1968-12-16

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This in fact is the first opportunity I have had since Friday to consult the record and hence bring the appropriate parts of that record before the house. It concerns something in connection with which I believe there was a misrepresentation on Friday of last week. On page 3920 of Hansard for December 13 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is reported to have said:
Indeed, hon. members opposite have had the opportunity to say what they think of the provisions of 16-A because I am advised that they refused to discuss it at all in the committee. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, then this debate has been useful because now we have-
At that point I interrupted and the following exchange is reported to have taken place:


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


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I rise on another point of order. That statement is true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
That was "oh, oh," not "ho, ho" Mr. Speaker. I continue quoting what took place:


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


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


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even that is not true. The minister cannot get away with that nonsense.
I rise today on this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, not to ask the house to set my word against the word of hon. gentlemen opposite or vice versa but simply because there is a record of what went on in the special committee on procedure, and I want to refer to that record. I have in my hand the minutes of two of the meetings of that committee, and they make it clear that my statement was correct. I will not take the time of the house to read these minutes in full, but I believe I am entitled to refer to them. I am not referring to several days when we made incidental references to this question, or days when we were told this was the problem we would have to deal with before we got through with our business.
At any rate, the record or minutes of the committee show that on Tuesday, November 26, at a full dress meeting, after a few preliminaries the greater part of the meeting-in fact four pages of minutes-had to do with the question of the programming of house business. The minutes indicate that some of us objected to any idea of putting the matter completely in the hands of the government. In the minutes this sentence is to be found on page 2:
Mr. Macdonald said that he had to insist on a residual power being given to the government.
It is reported that Mr. Macdonald went on to say that his colleagues would expect him to put through a certain program of legislation, and the reserve or residual power would be needed to ensure this. Two pages later in the minutes the point is reached where the committee agreed to instruct the clerk of the committee to prepare a paper for referral to the draftsman as follows-and there are a number of points which indicate the things we were all agreed on; namely, that there was to be a proceedings committee; that it was to hold meetings; that it was to have a chairman and so many members, and so on; but that it was to act, so far as these parts of the proposal were concerned, only on the basis of a unanimous decision.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
At that point the minutes said, quite correctly, that the President of the Privy Council

December 16, 1968
Discussion of Procedure said he would prepare a draft dealing with cases when there was disagreement in the business committee.
That was on Tuesday, November 26, and I say practically the whole of that meeting was devoted to a very thorough discussion of this whole matter even before there was a draft in front of us.
Then the minutes of Tuesday, December 2, will show that we met at 8.30 p.m. in room 112N and did not adjourn until 10.30 that night. It is recorded that a draft of 16A was placed before us. In fact there were two drafts, one which had been prepared by the clerk of the committee at our request and another prepared by the President of the Privy Council which went much further and was more or less along the lines of the proposal in the report which was finally made.
The minutes of the committee include a report of the statements made by several of the members of the committee. For example, I am quoted as saying that the question of programming business was one which had constitutional overtones. I said parliament was a place of debate and there were certain ground rules which had always been observed. I said I still had faith in co-operation and consultation and believed that a proceedings committee would be able to agree on the programming of business without an ultimate sanction. Later, as the minutes say, I made it clear that in my view such a rule would be detrimental to parliament and that no government had the right to take such powers.
The discussion went on, and among those taking part in it were the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. member for Sudbury, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Peace River. Finally the chairman indicated that since we .were in disagreement the only thing to do was to take a vote, and each clause was called separately. The minutes say that Mr. Lambert recorded his dissent on section 1, Mr. Knowles on section 2, minor drafting changes were incorporated in section 3, changes were made in section 4, and so on. Mr. Macdonald, seconded by Mr. Jerome, then moved that the proposed standing order as amended be adopted for inclusion as a recommendation in the report of the committee. On this question the committee divided:	yeas, Messrs. Deachman,
Forest, Jerome, Lang, Macdonald; nays, Messrs. Baldwin, Fairweather, Knowles, Lambert. The minutes show that the vote

represented a straight division between hon. members on the government side and hon. members of the opposition.
Surely in the light of this record it is clear that we did discuss this subject at length for two full meetings. This is a controversial question, and I submit that for the minister to say he was advised-


