two minutes necessary to complete the estimates of the privy council.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Is it in order for me to proceed, Mr. Chairman?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The Economic Council of Canada has made some fairly important recommendations in regard to agriculture. I am curious to know whether the recommendations contained in its last report, which is now before us, will be implemented. We have been talking about the farm machinery report, which will not be handed down until 1969; but the fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada makes some pretty important recommendations with regard to agriculture. It says that we could use more intensive research and development in this area. It says that we could use computers for farm management and that this should be tied in with the use and application of credit to farming operations. As far as I know, this recommendation has not been put into effect. For example, it has not been put into effect with regard to the subject about which we were talking during the last few days, namely the farm credit bills.
The report of the Economic Council says that special attention should be paid to the education of rural youngsters. In Regina, Saskatchewan, youngsters are complaining because they cannot get student loans with which to go to university. It is not the first time the Economic Council in its report has suggested this particular action. It has suggested this sort of thing in previous reports, but the recommendations have not been acted upon. It seems to me that if we are to pay the expenses of an Economic Council, if we are to pay the cost of operating such a body, some action should ensue in regard to the recommendations it makes.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
By the very fact that the Economic Council is set up to survey the economic well-being of the nation we would expect that we are heading into an economy that will be planned and organized as the result of the findings of that council, and that a direction will be given to the economy which will benefit the people in the various vocations which are examined and discussed. For example, the report says that we should investigate the marketing and the production of grain. The council also said that we should increase the productivity per person and that efficiency should be increased. We are now seeing the results of the efficiency in the corn growers who travelled to Ottawa and said, "We have practised this efficiency and now we cannot sell at a profit the product which we have produced".
October 11, 1968

So I think the suggestions of the council are entirely relevant to this situation, in that if the people of Canada are to be urged to produce and to put all their efforts into it, then someone had better be given the responsibility of checking whether they are producing the right things and whether someone will want it when they have produced it. I think the Economic Council is well worth the money that is being spent on it, but there is not much use using the best brains in our country on the Economic Council, which makes certain recommendations, if we ignore those recommendations thereafter. I suggest that to a large extent, at least in agriculture, this is what has happened. If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but this is my observation.
About two years ago last winter a conference on agriculture was held in Banff. Experts from all over the world arrived to participate in it. At that time the council told us the same things which we find now in its fifth report. As nearly as I can observe, very little has been done in the intervening two years. If it is essential that we give more education to our youngsters, and the council says it is, then the government should follow this up if it considers the Economic 'Council to be a good institution.
I did not particularly want to make a plea today for agriculture. That is not my purpose. My purpose is to plead that when we have a commission with the prestige of the economic council that we act on their recommendations. If we are to act on those recommendations we will have to do something about what I may describe as the market economy, that is we must alter the market economy. We cannot urge sugar beet growers in Ontario, as we have done in the times past, in the general direction of efficiency and say to them, "you have to be better at producing sugar beets" and then have such small control over the economy as to allow some sugar company to put them all out of business within six months. It just does not make sense. This report suggests greater efficiency by the farmers and more productivity per man. It tells us how much we have increased productivity per man in Canada in the last 15 or 20 years. It points out that in the area where I farm, our increased productivity per man has been higher than in some other parts of Canada. But I can also say there is a lack of markets, and productivity per man will go down because there are no markets to absorb the particular item we are producing.
Northern Affairs
Perhaps some of you may have heard about the side hill dodger, who can only go round and round the hill all the time because one of his legs is shorter than the other. We are doing the same in our approach to our farm economy, the marketing aspects of which are being ignored. These are the points I wanted to make.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Service Staff Relations Board-
25. Administration, $1,409,000.
Item agreed to.
Jean-Thomas Richard: This disposes of the estimates of the privy council.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, and public bills.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon highway authority (Alaska highway).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to allow the bill to pass without debate. I say that because this is a very important bill, one which has been before this house in its present form several times. I would remind hon. members that in the twenty sixth parliament it was bill C-106 and in the twenty seventh parliament bill C-112. It concerns me very much that members of the house, particularly hon. members on the government side of the house, do not take more notice of this very important topic. As evidence that it is important I would just remind the house that it has been given unanimous support and approval by every chamber of commerce in the province of Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, northeastern British Columbia and central British Columbia. It has been given support particularly by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and many other local chambers of commerce throughout the central northwest part of the United States.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, it has drawn the attention of United States legislators. I have

October 11. 1968
Northern Affairs
before me letters from men well known in Canada, such as Senator Bartlett of Alaska, Senator George Aiken of Vermont, Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, Congressman Harold Johnson of California and many others I cannot take the time to list this afternoon. This highway represents one of the great epochs in the history of northwestern and western Canada. It is now more than 25 years since Canada and the United States agreed to the name, Alaska highway. This is a 1,523 mile road between Dawson Creek, British Columbia and Fairbanks, Alaska. I think perhaps we fail to recall what a tremendous feat the building of this highway was. It was built in haste but it has a place in history. It is something in which North America can take pride, Canadians and Americans.
In 1942, there was the threat of the Japanese coming to the shores of North America. The muskegs, forests and mountains gave United States engineers nightmares as they faced their task of building a military road through the wilderness in the shortest time possible. At that time the Japanese were pressing United States forces in the Pacific, and an invasion of North America, with landings on the west coast, was feared. A road to Alaska built through Canada was regarded as an essential defence undertaking. Construction was started in the spring of 1942. Six months and $140 million later, the highway opened to wheeled traffic. About 10,000 United States engineer troops and about 4,000 Canadian civilians completed this incredible task. In 1943 the road was improved with an all-weather gravel surface. There are 133 bridges of 20 feet or more in length. From the Alaskan border to Fairbanks, the highway is now paved. From the United States border through Alberta and beyond Fort St. John, the two provincial governments of Alberta and B.C. have constructed and paved connecting highways up to or better than trans-Canada standards. There are still approximately 1,200 miles unpaved.
This highway, built as a military road, does not meet the demands that civilian and commercial traffic now place upon it. A few years ago it was turned over to the Department of Public Works from the Canadian military, having been turned over by the United States military to the Canadian military at the end of world war II. The cost of maintaining this highway is now expensive, yet it carries an amount of freight which is even beyond our realization. It has been a land link between

the United States, Alaska and that tremendously developing part of Canada which is northwestern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia and the Yukon.
In this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, I have designated the name of this highway as the Alaska-Yukon highway because that is exactly what it is. This bill presents a modern approach to a very complex problem. It would establish the Alaska-Yukon highway authority, a non-crown corporation. This corporation would be made up of members of the federal government, the provincial governments of Alberta and British Columbia and the territorial government of the Yukon. There is provision in this bill for associate membership by even municipal governments as well as foreign governments. On this basis the United States and Alaska could participate.
This idea of establishing an authority for the construction of an international project of such great importance to both countries involved is not new. It has been used several times in recent years for major projects. The idea came to me originally when I visited the tunnel that has been constructed through the Alps across the Swiss-Italian border. For years and years this tunnel was projected on the drawing boards and talked about at international conferences between Switzerland and Italy. These countries could never come to a position where they could agree to establish a joint committee for negotiations which would lead to an agreement for the building of the tunnel. Then, the idea was presented to set up an international autonomous authority to which the governments of both countries could contribute. This would eliminate the need to negotiate an international treaty and facilitate the necessary financial arrangements.
This Bill No. C-9 is drafted in such a way that not only can the federal governments of the United States and Canada contribute to the cost of construction but the provincial and territorial governments as well as the state of Alaska can also contribute.
It is my opinion that this is the only way this highway will be completed. It seems to me everyone who understands the importance of this communication road agrees that it must be built. However, there is not even enough interest in Ottawa for such a project to initiate negotiations between the two countries through the facilities of the International Joint Commission. This bill would establish a non-crown corporation which would permit participation of all governments concerned in
October 11, 1968

such a way that this authority could reconstruct and pave this tremendously important road. Bills have been introduced in the United States Senate and Congress which would, it approved, permit contribution of funds on a 50-50 basis between the United States and Canada, because of the importance of this highway to Alaska to the United States.
There are other examples that could be cited where this type of authority has been used to accomplish projects which were too big for any particular level of government. I am thinking of the New York world's fair. The New York world's fair authority was established as an autonomous corporation to which the governments of the state of New York and the city of New York as well as the government of the United States were able to contribute in order to make this a joint project.
It is unique in other ways as well, and that is because it is a non-crown corporation. This non-crown corporation would be administered by a body that provides for regional, federal, provincial and other interests. This is the opportunity we have been looking for which would permit the construction of this highway without the long, tedious negotiations that are usually involved in such joint international projects.
Another example where this type of organization has worked very effectively can be found in the United Kingdom parliamentary charity commissioner, and in France in the commissaires-enqueteurs and rapporteurs. This system has allowed deputies of the French chamber and members of the British parliament to participate in various activities which involved different levels of their governments.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is important to the economy of western Canada as well as to the economy of Canada as a whole to have the tremendous resources of the Canadian northwest developed. Air transport is playing its role in that development, but I submit it is only by utilizing road transportation to the fullest extent that the full potential of that part of the country is to be developed.
Chambers of commerce and members of provincial legislature have shown great interest in this bill. I am sure that the hon. member for Peace River, who seconded my motion to introduce the bill would, if time permitted, vouch for the tremendous interest there is in this project in his part of Alberta.
Northern Affairs
There is great enthusiasm also for the subject matter of this bill in notheastern British Columbia and in the Yukon territory, as well as in Washington, Alaska and the northwestern states.
I commend the bill most seriously to hon. members of the house. We who are charged with responsibility for overseeing the economic welfare of the entire country, must not fail to recognize the economic benefits that would flow from the development of the highway. Some will say that the cost of building it is exorbitant. Certainly construction costs have risen in the last few years. Originally when hon. members of this house began talking of this project they envisaged an expenditure of about $125 million. We are told that construction and paving costs now would exceed $200 million. The United States government has already said it is willing to pay half this cost, and I am sure that since the Yukon territory and British Columbia stand to gain much from the project they would be willing to share in the cost of construction. Alberta thinks the project is so important that it has gone ahead and completed that portion of the highway leading to the border of British Columbia, the construction standard of which is higher than would be necessary if there were not extensive commercial traffic.
I commend this bill to the government. Since the economy of western Canada, to say nothing of the economy of the entire country, will benefit from the completion of this highway, I submit action ought to be initiated immediately. We must not procrastinate any longer. This is the kind of investment that pays for itself. It is important to the general development of our economy. I submit that the government will find no better way of approaching this matter than by allowing this bill to pass second reading, so it can be referred to the standing committee on national resources and public works.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am impelled to rise in support of the intent of this bill and wish to commend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) for drawing the attention of this house to the importance of the Alaska highway in the continuing development of Canada's northland. Areas in Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon, from Edmonton to Fairbanks, have benefited greatly as a result of the highway, which was rather hurriedly constructed by the United States government during the

October 11, 1968
Northern Affairs
war as a partial defence for Alaska. Admittedly, it is somewhat unfortunate that more time was not available, as some sections are poorly located.
I hope to take a little time explaining the history of the road. I also hope to show how this bill may have application to it. At the end of the war the road was turned over to Canada, and the army took it over in the first period. It cost us about $12 million a year to maintain, and our army was in control. Later, the Department of Public Works inherited the highway and has been successful in reducing the annual cost of maintenance to about $6 million. This expenditure appears to have maintained the road at an operational level but has not allowed for any real improvements to be made to the highway.
There have been a number of consultations with the United States government, at arms length, with a view to the United States government paying half the costs of maintenance and paving. Some years ago the United States government sponsored a report which, I believe, was subsequently submitted by the Bettel Institute. Their findings indicated that the cost of improving and paving the highway could be profitable from the standpoint of a tourist attraction, alone.
I do not know what are the actual figures produced by the report. I do recall, however, that the government of Canada was impressed and encouraged by the findings. However, the government of Canada undertook a feasibility report on the highway. While emphasis was naturally pointed toward engineering, economics were also considered. The report appeared to substantiate that one third of the highway needed relocation, one third needed rebuilding, and one third was ready to pave.
The discouraging fact was that in order to complete an acceptable highway, it would cost $210 million. I understand that considerable time and effort was devoted to a study of the return to Canadians in terms of usage. It is conceded that during the war, and for a period following the war, a tremendous number of trucks used the highway, carrying goods north from Seattle. The loads consisted of housing materials, portable housing for Alaska, and other items used in expediting United States army units there. However, information brought to our government during the past few years indicates that commercial traffic has considerably decreased, and in fact is lessening each year. This is largely due to heavily improved water transportation on

the west coast out of Seattle, and our own transport over the Canadian National Railways to Prince Rupert, and on to Alaska. This is taking a great deal of Alaskan business. Considering only the volume of traffic on the road, it is less important to Canada now than it has been.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Tourist travel, however, is still high and is growing. It is my opinion that it will continue to expand annually. There is little doubt that because of the dust factor, most tourists are unhappy about the highway as now constructed. It is also an uncomfortable highway on which to travel. Today's tourists with modern cars find distance less of a problem than in previous years, but they still require safe highways free from dust. In other words, tourists want comfort as well as safety on the highways.
It is my understanding that our government agreed recently, as a result of discussions with the United States government, that any further costs in connection with capital expenditures, required to improve the highway, should be shared by the United States on a 50-50 basis. I also understand that discussions along these lines are continuing.
It must be appreciated that at present the Alaska highway route is the only land corridor available to join two parts of the United States together. In fact, the discussions which have been held emphasize that for all practical purposes the Americans could find that the highway is of greater significance to the United States than it is to Canada. This is a matter of concern and continuing discussion between Canada's parliamentary group and the United States Senate group which meet annually. Canada has decided in the interim to maintain the highway and also to carry out some improvement.
There are approximately 82 bridges on the highway. Some 23 or 24 of them have already been replaced on a more or less permanent basis. Replacement requirements will probably accelerate, because the rest of the bridges are rotting and will not carry the weight of traffic. It is estimated that all of the 82 bridges will be replaced within the next three years. About $2 million was spent in 1968.
I understand it is intended to pave another 10 miles at the end of mile 83 which will bring the pavement in that area to a total of about 93 miles out of Dawson Creek. This is rather important to our American friends, and shows evidence of good faith. We are also
October 11, 1968

paving six miles through the rapidly growing town of Fort Nelson in order to alleviate the dust problem there. There are 2,500 people in Fort Nelson now, so that the extra paving will be welcome to provide assistance in dust control. Twenty-five miles of paving is also to be laid at a section of the highway around Whitehorse, where expansion is increasing beyond expectation. The metal industries in two areas around Whitehorse increased their output from $43 million in 1965 to $141 million two years later. By 1970 it should reach a quarter of a billion dollars.
It is expected that heavy trucks will be travelling the highway to Whitehorse every ten minutes, so considerable attention must be given to improvement of the highways in that area. Our government has also co-operated with our American friends to improve Haynes highway through the provision of snow removal equipment. We therefore find that the future of northern development depends to a large extent on close co-operation with the people of Alaska.
My purpose in reviewing these facts is to bring to the attention of the house the heavy involvement of the federal government in the improvement and maintenance of the Alaska highway. It is evident there is a great deal of merit in considering future negotiations for capital cost, which would place some responsibility on the shoulders of the United States government. Were we to abandon the involvement of our federal government in the development of the highway, is it not reasonable to expect that insurmountable barriers could arise? If it is the intention of this bill to place the operation of the road in a corporation other than a crown corporation, it would not, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, be fair or proper to expect the federal government to foot the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