Mr. Mcllraith:: This is wholly out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that we did not want to talk about it when we saw it is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case. I know it has been said outside the house that though we talked about it we did not negotiate. Well, when we tried to negotiate we were simply told that the government was in power and that the government intended to put it through.
However, the record is clear. We discussed it at length, and I therefore believe the statement made the other day should not go unchallenged. That is why I have raised the matter today on a question of privilege, to put the facts on record and make this correct statement with regard to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The first thing to be said is that this whole matter, as the hon. member himself has indicated, was the subject of a question of privilege last Friday. It is therefore difficult to see why it should be raised again now, unless it is a device to bootleg the minutes of the committee into the record of this house.
I believe in fairness the hon. member would agree that at no time did we put it to him or to other members that they had no choice but accept this proposal. There was in fact an intensive discussion.
But on the points which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition I think he would equally agree that the question of notice was not the subject matter of any discussion. I do not think he will find this in the record at all. It well may be a matter of argument as to whether there was negotiation in the committee. We felt on the whole that hon. members were not prepared to come forward with what seemed to us reasonable changes in the rules; but surely, Mr. Speaker, this kind of difference of opinion as to the manner in which discussions were carried on does not represent a question of privilege.
December 16, 1968


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support fully the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this question of privilege. Not only with regard to the particular days in November and December mentioned do the minutes disclose discussion and negotiation, but if we go back to the minutes of November 15 you will find the entire meeting was devoted to a discussion of this particular issue, with proposals and counter proposals flowing back and forth between both sides. Consequently I felt I had to support the hon. member on his remarks directed to the terminological inexactitude perpetrated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
If there was not more negotiation it was for a very good reason, which was made quite plain to us at one period during these discussions in committee. The words as used by government members were to this effect: "This is political warfare. We are going to have our way. We want what we want, and we are going to get it-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gerald William Baldwin: -and "If we were where you are we would be fighting it just as hard as you are." How do you negotiate with a bulldozer, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Actually it is not necessary for the Chair to reach any decision, since the question of privilege raised by the hon. member was not followed by a motion, so that according to the rules there is no necessity to determine whether there is actually a prima facie case of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows much better than I do the statutory provisions and the precedents and rules of the house dealing with privilege, and in particular citation 113 in Beauchesne's fourth edition where it is said:
-a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The hon. member may feel he was duty bound to further substantiate the statement he made on Friday last when he raised the question of privilege, but I suggest that the matter having been raised on Friday and continued at this time, it should not be pursued further.
Divorce Act



MEAT INSPECTION ACT


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-143, intituled "An Act to amend the Meat Inspection Act (Inspection Legend)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when all Canadians seem to unite in promoting bilingualism and biculturalism, it seems to me appropriate to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the importance of this bill, which was already introduced on January 22, 1968 as Bill No. C-196.
Section 68 of the regulations under the act provides that the stamp put on inspected meat shall be in English only. Consequently, this bill stipulates that the stamp shall henceforth be in the two official languages and that it shall bear the same maple leaf as the Canadian flag.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE ACT


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-144, to amend the Divorce Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to confer a concurrent jurisdiction on the county and district courts of provinces other than Quebec and Newfoundland in divorce matters. Under the bill for divorce which was passed at the last session, jurisdiction was given to the supreme courts alone of the provinces. It has been found in experience, exactly as had been anticipated by some of us, that the supreme court is being clogged with a great load of actions for divorce resulting in delay, the holding up of cases, and the courts being unable to do their work. The purpose of this bill is to give concurrent jurisdiction to county and district courts, which incidentally will make the proceedings less expensive.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

December 16, 1968
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Nyslrom: Has International Minerals informed the Department of Transport that they intend to ship potash by truck to a United States border point for reshipment by rail and, if so, has the Minister of Transport made representations to the company with a view to safeguarding the economic position of the rail centre of Melville?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport reports as follows: The answer is no.


DUMPING OF FILL, LAKE ONTARIO
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the government policy regarding the dumping of fill in Lake Ontario along the shoreline of Metropolitan Toronto?
2.	What arrangement has the federal government with Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto or any of the Boroughs of Metropolitan Toronto regarding the dumping of fill (a) along the waterfront of the Canadian National Exhibition (b) along the waterfront of the Borough of Etobicoke (c) along the waterfront of Marie Curtis Park and the immediate vicinity (d) at or near the mouth of the Humber River (e) at or near the mouth of the Mimico Creek (f) at or near the mouth of the Etobicoke Creek?
3.	(a) Has the government taken any action against the dumping of fill as referred to in Parts 1 and 2 above, and (b) what action has been or will be taken against the violators?
Kon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):
1.	The policy of the department regarding the placing of fill in lake Ontario along the shore of metropolitan Toronto is to treat each application for approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act individually and independently and on its merits.
2.	The federal government has no understanding or arrangement with metropolitan Toronto or any other town, borough or city regarding the placing of fill along the areas mentioned.
3.	(a) No. (b) The matter will be investigated and appropriate action taken if warranted.