M. Ervin Pringle: I do not believe the bill goes far enough in connection with the terms of reference applied to the proposed corporation. No estimates are included which would enable the house to judge the amount of funds which would be required for capital costs in the immediate future, and no figures have been submitted covering maintenance costs.
I also believe that the reference to funding the required obligations is unrealistic. The cursory review I have made would suggest that a great deal of money is likely to be required. While the suggestion made with respect to bond and debenture issues appears to
Northern Affairs
indicate that considerable thought has been given to the problem by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), I cannot but feel that the federal treasury would be petitioned for the major portion. If this is true, then it would follow that control of the spending of the money should remain with parliament.
In my opinion there is a valid argument that the time has arrived when all governments benefitting from the Alaska highway should get into the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


M. Ervin Pringle: It would appear feasible that the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, working in close co-operation with the federal government, should become increasingly involved, from a financial point of view.
I do not mean to suggest from my brief remarks today that I see no merit in the bill. Indeed, I believe that the importance of arterial highways to the development and progress of Canada, especially in remote areas,_ is greater today than at any time in our history. Great strides have been made in highway construction in Canada during the past number of years, especially in western Canada. The great farming areas of western Canada are requiring industrial expansion as never before. Technological exchange has kept Canadian farmers abreast of the times in farm automation. Although I quickly agree that farm earnings are not adequate, it is my considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in the farming industry of Canada that expanded markets would not quickly cure. In fact, Canadian farmers have been producing to a surplus position instead of a consuming market for as long as I can remember. Food production has expanded through the encouragement of government to over-produce, to the point where today it has reached an exceedingly dangerous level.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
During these early days in the twenty eighth parliament of Canada, I have heard many references made to the concept of family farms. I have been dealing with family farmers for years, and I heartily agree that they epitomize a way of life which is hard to beat. I also believe that well operated, efficient family farms will not disappear. I do not believe that bigness alone is a requisite of success. If this were true, Mr. Speaker, then the large department and mail order houses would have closed the smaller merchants long ago. What does all this have to do with a highway? I shall continue.

October 11. 13S8
Northern AS airs
I freely admit that successful family farms are going along with the trend to specialization, and those who are recognizing the transition which is taking place will undoubtedly emerge successful. It is not the family farm that will disappear; it is the old concept of family operated diversified farming which is doomed. An advocacy of programming to maintain family diversified farms is as unfair as suggesting that rural electrification and highways are unnecessary.
I am convinced, as are many of my farmer friends, that the day is here when farmers must be prepared to establish area farming economic units, where they must produce to meet consumer demand, with the emphasis on the avoidance of costly surpluses. My point is substantiated by the statistics now available from segments of the agricultural industry which have, during the past six to eight years, established planned programs of production as procurement commissions for secondary industry.
The quiet revolution taking place in farm operations will undoubtedly spread. Expansion of this concept will grow in relation to consumer demand. What we need is more consumers. We need areas expanded through highways and good roads, areas which are close to raw materials such as those to be found parallel to the Alaska highway, so that farmers can become more involved in industry and so that they can give a hand to increasing the number of consumers.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again commend the hon. member for Red Deer for his bill, although I cannot totally agree that the formation of a non-crown corporation is the correct approach to further development of the Alaska-Yukon highway. I commend the hon. member, because highways mean development. The highway between Edmonton and Fairbanks undoubtedly holds the key which will open vast natural resources. Accessible natural resources mean industry, and industry requires people. People are consumers. The urgent need for a more equitable balance between producers and consumers to enlarge domestic markets has never been more acute than it is today.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, No. C-9, providing for the establishment of an Alaska-Yukon highway authority. I support the idea because it seems to me that some sort of co-ordinating body is required in order to ensure that more rapid progress takes place in the development of this highway. The hon. member for Fraser

Valley East (Mr. Pringle) has stated that there have been rapid strides made in road construction. Maybe there have been, but if we look at the figures pertaining to this highway, 1,523 miles long, finished in 1943, we find that there are still 1,200 miles not paved, and generally in poor condition. I think this may have occurred because of the lack of a proper co-ordinating body to bring together the views of the various governments involved in the construction and maintenance of this road.
I do not need to repeat all the important developments that would result from improvement of this road. They have been mentioned by previous speakers, but tourism is one thing that cannot be overlooked. The Yukon contains' a vast potential for tourist traffic development. The nice thing about tourism is that we are not really exporting anything. People come to look at our country and they leave their money here.
It has been stated that between $6 million and $12 million has been required annually for the upkeep of this highway under present circumstances, and that a total of $200 million would be required for completion of the pavement. It appears that the expenditures now taking place, multiplied over a period of 20 years or so, would cover the cost of paving the road. If an Alaska-Yukon highway authority were established, which would actively work toward this goal, it might be reached in the near future.
Because of the importance of this highway I urge that serious consideration be given to this bill. I shall not say much more because I do not want it talked out. I have heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley East support the bill, and I presume he was expressing the view of his party. I hope no further members will speak on it, so that it can be passed and sent to the appropriate standing committee.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to talk this bill out, but I too would like to commend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) for introducing this very interesting topic to the house. I am one of the members from British Columbia. For years we in B.C. have been looking for a good access to the north as one of the major contributions which the federal government could make to the vital highway links that we need in the western part of Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, for many years we have heard the slogan "Roads to Resources." That is actually what the hon.
October 11, 1968

member has raised in this important bill. I presume that, like the rest of us, he has become somewhat disillusioned with the federal government. He realizes, as many of us do, that it will take a number of years before it proceeds with a full program to pave this vital road link, and he has suggested that a highway authority be established. Personally I think it is a very good idea to approach other parties who are interested in this road link. I have in mind the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, the state of Alaska, the United States government, and of course our own federal government here in Ottawa.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I have been over the road, and I am familiar with a large section of the highway. It is very scenic although extremely rough. It is full of potholes and it is dusty, and anything but an asset or an attraction to the great tourist industry which it could and should serve, were it paved as it should be. It seems to me that far too little attention has been paid by the federal and other government authorities to the vast untapped and undeveloped resources which we have in the north, the northeastern and northwestern parts of our nation. We do have the trans-Canada highway, stretching from one end of Canada to the other, and there is not one section of our nation which has not benefited economically from the building of this road link.
In the Yukon we have another section of Canada. I believe that this important section of our nation should also have a road link of a standard at least equal to that of the trans-Canada highway. This of course is where the federal government enters the picture. It is not my intention to talk out this bill. There is ample time for us to put it through the second reading state this afternoon.
Although perhaps it would be better if the federal government were to look after the task of building this road link, the mere fact that the federal government has failed to do so, and the mere fact that we have had recent statements which indicate that in the immediate future there is little chance that this vital road link will be paved, prompts me to say that I have no hesitation in suggesting to the house that we endorse the bill which has been put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