AMALGAMATION OF QUEBECAIR AND EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has an application been received by the Canadian Transport Commission from Quebecair and Eastern Provincial Airways, seeking approval for these two airlines to amalgamate their services?
2.	Has such a request been granted?
3.	What effect, if any, will the granting of this request have on the frequency and quality of service provided by these two airlines?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Yes; a joint letter has been received from Quebecair and Eastern Provincial Airways "for authority to interchange equipment and/or Quebecair to fly the routes of Eastern Provincial Airways or, alternatively, Eastern Provincial Airways to fly the routes of Quebecair".
2.	Insufficient information was provided and the companies have been advised by the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission of the type of material required to give proper consideration to the proposal. Upon receipt of a complete application the matter will be considered by the committee.
3.	The companies hope to make improvements in the service provided to the public and this is one of the matters the committee will consider in dealing with the application.
PAYMENTS TO GOTTLIEB & CO.


Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Did Gottlieb & Company receive any fees or other payments in the field of public relations for EXPO during the last four years?
2.	If so, how much?
3.	What is the address of said company?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports that: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


COMMISSIONAIRES AT AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 771

Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The
Sydneys):
How many members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires are stationed at each airport in Canada?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: The breakdown of the numbers of members
[Mr. Brewin.l
December 16, 1368

of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and the airports they serve is as follows:-
Ontario region		Numbers
Toronto		25
Ottawa		9
Windsor		2
London		2
	Total	38
Central region		
Saskatoon		3
Regina		1
Winnipeg		8
	Total	12
Western region		
Edmonton		12
Calgary		16
	Total	28
Pacific region		
Vancouver		14
Victoria		3
	Total	17
Quebec region		
Montreal		32
Quebec		6
Sept lies		4
	Total	42
Atlantic region		
Fredericton		3
Gander		5
Stephenville		2
Moncton		4
St. Johns/Torbay		3
Sydney		2
Saint John, N.B.		5
Halifax		5
	Total	29


ESQUIMALT-DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE BY NAVAL SHIPS
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Are Canadian naval vessels other than submarines discharging raw sewage into the waters of Esquimalt Harbour and, if so, does the Department of National Defence intend to install holding tanks on its vessels on the West Coast?
2.	If not, what other steps are being taken to reduce pollution of the harbour?
Questions
as follows: 1. Yes. No, it would be extremely expensive to modify existing warships to take holding tanks.
2.	None.


MIXING OF GRADES AT TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. Soulham: Is the government giving consideration to revising the Canada Grain Act to permit the mixing of all grades of grain at the terminal elevators?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This matter has been considered in long range studies but further research is required before final decision can be made.


MERCURIAL TREATED GRAIN DELIVERIES
Mr. Soulham: How many instances in 1968 (a) have the Board of Grain Commissioners had with respect to mercurial treated grain deliveries (b) how many charges have been filed (c) how many convictions have been obtained?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: (a)	25 shipments were found to contain mercurial treated kernels, (b) The board has recommended prosecution in two instances. One is now before the courts and the other under review as to appropriate action by an agent of the Department of Justice, (c) See
(b)	.
DESIGNATED AREAS FOR WHEAT PRODUCTION Question No. 781


Mr. Southam:: Is the government giving consideration to breaking down the Prairie Provinces into two or three designated areas with a view to allocating production of high quality Red Spring Wheat to the normally semi-drought areas, and the production of lower grades to the higher yield lower grade geographic regions?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not specifically, but this is one approach under discussion.


INCREASE IN HANDLING CHARGES, TERMINAL ELEVATION
Mr. Southam: Is it the government's intention to support the request of the Western Wheat Pools for an increase of handling charges at the terminal elevators?