Mr. Ian  Walson@Laprairie: Mr. Speaker, I wish-
Northern Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Watson:: -to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) upon bringing this bill to the attention of the house. I was recently a visitor to the Yukon and appreciate full well the tremendous benefits which would accrue to that part of Canada if the highway were paved from Dawson Creek to the Alaska frontier. I am told that not only do we need the 1,200 miles of pavement but that we also need to rebuild some 400 miles. I have learned also that all the bridges require rebuilding. The sum involved is high, but within our means. I agree with other hon. members who have spoken today that this is an economically feasible project and that we should be doing something about it now.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ian Watson: So far as the Yukon is concerned it would appear to me that we could substantially reduce commodity costs in that part of the country if transportation costs were reduced as a result of the increased speed which would be possible on the highway were it paved and partially rebuilt. One area of the economy of the Yukon which is undeveloped now is tourism. With the paving of the Alaska highway, tourism in the Yukon would blossom, and if access roads were built this blossoming of tourism would spread into the Northwest Territories as well. The faster access to the south would also be an additional stimulus to the development of the Yukon's tremendous mineral and timber resources.
For these and other reasons which hon. members have given today, the overwhelming economic evidence is to the effect that the highway can and should be built without any more delay. The tourist potential for Alaska alone underlines the interest which the people of the United States generally as well as the people of Alaska have in this project. There is no question but that Alaska would be visited by tremendous numbers of people from the northwestern parts of the United States who would like to see their 49th state.
I would hope that in the very near future the governments involved could get together in an effort to do something about this project. At the same time I would hope it would be possible for the authorities in the Yukon, who are concerned with having a corridor to the Pacific, to raise the question with the authorities in the United States and Canada so that we could solve these problems at the same time.

October 11. 1968
Business of the House
I have one final point which should be of particular interest to the maritime members present. In eastern Canada we have a similar problem. This summer I was happy to have been a visitor to the eastern provinces. One thing that struck me was the lack of fast road access to the maritimes. We have the state of Main jutting up into the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. If a corridor were built across this part of Maine I am convinced it would do more for the maritimes than all the money the Atlantic Development Board has been spilling around.
I should like to suggest the suggestion of the hon. member for Red Deer in respect of an Alaska highway authority be broadened, so that the authority would become a corridor authority in which money supplied by the United States government for a corridor through the state of Maine would be met by equivalent Canadian funds spent on paving the Alaska highway in the Yukon to the Yukon frontier.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? In view of the fact that he apparently is in agreement with the principle of this bill, as are all the other parties in the house who have spoken on this matter, does he think it would be a very good idea now to let this bill pass second reading so that the committee could really study the suggestion he has made, as well as the question of the Yukon highway?


Ian Watson: I would propose that the federal government immediately convene a conference of the governments of the states of Maine and Alaska, the maritime provinces, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon Territory as well as the Atlantic Development Board, as well as the federal governments of Canada and the United States to deal with both projects simultaneously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I must advise the hon. member that the period for private members business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier today the business for Tuesday will be, one would hope, the completion of the committee stage of the farm improvement loans bill, followed by second reading of the Farm Credit Corporation amendment bill, then the committee stage of that bill carried through to conclusion, and later on that day I will be ready to announce the business for the remainder of the day.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the ministers' attendance roster will be the same for next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I
should indicate to the hon. member that we are taking advantage of the very helpful comments made by hon. members opposite and will be glad to make one or two revisions to that roster.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the ministers who are supposed to be here on Monday be here?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member will know by the rules that no ministers are supposed to be here next Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: This house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock, Tuesday, October 15, pursuant to standing order No. 2(4).


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
i>ouse of Commons Betiates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable Lucien Lamoureux
[DOT] (10:30 a.m.)

[Stage Direction]
The twenty seventh parliament having been prorogued and dissolved by proclamation on the twenty third day of April, 1968, and writs having been issued and returned, a new parliament was summoned to meet for the dispatch of business on Thursday, September 12, 1968, and did accordingly meet on that day.
Thursday, September 12, 1968
This being the day on which parliament is convoked by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General for the dispatch of business, and the members of the house being assembled:
Alistair Fraser, Esquire, the Clerk of the House, read to the house a letter from the assistant secretary to the Governor General informing him that the Right Honourable J. R. Cartwright, Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, would proceed to the Senate chamber to open the first session of the twenty eighth parliament of Canada on Thursday, the twelfth day of September, at ten thirty o'clock.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Members of the House of Commons:
It is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate chamber, when the Speaker of the Senate said:
Honourable Members of the Senate, and Members of the House of Commons:
I have It in command to let you know that His Excellency the Governor General does not see fit to declare the causes of his summoning the present parliament of Canada until the Speaker of the House of Commons shall have been chosen according to law, but this afternoon, at the hour of three o'clock, His Excellency will declare the causes of calling this parliament.
[DOT] (10:50 a.m.)
And the House being returned to the Commons chamber:


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Fraser, the first and one of the most important tasks of the members upon the opening of a new parliament is the election of the Speaker of the house. The member whom we choose will preside over our deliberations and direct the services which are essential to the efficient guidance of our business; he will also represent us on numerous occasions in Canada as well as abroad.

To perform these functions, and to perform them to our satisfaction, he will require a formidable array of qualities. He must enjoy our respect without losing our affection. He must be firm yet sensitive, a master of language and a good listener, able to interpret the law and to understand human nature. He must be prepared to cite a precedent, and to know when to distinguish it. It will be helpful if he has a good sense of humour, and if

September 12, 1968
Election of Speaker
he can be equally witty in both languages. He needs the skills of a judge and a diplomat. He should combine the talents of a tight-rope walker, a juggler and, occasionally, a lion tamer. In short, he must be a born parliamentarian.
It was our good fortune to find such a man for our Speaker in the last parliament. At the beginning of this session it is reassuring to nominate a man who has demonstrated these qualities and who now has behind him the experience of an eventful and sometimes hectic parliament.

The distinguished career of the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux has prepared him particularly well to fulfil the role of Speaker. Born in Ottawa, where he also studied, he spent the greater part of his life within a few miles of parliament hill. After having been admitted to the bar in Ontario, he became executive assistant to the Minister of Transport. Since 1954, he has practised law at Cornwall, where he took an active part in public affairs, particularly in the field of education. Elected member for Stormont in 1962 for the first time, he was re-elected in 1963, 1965 and 1968. He was appointed Deputy Speaker of the house and Chairman of committees of the whole for the 26th parliament. He was Speaker of the house of Commons during the 27th parliament.
At the end of the last parliament, a large number of members from all parties paid tribute to the way in which he had fulfilled his duties by agreeing that his seat should not be contested in the election. I know that the hon. member firmly believes that independence is necessary to the good operation of the speakership and I welcomed with pleasure the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and of the leaders of the other parties who did not contest his election as an independent member.
To propose a former speaker and an independent member for the speakership of the house constitute two precedents which I am pleased to create. Those precedents give an idea of the new role that the Speaker will be called upon to play.