Yves Forest: to President of the Privy Council): I am in- The Board of Grain Commissioners, which formed by the Department of National has the responsibility for setting of maximum Defence and the Department of Transport tariffs for services performed by elevator

December 16, 1968
Questions
companies, is presently reviewing all briefs submitted to them at their public hearing held in Winnipeg on November 6, 1968.


CALGARY AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION
Mr. Mahoney: 1.	Is the Calgary Airport classified as an international airport?
2.	If not, does the government intend to classify it as an international airport, and, if so, when?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Calgary airport is classified as an alternate airport for use by aircraft engaged in international air carrier operations. It has not been classified as an international "regular" airport due to a lack of suitable inspection service facilities.
2.	Improvements are now being undertaken to provide additional space in the terminal building which can be made available for inspection services. When this work is completed, the airport will be officially designated as a "regular" for international use.


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, THETFORD MINES, QUE.
Mr. Dumonl: Has the Minister of Transport received a request for the construction of an airport at Thetford Mines and if so (a) when (b) has he taken any steps in this regard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. (a), June 1966. (b) Officials of the department have been requested to perform economic and engineering studies to determine if federal funds would be justified to assist in the construction of an airport at Thetford Mines.


PENSION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Who are the members of the Pension Appeal Board, what is the salary of each and what is their term of appointment?
2.	How many cases have been heard by the Board since it was established?
3.	In what location or locations does the Board meet?
4.	What are the names of the employees of the Board and what are the qualifications of each?
5.	Are the decisions of the Board published and, if so, where?
6.	If such decisions are not published, for what reasons?


Hon. John Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Chairman, Mr. 
Justice Paul Emile Cote of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec; Member, Mr. Justice Joseph Alfred Monnin of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Manitoba; Member, His Honour Judge M. L. Tyrwhitt-Drake of the County Court of the County of Victoria, British Columbia. As the members are judges, their salaries are determined under the Judges Act, by their appointment tc the courts of the various provinces. They are appointed at pleasure by Governor-inCouncil.
2.	Three.
3.	The intention of the Board is to hear the appeals before it in such locations as are convenient to the parties and the Board.
4. The Registrar of the Board is Mr. Jacques Bonneau, Lawyer. On a temporary basis, clerical and other help is provided as required by the Canada Pension Plan, Department of National Health and Welfare.
5 and 6. Copies of the decision of the Board are available and may be obtained from the Registrar. As more decisions are made, the Board will decide whether they will be reproduced in full, in the form of Reports.


STATUTE REVISION COMMISSION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	When was the Statute Revision Commission established and who are its members?
2.	What are the terms of reference of the Commission?
3.	Is the Commission required to complete its work in 1968 and, if not, for what reason and when is it expected that its work will be completed?
4.	What is the size of the staff of the Commission and how many of its employees have (a) French (b) English, as a mother tongue and how many are bilingual?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.	The Statute Revision Commission was established on the 4th day of May, 1965. The present members of the Commission are: Honourable John N. Turner, Q.C., Minister of Justice; Mr. D. S. Maxwell, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. R. Bedard, C.R., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. D. S. Thorson, Q.C., Associate Deputy Minister of Justice; Mr. Jean Miquelon, C.R., President, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation; Mr. J. W. Ryan, Director, Legislation Section, Department of Justice.
2.	The duties of the Commission are to examine the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952,
December 16. 1968

and the public general statutes of Canada enacted since the coming into force of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, and, in accordance with the provisions of 1964-65, c. 48, arrange, revise and consolidate the said statutes (1964-65, c. 48, s.2).
3.	No date is provided for the completion of the revision. The authorizing statute contemplated that current statutes would be included in the work of the revision (see 1964-65, c. 48, s.3). Original target dates have been extended to make the revision as topical as possible upon its completion with the least possible use of amending supplemental volumes. The present target date is late Fall of 1969 to insure inclusion of 1968-69 sessional matter.
4.	The staff of the Commission consists of six persons; French is the mother tongue of four and English is the mother tongue of two. Four of the employees of the Commission are bilingual, two are not. The services of six members of the Department of Justice are available to the Commission; all six are bilingual with mother tongues as follows: English 1; French 5.


AIRPORT WORKS, ST. GEORGES DE BEAUCE, QUE.
Mr. Rodrigue: Has the Minister of Transport received any requests for certain works to be carried out at the St. Georges de Beauce Airport and, if so, when will such work be carried out?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. Provided that the town of St. Georges de Beauce executes an agreement with the Department of Transport and completes certain undertakings with respect to the title of the land constituting the airport site, it is proposed to call tenders next spring and
Questions
thereafter award a contract so that the work may be carried out in the summer of 1969.