At every session of parliament the amount of legislation and other parliamentary business increases substantially, while the amount of time available for debates in the house remains virtually the same. If
[Mr. Trudeau.)
parliament is to play its proper role we must ensure that the available time is used wisely and fairly. An active Speaker who enjoys the confidence and support of the members can greatly improve the performance of the house. This has been our experience and the experience of other Commonwealth parliaments.
In the last parliament we agreed to abolish appeals from the Speaker's rulings. All who were members of the house during that parliament would agree, I believe, that this improved our proceedings without detracting from the rights of individual members. The special committee on procedure, which visited the United Kingdom parliament last winter, reported:
Again and again during the days we were at Westminster we were impressed by the key role as the impartial conductor of the work of parliament conferred on the Speaker.
When neither rules nor understandings can be devised to guide, the wisdom and diligence of Mr. Speaker prevails. Experience has shown that an officer of his high standing is needed. At Westminster he has been given both heavy duties and countervailing independence and honour. Undoubtedly, the independence of the Speaker and the power vested in him constitute a condition precedent to the effectiveness of parliamentary procedure in the United Kingdom.
I am convinced that these remarks apply with equal force to our own house. That is why the policy of strengthening the Speaker's independence and increasing his responsibilities has been advanced and supported by many members in all parts of the house. That is why I feel certain that the members of the house will support me in urging the Speaker, with respect, not to hesitate to restrain abuses of the rules and irrelevancy, no matter on which side of the aisle they arise.

I am sure that all hon. members will want to join with me to express our feeling that, of all the members of this house, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux is the most qualified by his temperament, his knowledge and his experience to assume the heavy responsibilities of the office for which I have the honour to propose his candidacy.

Therefore I take great pleasure in moving, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, that Lucien Lamoureux, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Stormont-Dundas, do take the Chair of this house as Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
September 12, 1968


Hon. Robert L. Slaniield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Fraser, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to second the Prime Minister's nomination of the member for Stor-mont-Dundas as Speaker for this first session of the twenty eighth parliament.

Mr. Lamoureux, who was elected Speaker at the first session of the 27th Parliament, has always since then discharged that important office with tact, diplomacy, firmness and with complete and scrupulous impartiality.

Coupled with these qualities has been an innate wisdom, comprehension and respect for the parliamentary process, for parliament and the rights of members of parliament.
I might mention, sir, that at Mr. Lamou-reux's election the Prime Minister of the day addressed his words to the then Clerk, Mr. Raymond. Today, only a short time later, although the procedure is the same you, Mr. Fraser, have succeeded Mr. Raymond and at the opening of this new session I take the occasion to wish you well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The appointment of a permanent Speaker remains one of the necessary objectives of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary improvement. I hope we can all agree upon the urgency of taking action in this regard. I hope also I will be forgiven for saying here that I am proud of the role played by the members of the Progressive Conservative party in Stormont-Dundas in order that Mr. Lamoureux could come to parliament bearing as much as possible the stamp of non-partisan approval. But the traditional rights of party supporters to nominate candidates in Stormont-Dundas must not be forgotten. Therefore it is urgent in that respect as well as for the regulation of parliamentary procedure that early consideration be given to alternative methods of removing the election of the Speaker from partisan considerations.
[DOT] (11:00 a.m.)

I am glad to say it again: The choice of Mr. Lamoureux is a happy one. His past rulings show the attachment and the respect he has for the institution whose standing orders he had to apply. While men come and
Election of Speaker
go, the continuity of institutions ensures the survival, the strength of democracy.
But the institutions must keep abreast of the times-and the same is true of parliament-and in that sense, I think that when the office of Speaker becomes permanent, we will have taken a step forward.

The Speaker is the chief officer of parliament. He has been the bulwark of the privileges of parliament and its members. In the continuity of the office of Speaker and its progressive removal from the exigencies of partisan conflict lie the best guarantees of parliament's survival as the basic institution of freedom. In the eyes of the Speaker there are no parties in parliament, there are only members equal as to rights and privileges, equally entitled to consideration. It is this which makes parliament the supreme instrument of man's designing for the defence of freedom.
Mr. Lamoureux has been and I am sure will continue to remain an outstanding exponent of these great principles and traditions. Personally and on behalf of the members of this party in the house I extend to him my congratulations, anticipating the outcome of the motion with great confidence, and my best wishes as he resumes his most important duties at the opening of this session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


David Lewis: Mr. Fraser, we already have had the experience and the pleasure of having Mr. Lamoureux as a Speaker, and he has always displayed fairness, kindness and wisdom. What more could we ask of the man who is now our Speaker?

I note, Mr. Fraser, that Mr. Lamoureux is sitting in the opposition benches of the chamber, determined to show his independence even before he is officially elected Speaker. This is perhaps characteristic of the man's sense of propriety, and humour as well.
I want to agree with the right hon. Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition on behalf of my colleagues and myself with the necessity of constitutional arrangements in respect of a permanent Speaker in this house, without any constituency in the land being deprived of the opportunity of an electoral contest. That step will receive all

September 12, 1968
Election of Speaker
our support. I also noted that the right hon. Prime Minister, as an expert lawyer, emphasized the fact that the Speaker must be able not only to interpret the rules but also to distinguish them when the situation requires. In that agile effort of applying the rules with impartiality and good nature to the particular situation, Mr. Lamoureux has already shown himself to be a master.
It is with very deep pleasure that we of the New Democratic party support his candidature for this office and offer him the cooperation which I know he will receive from all hon. members of the house.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Fraser, when the appointment of a permanent Speaker was discussed some months ago, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux was suggested for this position, and we were happy to think that he might become permanent Speaker of this house. The hon. Lucien Lamoureux possesses obvious qualities thanks to which he has shown himself to be, during the 27th Parliament, one of the great Speakers in the history of the House of Commons. He acted with impartiality, and even when Parliament was led by a minority government, he managed to do a difficult job very well, in spite of a situation which was often rather awkward.
This time, the Speaker will preside over the deliberations of a parliament led by a majority government, and this for the first time in six years. At this time, I feel that the hon. Mr. Lamoureux has, once again, all the unquestionable qualities required to know that we must protect the minorities. Now, we will be a minority. I am of the opinion, in short, I am already convinced that the hon. Mr. Lamoureux will treat the members of parliament, the appointees of the people as they should be treated in a democratic parliament. We have been appointed by the Canadian people: the hon. Mr. Lamoureux knows that.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, are indeed very happy to support fully the motion of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), seconded by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), for the appointment of the hon. Mr. Lamoureux as Speaker of the house during the session opening today.
Therefore, we wish every success to the hon. Mr. Lamoureux, and we feel sure that the members will be treated equitably, in all
fairness, for the common good of the Canadian people.

The Clerk of the House declared the motion carried in the affirmative, nemine contradicente, and Lucien Lamoureux, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Stormont-Dundas, duly elected to the Chair of the house.
Mr. Lamoureux was conducted from his seat in the house to the Speaker's chair by Right Hon. P.-E. Trudeau and Hon. Robert L. Stanfield.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members, I thank you for the honour you have just bestowed upon me, an honour which is shared by my family and by the constituents I represent in this parliament.
For the second time you have called me to the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons. I am deeply grateful to you for this renewed expression of confidence. When I stood before you as Speaker-elect to the twenty seventh parliament I undertook to serve this house and to serve parliament with fairness, objectivity and impartiality. This is my renewed pledge to the house on this solemn occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I will again consider it an honour and my duty to uphold the rights and privileges of individual members of the house and to maintain our parliamentary customs and traditions, and I am sure all hon. members will want to co-operate with their presiding officer to ensure that in its deliberations our assembly will always observe the highest standards of decorum, propriety and dignity.

I therefore thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, and I thank you, hon. members, for the great honour that you have just bestowed upon me.
I am deeply touched, of course, by the much too flattering remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I am also grateful to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield who, in much too gracious terms, was kind enough to support the Prime Minister's motion. The remarks made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as

September 12, 1968

well as those made by the hon. members for York South and Temiscamingue (Messrs. Lewis and Caouette) are for me today a source of comfort and encouragement and will be a source of strength, if need be, in difficult moments.
In the discharge of the high office devolved upon me, I shall do my utmost to deserve the confidence placed in me today by all members of this house.
As in the past, I shall count on the cooperation and goodwill of all hon. members. I will rely on them for advice, especially on those of our colleagues who bring to our debate the wisdom of age and a long experience in this house.
Such a co-operation will contribute more than any other factor to the orderly, efficient and dignified dispatch of our parliamentary business.

Hon. members, I approach my task with humility and fully conscious of my limitations, but sustained by your advice and counsel I shall endeavour to prove worthy of the trust committed to me by this house whose servant I am.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SITTING SUSPENDED

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this sitting be suspended until three o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the suggestion by the right hon. Prime Minister that this sitting be suspended until three o'clock this afternoon. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the sitting suspended until the ringing of the bells at three o'clock this afternoon.
At 11.15 a.m. the sitting was suspended until 3 p.m. this day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at three o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing further proceedings, perhaps I might be permitted to 29180-2
Opening of the Session recall to the minds of hon. members that on Friday, July 7, 1967, the following motion was adopted by the house:
On motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East) for Mr. Pearson, seconded by Mr. Diefenbaker, it was resolved,-That the Members of this House, desiring to record their deep appreciation of the long and distinguished service rendered by Leon-J. Raymond, Esquire, O.B.E., as Clerk of the House of Commons, and acknowledging the dignity and profound learning with which he graced his office, designate him as Honorary Officer of the House of Commons with an entree to the Chamber and a seat at the Table on ceremonial occasions.
To give effect to the motion of the house Mr. Raymond today is sitting at the table of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



OPENING OF THE SESSION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's secretary announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at three o'clock on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the pleasure of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber. Then the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of the House of Commons, said:
May it please Your Excellency,
The House of Commons have elected me their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me.
If in the performance of those duties I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to their Queen and country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency the most favourable construction.
The Honourable the Speaker of the Senate, addressing the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons, then said:
Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor General to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and attachment of the
[Stage Direction]
September 12, 1968
Speech from the Throne House of Commons to Her Majesty's person and government, and not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, he grants and upon all occasions will recognize and allow their constitutional privileges.
I am commanded also to assure you that the Commons shall have ready access to His Excellency upon all seasonable occasions, and that their proceedings as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from him the most favourable construction.
Then His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to open parliament by a speech from the throne.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to report that, the house having attended on His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, I informed His Excellency that the choice of Speaker had fallen upon me, and, in your names, and on your behalf, I made the usual claim for your privileges, which His Excellency was pleased to confirm to you.



OATHS OF OFFICE

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-l, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that when the house did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy which is as follows:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I have the honour to welcome you to the first session of the 28th Parliament of Canada.
Across the land there are great expectations of what this Parliament will produce. My Ministers recognize the responsibility for leadership which these hopes entail. They are determined to do all that they can to carry out the mandate they received from the people of Canada in the recent general election. They recognize their duty to ensure that the wishes of Canadians concerning their Government be fulfilled as quickly and as completely as the general advantage will allow. At the same time my Government is conscious that aspirations and their realization have to be tempered by a sober awareness of reality. In the complexities of modern society, effective programs take time to

develop and more time to implement. At all stages they require financial and intellectual resources which are not unlimited and must be used with careful planning and the hard judgement of priorities. It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once.
My Government has planned the legislative program of this first session in the context of a Parliament of normal duration. To make way for the consideration in later sessions of new programs that Ministers are already developing, it is proposed, during the current session, to elucidate priorities and to set in motion new policies. Of equal importance, though of far less drama, Parliament will be asked to deal with a host of matters essential to the smooth and up-to-date functioning of government which were not disposed of in the previous Parliament. My Government considers that its first responsibility, and the first responsibility of this Parliament, is to clear the accumulation of essential legislative adjustments, improvements and modernizations left over from the last Parliament. Unless they are cleared up promptly, efficient public administration and the effective operation of the Canadian economy and society will be hampered.
My Ministers believe that much of the delay and difficulty in the handling of Parliamentary business during recent years could have been avoided or reduced by the improvement of Parliamentary rules and procedures. It is their view that Canadians feel that Parliament is too far removed from the people it serves; its operations are too slow and ponderous; its deliberations are often insufficiently informed and its decisions are too few and too much delayed. In order that Parliamentary institutions may retain the confidence of the people, and in order that they may cope successfully with the vast scope and complexity of government today, it is essential that provision be made for legislative machinery that can act speedily on the large number of varied, detailed and complicated legislative, financial and policy questions that will be the normal, and indeed the growing, Parliamentary program of the future. My Government accords the greatest importance to Parliamentary reform and, to this end and as a matter of the highest priority, it has already had useful discussions with representatives of Opposition parties concerning changes in the rules and procedures of the House of Commons.
So that the Official Opposition, to which we in Canada give formal recognition as a vital part of our democratic process, as well as the other parties in opposition, may be in a position to cope more effectively with the heavy load of action and decision each session must face, you will be asked to make new provision for the Official Opposition, and the other parties in their Parliamentary role. You will also be asked to consider additional facilities for the better discharge of the functions of Parliament generally.
My Government is deeply and irrevocably committed to the objectives of a just society and a prosperous economy in a peaceful world. My Ministers believe that the unity of the country is fundamental to the attainment of these goals, as-indeed-to the enjoyment by each Canadian of the maximum possible liberty, happiness x and material well-being. Constitutional reform remains the best long-term guarantee of Canadian unity and my Ministers are directing officials in discussions with the Provinces which are proceeding well and will, through a series of intergovernmental
September 12, 1968