STAFF POSITIONS, CAMP HILL HOSPITAL
Mr. Coales: 1.	Was a freeze placed on all Civil Service positions at Camp Hill Hospital on March 1, 1968?
2.	Was there a shortage of staff on the date the freeze went into effect and, if so, how many positions were not filled at the date on which the freeze was placed?
3.	Was a further staff reduction ordered relating to nursing facilities at Camp Hill Hospital after March 1, 1968 and, if so, what was the extent of the staff reduction?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. In line with government policy the strength of the whole department was fixed at the level existing on March 1, 1968. No freeze was imposed on any specific institution, including Camp Hill.
2.	27 positions were vacant on March 1, 1968.
3.	No.


C.M.H.C. LOANS, TEMISCAMINGUE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouelte: What is the total amount of loans approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the constituency of Temiscamingue over the past five years, and how many dwellings have been built with the help of such loans?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The number and amount of loans approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from 1963 to 1967, and the number of dwelling units built with the help of these loans, are shown in the following table. In addition, three loans for $24,000 were approved in 1967 to finance the purchase of existing housing under section 40 of the National Housing Act.
Net NHA Loans Approved for New Housing in the Municipal County of Temiscamingue, 1963-1967
Approved Lenders	CMHC Section 40	TotalPeriod	Loans Units $000	Loans Units $000 Loans Units $0001963	
11	11	134	20	20	246	31	31	38019641	
10	10	127	12	13	151	22	23	2781965	
10	10	129	8	15	146	18	25	2751966	
-	-	-	15	15	189	15	15	1891967	
11	12	162	13	25	298	24	37	460
In addition, an increase of $148,000 was approved for a student housing loan initially approved in 1962. 29180-251

December 16, 1968
Questions NATIONAL DEBT


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the total amount of the National debt as at March 31, 1968?
2.	What is the annual cost of servicing National debt?
3.	What proportion of the interest paid on the National debt is paid to (a) Canadians (b) others?
4.	What policies does the government follow with respect to the liquidation of the National debt?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, was $16,757 million at March 31, 1968.
2.	The annual cost of servicing the public debt is as follows:
Public Debt Charges
Interest and annual amortization of bond discount, premiums and commissions Servicing costs and costs of issuing new loans
1968/9*

1,470,000,000
4,006,900
1967/8

1,270,939,500
2,966,900
* Estimate
1,474,006,900	1,273,906,400
3. Interest on the unmatured public debt including treasury bills
	1968/9* $M %		1967/8 $M %	
Payable in Canada	1,116	98.2	942	98.3Payable in other countries	21	1.8	16	1.7* Estimate	1,137	100.0	958	100.0Certain of the	interest payable	in	Canada
may in fact be payable to non-resident holders of government bonds denominated in Canadian dollars. This proportion is unknown. However, the Bank of Canada has estimated that at the end of June, 1968, of market issues of the government of Canada of $7,072 million held by the general public, $1,032 million were held by non-residents. This amount represented just over 4.5 per cent of the total of government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities outstanding at that time.
4.	The national debt is the net cumulation of past deficits and surpluses of the federal government. Consequently, the extent to which the net debt grows or contracts will depend on the extent to which federal outlays exceed or fall short of receipts in the future and this will depend on the social and economic policies of the government as well as the economic conditions prevailing then.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, AUTHIER, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	When was the first tender call made for the construction of a post office at Authier, Quebec, and what was the closing date?
2.	Who submitted tenders, and what price was quoted in each case?
3.	For what reason is this construction not being carried out?