conferences, lead to proposals that Parliament will wish to consider. In the meantime, however, to further the objective of a united Canada, you will be asked during the current session, to enact a totally new Official Languages Act based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. You will also be asked to approve a new Publication of Statutes Act to change the way in which the law of our bilingual land is presented and made known in both the official languages of our land. You will also be asked to consider measures relating to Indians, to citizenship, to national symbols, to cultural agencies, to transportation of all kinds as well as to communications (including satellites), educational television, and the financing of the Post Office.
Some of these proposals involve the righting of wrongs and others the opening of opportunities long denied. Together they exemplify the essential connection between justice and national unity. The attainment of a just society is the cherished hope of civilized men. While perhaps more difficult to formulate for groups than for individuals, even the members of majorities-political, religious, linguistic or economic-must know what it is to suffer injustice. My Government is deeply concerned to provide and to ensure increased justice, dignity and recognition to the individual, particularly in an age which is characterized by large governments, industrial automation, social regimentation and old-fashioned laws. A great deal has been accomplished in recent years to make the Canadian society more just in terms of income distribution and security against the vicissitudes of life. Pensions for the aged, provision for the sick and for the needy have been made more effective by legislation passed in recent Parliaments and by action of the provinces. Notwithstanding such measures, poverty continues to exist in Canada. My Government recognizes that, but it also believes that it would be deluding and cruel to pretend that there is a simple, all-encompassing or instantaneously effective remedy. Poverty can be dealt with successfully and permanently only by continued and determined action in a variety of ways by all governments. For its part, Parliament can be assured that the federal government will contribute fully and assume leadership wherever it can properly do so. To this end, the proposals you will have for your consideration will include the establishment of a department charged with the objective of ensuring that people in all areas and regions of our country have as equal access as possible to the opportunities of Canada's economic development.
At the same time, there are other and broader elements vital to a just society, and my Ministers feel that these must receive, at this and in later sessions of Parliament, a degree of attention they have not had hitherto. Toward these ends, you will be asked to enact important changes in the Criminal Law, to provide new protections for consumers and investors, to up-date food, drug and health legislation, to revise or amend legislation relating to the machinery of justice, and to correct a number of particular injustices, including those resulting from certain provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. During the course of the present session it is anticipated that the government will receive reports from 29180-2 \
Speech from the Throne inquiries with regard to labour legislation and veterans pensions, and it is the intention of my Ministers to bring their proposals in these matters before you as soon as possible.
My Government believes that the objective of a just society must always include the pursuit of a prosperous economy as well as the fair distribution of its proceeds. Just as we have in the past tended, perhaps, to consider justice in our society largely in material terms, so we must recognize that there has been a tendency in Parliament and to some degree in Government to concentrate on the distributive aspects of our economy. In this course we have sometimes tended to neglect those aspects that can affect the productivity of our country, and hence the total provision of economic well-being for our society, and its competitiveness in the changing conditions of the modern world. The natural resources of Canada and the industries based upon them continue to be of immense importance to our economy but the advantages of our great physical resources by themselves are no longer an adequate base for a growing and prosperous modern economy. We shall increasingly have to compete on even terms with those countries of the world which are most advanced technologically in the provision of the sophisticated products of modern life. Unless Canada can maintain an economy that is efficient, competitive and productive in relation to the most advanced nations on earth, we cannot have the basis for a society from which poverty has been eliminated, we cannot maintain high levels of employment and income and we cannot ensure the standard of life to which Canadians generally aspire. It is against this background, as well as with the consciousness that the interests of all must be fairly balanced, that the government is approaching its policies and programs of an economic character. In this same context, Parliament will be asked during the present session to consider proposals for a systematic and continuous review of prices and costs in our economy.
Just as incomes cannot increase faster than productivity if price increases are to be restrained, so government spending by all levels of government cannot increase faster than productivity if we wish to restrain the increase in levels of taxation. These two realities are among the most important that Canadians and their leaders must bear in mind during the months and years ahead. Measures that you will have to consider relating to the Kennedy Round reflect the outcome of a major international effort to reduce the barriers to international trade and emphasize the opportunities opening up for a great trading nation like Canada. A measure to be brought before you dealing with the amendment of the Bretton Woods arrangements, results from comparable efforts to stabilize and improve the whole international financial system.
Conscious of the limitations it must place on its expenditures, my Government has acted within the framework of previously announced guidelines to select carefully the programs which in the light of regional needs and opportunities it considers most promising for the promotion of a prosperous economy. My Ministers will bring before you legislation relating to the encouragement of manpower programs, regional improvements, domestic investment, export development, and resource administration, including a Yukon Mineral Act and an Oil and Gas Production Act relating to Canada's increasingly

September 12, 1968
Speech from the Throne important northern resources. In addition, my Government will propose a Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, and intends to investigate immediately a number of methods for promoting greater efficiency in the production and marketing of grains, including the establishment of a National Grains Council. You will be asked to approve amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. You will be asked to consider a Canada Development Corporation Act, a Federal Cooperatives Act and an Export Development Corporation Act.
The growth of our population and the changes in the nature of our mobile urban and industrial society lend a new importance to conservation in its traditional sense. We have taken and are taking effective strides toward economic conservation through progressively better use of our resources to achieve a high and long-term productivity. We must also give new attention before it is too late to the preservation of our natural heritage for the enjoyment of Canadians of future generations. You will be asked to consider measures concerning National Parks and Historic Sites and Monuments. These and other facilities for the repose of the mind and restoration of the spirit, for sport, and for physical relaxation are and will be of increasing importance to our social environment. They offer Canadians and to visitors to Canada the possibility of a quality of life richly satisfying and ever more difficult to come by in this and in other industrial countries. Of broader importance is the problem of pollution, which must receive increased attention from federal, provincial and municipal governments. My Ministers are actively engaged in preparing proposals on these subjects and, in due course, these will be brought before you for your examination.
The natural riches with which Canada is blessed must serve to remind us that we have a substantial responsibility and a great opportunity in matters of foreign aid. My Government intends to press forward its plans and programs for international cooperation and development which include the establishment in Canada of an International Development Centre.
In international affairs generally, my Ministers regard the current situation as uncertain and deeply disturbing. Talks are under way in Paris concerning Vietnam but so far negotiations have not advanced as we had hoped they might. The Government has followed with anxiety the attempts to promote a peaceful settlement in Nigeria and has participated actively in international efforts to relieve the sufferings of the civilian population. The situation in Czechoslovakia has also caused the gravest concern to the government, not only for its effects on the prospects of detente and future evolution within Communist countries, but also for its consequences for the freedom and well-being of the Czechoslovak people. For those of them who have to seek refuge in other countries, my Ministers have already taken steps to offer permanent homes in Canada.
The Government has undertaken and is pursuing a thorough review of our external and defence policies. Canada's contribution to NATO, relations with Peking, with Latin America and with Europe

are being studied currently. Reviews of our relations with other areas will be undertaken later and, as conclusions are reached, Parliament will be invited to consider them.
The events in other lands to which I have referred are a vivid reminder that our gocJ fortune as Canadians includes rights and freedoms as well as material advantages. They alert us to the need, not only for vigilance in the conservation of our democratic institutions, but also to the importance of constant concern for their improvement. Efficient government, responsive to public requirements and open to public participation, is essential to the meaningful operation of the democratic process. It will be the more vital in the future as technology and science provide new and more immediate means for the dissemination of information and for the involvement, as individuals, of all our people. The Government has already taken steps to review its information services in order to introduce, as soon as possible, improvements by which the flow of information into and out of the government will be more efficient and effective, permitting the people of Canada a continuing, informed, and more active participation in the activities of their government. In addition, as part of the continuing process of modernization and development of governmental machinery, you will be asked during the current session to enact a Government Organization Act. This measure will complete a number of changes in organization and structure announced by the Prime Minister some weeks ago and will complement the Parliamentary reforms so fundamental to the successful operation of our democratic institutions.
The reinforcement and renovation of Parliamentary and administrative machinery and the clearing away of the substantial backlog now outstanding in the legislative program, will free Parliament so that it can come to grips with difficult and pressing problems relating to youth, poverty, regional disparities, urban growth, individual welfare, and the application and encouragement of scientific technology. These subjects are of concern to all governments in Canada and it is clear that a great deal more has to be done than has so far been contemplated. It would be wrong, however, to expect solutions to be found easily or indeed to be found at all except on the basis of close cooperation in good faith between federal, provincial and municipal governments not only in planning but in implementation as well.
To assist in this process it would be useful to have available to all governments an institute where long-term research and thinking can be carried out into governmental matters of all kinds. At the present time there is no such facility available in this country and it is the intention of my Ministers to bring before you in the near future legislation that will fill this most important gap in our governmental apparatus.
Members of the House of Commons:
During the current session you will be asked to appropriate the funds required for the services and payments authorized by Parliament. In addition to this business, the legislative program that the Government proposes is very extensive but many of the items have been seen before or are of an uncontroversial nature. A list of the Bills relating to the matters to which I have referred will be tabled by the Prime Minister later this day and
September 12, 1968

other portions of the program will be brought forward as the session proceeds. It is very important to the proper government of the country in the years ahead that the proposals for the current session be dealt with. In Canada as in other countries of the world democracy today faces a decisive challenge. It must adapt to new circumstances and new demands or fail in its purpose. This challenge is not abstract but a confrontation which you will have to face by virtue of your election to this Parliament.
Honourable Members of the Senate,
Members of the House of Commons,
May Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: That the speech of His Excellency the Governor General delivered this day from the throne to the two houses of parliament, be taken into consideration at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I request leave of the house to table a list of the titles of the several bills which were referred to in His Excellency's speech. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this list of titles be printed in today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the list of the bills referred to in His Excellency's speech be printed in this day's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1Editor's Note: The list of bills referred to above is as follows:]
1.	A bill respecting the status of the official languages of Canada.
2.	A bill to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
3.	A bill to amend the Post Office Act.
4.	A bill to amend the Customs Tariff.
5.	A bill to establish a Canadian educational broadcasting agency.
6.	A bill respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
7.	A bill to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
8.	A bill to amend the Farm Credit Act.
9.	A bill to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.
10.	A bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
Speech from the Throne
11.	A bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
12.	A bill to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
13.	A bill to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
14.	A bill to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
15.	A bill to amend the Veterans Land Act.
16.	A bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
17.	A bill respecting the construction of a line of railway in the Province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Windfall on the Windfall Extension to the Sangudo Subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 51 miles to the Bigstone property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation and of a connecting spur extending in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately 9 miles to the South Kaybob property of Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Company Limited and its associates.
18.	A bill respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals.
19.	A bill respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
20.	A bill to establish a satellite communication corporation.
21.	A bill to regulate interprovincial and export trade in freshwater fish.
22.	A bill to establish the Export Development Corporation.
23.	A bill to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
24.	A bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
25.	A bill to amend the National Parks Act.
26.	A bill respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory.
27.	A bill to amend the Aeronautics Act.
28.	A bill to prohibit the sale and advertising of hazardous substances.
'29. A bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code.
30.	A bill respecting investment companies.
31.	A bill to establish the Canada Development Corporation.
September 12, 1968

Tributes to the Late Colin Cameron
32.	A bill to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
33.	A bill to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
34.	A bill to amend the National Library Act.
35.	A bill to amend the Judges Act.
36.	A bill to amend the Expropriation Act.
37.	A bill to provide tor the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board.
38.	A bill to amend the Financial Administration Act.
39.	A bill to amend the Canada Corporations Act.
40.	A bill to amend the Criminal Code.
41.	A bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
42.	A bill to amend the Pest Control Products Act.
43.	A bill to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants.
44.	A bill to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue.
45.	A bill respecting the imposition of antidumping duty.
46.	A resolution concerning the National Anthem.
47.	A bill to establish an Indian Claims Commission.



THE LATE COLIN CAMERON


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty this afternoon to pay tribute to the memory of one of the senior members of this house, whose death this summer has prevented him from claiming the seat he won in last June's election. I speak, of course, of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the late Colin Cameron.
Mr. Cameron's outstanding success at the polls-he contested six federal elections, winning five of them-was exceeded only by the effectiveness of his presence in this chamber. His contributions to the debates of the house were of a consistently high level: Always pertinent, usually provocative and frequently witty. When Mr. Cameron spoke, members were assured of a contribution of the type which has made this place the great institution it is.
Colin Cameron displayed in his person the promise which is Canada. He came to this country as a youth and devoted his energies to farming and to work in shipyards, before turning the greater part of his attention to politics. Using his own talents in this land of opportunity, he came to this house where his lucid mind and forceful debating ability placed him in the forefront. He will not soon be forgotten in this chamber.
Neither will he be forgotten elsewhere in this land. It was part of the measure of this man that the tenacity of purpose which he displayed on the floor was matched by a courtliness and warmth which won him friends on all sides.
Mr. Cameron's loss, Mr. Speaker, will be felt by his family of whom he was so fond, by his party to which he was so loyal, and by this house to which he contributed so much. Canada herself can ill afford the loss of a man of this stature.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the members of this party I want to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the memory and to the contribution made by the late Colin Cameron. He was a member of long standing of this house, and before that of the legislature of British Columbia. He applied his uncommon wit, intellect and eloquence to the great issues of his time. Simply on that record of three full and active decades in public life he earned the esteem of his countrymen. But I think it was the manner of his service which won for Colin Cameron the immense affection and respect of all who were associated with him.
He was a vigorous partisan, not simply of a party, which he served with distinction, but also of a point of view which he argued and advanced with a rare eloquence. He would set differences aside when the argument was done. I had the privilege of meeting him quite a number of years ago; but like others who came more recently to this house I knew Colin Cameron by his reputation as a spirited debater and a fine and gentle man, and our observations here confirmed that reputation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This house will miss his vigorous presence, and we extend to his family and to his associates our very genuine sympathy.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I too, and on behalf of my colleagues, join the right hon. Prime Minister
IMr. Speaker.]
September 12, 1868

(Mr. Trudeau) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in extending to the family of Mr. Colin Cameron our most sincere condolences.
We had the opportunity of knowing Mr. Cameron in this house during six years; he was a member of parliament for eleven years, after having sat in the legislature of British Columbia for several years. All of us, regardless of our political allegiance, have admired his hard work in this house. He was the financial critic for his party and, from that point of view, we were very much interested in the criticism he voiced. Even though we may not have shared his opinions and criticism, Mr. Cameron still was a model member, a member who minded his own business, a man who brought something worthwhile to the House of Commons, as well for the government as for the opposition.
The house will certainly suffer from the loss of this inveterate worker. In any event, the memory of Mr. Cameron dwells with us and we offer to his family our most sincere condolences.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the words which have been spoken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) are very deeply appreciated not only by the members of my party who are in this chamber but also by thousands of our members across the country, and most particularly by the family who survive Mr. Cameron.
I had known him for over 30 years. We worked together in the C.C.F. party as in the New Democratic party and I learned, with all my colleagues in our party, to admire and respect Mr. Cameron as much in disagreement as in agreement.
We found him always, if I may put it this way, a civilized human being, a human being with compassion for others, a human being with sensitivity about other people, a human being with concern not only for the welfare but for the comfort, decencies and relationships among people. That deep human concern expressed itself in the vigour of his opposition as well as in the vigour of his support.
He was a man, as I know, and all others who worked with him for, as I have said, more than three decades in a party know- he was a man who was dedicated beyond exaggeration to the improvement of the

Tributes to the Late Colin Cameron human condition not only in his own land but in lands all across the world. He was, when one knew him personally, as deeply affected by the hunger and deprivation of millions of people in Asia, Africa or elsewhere in the world as he was by the hunger and suffering of people here in his own country.
It was this profound dedication to the welfare of human beings that made him stand out among his peers in this country. Added to that was an appreciation of language, a respect for the nuance of words and a poetic turn of phrase which made the expression of his concern for humanity a delight to listen to.
We are grateful to the Prime Minister, and to the others who have spoken, for their kind words about a colleague whom we in this party miss profoundly, as does this house.



INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister)
presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an order in council appointing the Hon. George James Mcllraith, Solicitor General of Canada, the Hon. Charles Mills Drury, President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Hon. Donald Stovel Macdonald, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 143 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, intituled: An act respecting the House of Commons.

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, list of members to compose the standing committees of this house and that such committee be composed of Messrs. Baldwin, Bell, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), Macdonald (Rosedale), Pilon and Rondeau; and that the provisions of paragraph (1) of standing order 65 not apply with regard to the number of members on such committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by Mr. Macdonald that Mr. Hugh Faulkner, member for
September 12, 1968

Appointment of Chairman the electoral district of Peterborough, be appointed chairman of committees of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE Right Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Albert Bechard, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of
Bonaventure, be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this concludes our business for today. Therefore I move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That this house do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 4.32 p.m.

Friday, September 13, 19B8