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. The first tender call was made on March 14 and closed on April 10, 1968.
2.	Construction Filiatrault; C.P. 37, Dupuy Abitibi Ouest, $20,960; Les Constructions St. Amant Inc., C P 459, La Sarre, Que., $21,650; Michel Rivard Ltee, C. P 127, Barraute Abitibi, Que., $22,250; Alson Inc., C P 8, Amos, Que., $22,350; Paul Emile Bordeleau, C P 817, La Sarre Abitibi Ouest, $22,425; Ade-lard Pelletier Inc., 142, 1'" Rue Est, La Sarre, Que., $22,500; Jean-Paul Labrecque Inc., 612, 4E Rue Est, Amos, Que., $27,500.
3.	A contract could not be awarded as a result of this tender call. Before the matter was resolved the winter works program was cancelled.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Southam: 1.	What was the total amount in the Public Service Superannuation Account as of March 31, 1968?
December 16, 1968

2.	What was the interest paid to this account in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968?
3.	What was the amount paid out in pensions for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968?
4.	What were the total number of retired civil servants, members of the Armed Forces, RCMP and widows who received pensions for the year ended March 31, 1968?
5.	What action does the government contemplate taking with respect to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons tabled May 8, 1967, recommending increases in such pensions?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Finance, National Defence and Solicitor General as follows: 1. $2,875,823,276; 2. $110,897,897; 3. $73,106,447.
4.	Civil servants, 34,478; Widows of civil servants, 17,157; Former members of the Canadian armed forces, 23,684; Widows of armed forces personnel, 2,165; Members- R.C.M. Police Pension Continuation Act, 1,952; Members-R.C.M. Police Superannuation Act, 269; Widows-R.C.M. Police Pension Continuation Act (Part II-widows of officers), 71; Widows-R.C.M. Police Pension Continuation Act (Part IV-widows and orphans), 80; Widows

R.C.M. Police Superannuation Act, 63.
5.	The question of increasing the pensions paid to former members of the public service, Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police continues to receive active consideration in relations to that report and other considerations.


EDMONTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many Customs Inspectors are currently employed at the Edmonton International Airport, and how many are (a) available on a shift-work basis, and (b) available per shift?
2.	How many Customs inspectors were employed at the Edmonton International Airport in the years 1967, 1966 and 1965?
3.	How many Immigration Officers are currently employed at the Edmonton International Airport, and how many are (a) available on a shift-work basis, and (b) available per shift?
4.	How many Immigration Officers were employed at the Edmonton International Airport in the years 1967, 1966 and 1965?
5.	How many pasengers entering Canada arrived at Edmonton International Airport in the years 1967, 1966 and 1965 and how many have entered in 1968 to date?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower 29180-2511
Questions
and Immigration and National Revenue as follows: 1. A 24-hour service is maintained at the passenger terminal employing one officer per shift. In addition, a day shift of one man is maintained, at the cargo terminal, (a) A total of nine officers is available on a shift-work basis, and (b) the complete complement of nine men is available per shift if required.
2.	During the years 1967, 1966 and 1965, nine officers were employed at Edmonton international airport on a shift-work basis.
3.	Nil. The immigration examination of international passengers is conducted by immigration officers employed at the immigration office in the city of Edmonton on an on-call rotation basis.
4.	Nil. The immigration examination of international passengers during 1967, 1966, 1965 was conducted by immigration officers employed at the immigration office in the city of Edmonton on an on-call rotation basis.
5.	1967, 26,711; 1966, 21,128; 1965, 17,834; To date 1968, 32,342.


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL, CORNWALLIS, N.S.
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What is the present number of Armed Forces personnel stationed at Cornwallis, N.S.?
2.	Has any reduction occurred during the past five years and, if so, for what reason and is further reduction of personnel anticipated?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. As of 30
September, 1968-1,331.
2. Yes due to the general reduction in the total strength of the Canadian armed forces; however, no significant reduction is anticipated in the foreseeable future.


PRESS RELEASES, HEALTH AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity
used and the cost thereof?

December 16, 1968
Questions
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes. 61.
2.	(a) $472.20 (b) Nil (c) $976.00 (d) $1,108.98 (e) $1,184.45* *Includes one press release during mail strike using telex at cost of $13.25.
3.	(a) No. 7 bond white-40 M base white. <b) 244,000 sheets. $659.70.
4.	Man-hours 1,464.


SALARY AND EXPENSE ALLOWANCE, C.N.R. CHAIRMAN
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the salary of the Chairman of the CNR in 1937, 1947, 1957, 1967?
2.	For the same years, what was the expense allowance of the office?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:-1 and 2. Pursuant to section 8 (2) of the Canadian National Railways Act, being chapter 29 of the Statutes of Canada 1955, "...the chairman of the board of directors, if he is not the president, may, in addition, be paid by the national company a salary or other remuneration fixed by the governor in council." In each of the years listed the incumbent president was also chairman of the board of directors and therefore did not receive a salary nor was he paid any expense allowance solely as chairman.
The management of Canadian National Railways further advises that under the aforesaid act the direction and control of the affairs of the company are vested in its board of directors. The properly certified out of pocket expenses incurred by the president while engaged in and upon the affairs of the company are examined and passed upon each month by the board of directors and are subject to regular audit procedures. This is normal and accepted business practice and it is considered the travelling expenses of officers to be a matter concerning the internal affairs of the company.


CONSUMER COUNCIL-NON-REPRESENTATION OF N.B. AND P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What reason or reasons prompted the noninclusion of consumers from the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in the personnel of the Canadian Consumer Council?

2.	Were any citizen of these provinces asked to serve on the Council?
3.	Is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs aware of any protest over the increasing cost of living on the part of residents of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The membership of the council is intended to be representative of the country as a whole-both economically and geographically. However, in a council of 24 members, it is impossible to have all economic and geographic sectors represented at one time. For that reason, the term of membership is restricted to either one or two years. This permits changes in the membership to allow in future years for the representation of economic or geographic interests not present on the original council.
2.	No.
3.	The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is aware of a general concern over the increasing cost of living on the part of all Canadians, inclusive of residents of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. An indication of that awareness is reflected in the decision to establish an independent body to study and report on problems of costs and prices as announced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the budget debate.


ARREST OF ONE GINGRAS BY R.C.M.P., QUEBEC
Mr. Godin: 1.	Did the R.C.M.P., Quebec section, arrest a Mr. Gingras of the Quebec City area on July 15, 1968 and seize his automobile?
2.	Was this arrest made following a telephone call and, if so, what is the name of the person who made this call?
3.	What is the name of the officer who directed this operation?
4.	If the said vehicle was seized, were there cans in it and did these cans contain alcohol?
5.	If there was alcohol in the cans, what was its percentage-proof content, what was its value and where was it made?
6.	Was the vehicle impounded by the R.C.M.P. and, if so, for how many days and at what location?
7.	Was the vehicle returned to Mr. Gingras and, if so, on whose order and on what date did Mr. Gingras retake possession of such vehicle?


George James McIlraith: 1. Mr. Gingras was not arrested on July 15, 1968, however, his vehicle was placed under detention under the Excise Act and was left in his custody.
December 16, 1968

2.	The investigation was conducted as a result of a telephone call received from a person using a fictitious name.
3.	Sergeant J. P. F. Plourde, R.C.M. Police, Quebec detachment.
4.	A one gallon can containing alcohol was found in the vehicle.
5.	Alcoholic content of the sample analysed was 82.7 per cent of proof spirit. The value and origin of the alcohol is not known.
6.	The vehicle was not impounded.
7.	The vehicle was released from detention on November 21, 1968 upon the directive dated November 1st, 1968 of the seizures division, Department of National Revenue.


ACCOMMODATION FOR STATE VISITORS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs leased on a long term basis or purchased a residential building for the purpose of accommodating state visitors?
2.	If so, at what location and at what cost and from whom was the purchase made or the lease acquired?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. No, but the Department of Public Works bought a house at 7 Rideau Gate which has been assigned to the Department of External Affairs for purposes of government hospitality.
2. The property was purchased for $152,000. from Thomas Travers Ahearn and the Royal Trust Company, executors of the estate of Norah Ahearn.


POST OFFICE CLOSINGS, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Harding: 1.	How many post offices are scheduled to be closed in the province of British Columbia?
2.	How many post offices are scheduled to be closed in the constituency of Kootenay West, where are they located and what is the reason for the closure of each?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimasier General):: 1. Two.
2. Nil.
Note: Further studies are being conducted with a view to closing additional post offices
Questions
in British Columbia within the closing program criteria but no steps have actually been taken on any particular case as yet.


LIQUOR SEIZED IN QUEBEC BY R.C.M.F.
Mr. Godin: 1.	During the Quebec Liquor Board strike, what quantity of alcohol from other provinces was seized by the R.C.M.P. and handed over to the Quebec Provincial Police?
2.	Is it necessary for the Province of Quebec to reimburse the federal government for such services?


George James McIlraith: 1. 527 bottles of assorted liquor.
2. No.


PREPARATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Has the Canadian Agricultural Planning Commission which will prepare a report for the March 1969 conference been formed and, if so, who are the representatives from the (a) Department of Agriculture (b) provinces (c) farming associations (d) farming industries (e) consumers?
2.	Has an organization committee for the March 1969 conference been formed and, if so, who are the representatives from the (a) Department of Agriculture (b) provinces (c) farming associations (d) farming industries (e) consumers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The federal task force on agriculture was named on September 22, 1967. It is made up of five experts who were nominated because of their personal knowledge and experience and they do not represent any group. They are: Dr. D. L. MacFarlane, Montreal, Chairman; Prof. D. C. Campbell, Toronto; Mr. P. Comtois, Sherbrooke; Dr. C. Gilson, Winnipeg; Dr. D. H. Thain, London, (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) do not apply.
2. The steering committee for the Canadian Agricultural Congress of March 1969 has been nominated. The members are: Dr. R. Poirier,, assistant deputy minister of Canada Department of Agriculture as chairman; Dr. D. L. MacFarlane as representative of the federal task force on agriculture; Dr. Ernest Mercier as representative of the provincial departments of agriculture; Mr. W. E. Burton as a farm producer; Mr. H. K. Leckie as a representative of the food processing industry.

December 16. 1968
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The: Sydneys):
1.	Of the total number of applications approved by the federal government under the Area Development Agency, what is the breakdown by provinces both as to applications and as to the amount of the assistance provided?
2.	Of the applications approved in Nova Scotia, what are the names of the firms or individuals who secured the assistance and what was the amount in each case?
3.	How many applications received from Nova Scotian firms were rejected and how many applications are still pending and what are the names of the firms who have made application and have yet to have a decision rendered and in each Instance how long has the firm been awaiting a decision on its application?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL PRODUCT STATISTICS
Mr. Caouelie: For each of the last five years, what was the value of (a) consumer goods and services produced in Canada (b) all capital used (c) gross capital formation (d) imported goods and services (e) goods and services used (f) depreciation of capital (g) exported goods and services (h) the surpluses or deficits for each of the above headings?
Return tabled.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT CONTRACT WITH CARA OPERATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have a contract(s) with CARA Operations Ltd, 55 Yonge St., Toronto, Ontario?
2.	What are the terms of the contract (s) and how long has it (have they) been in effect?
3.	When was the first contract entered into with the Department of Transport?
4.	How many contracts have been entered into with CARA Operations Limited?
5.	Has the Department of Transport received any complaints about the service provided since the contraet(s) went into operation?
6.	What has the Department of Transport done about these complaints?
7.	Do any of the complaints relate to monopolies?
8.	What steps does the Department take to ensure that complaints are properly dealt with?
9.	Who audits the books of CARA and are copies of the auditors reports forwarded to the Department of Transport?
10.	Has the Auditor General seen the audit reports?

11.	Has the Auditor General made any comments on them and, if he has, what are they?
12.	Since the inception of the contract (s) has the Department of Transport had any difficulty in making an audit of the books of CARA Operations Limited in conformity with the standards generally accepted by the public accounting profession and/or the Auditor General of Canada?
13.	What specifically were the problems involved?
14.	Is the Department of Transport giving any consideration to changing the current provisions of the CARA contract (s) and opening the operations involved to tender by local businessmen across Canada?
Return tabled.


MILITARY PLANES USED FOR RELIEF FLIGHTS
Mr. Burton: 1.	How many military aircraft have been despatched from Canada since September 12,	1968
for use in transporting relief supplies to Nigeria or Biafra?
2.	What is the make of each plane and when did each leave Canada?
3.	What was the destination of each plane when it left Canada, what was the route travelled and when did each plane arrive at its destination?
4.	What was the name and rank or status of each person aboard each plane enroute from Canada to destination?
5.	Have any of the planes returned to Canada and, if so, on what date and from what location did each depart for Canada, what route was travelled and when did each arrive in Canada?
6.	What was the name and rank or status of each person aboard each plane enroute the return trip to Canada?
7.	What trips were made by each plane from the time of arrival at original destination to the present or to the time of departure for Canada?
8.	What is the approximate tonnage of supplies delivered to Nigerian or Biafran authorities through use of the aircraft?
9.	What has been the cost to Canada to date for (a) supplies delivered by aircraft (b) the use of the aircraft including costs since the aircraft left Canada (c) wages, salaries and expenses of personnel involved, and (d) other expenses?
Return tabled.


HOUSING AND FARM LOANS, BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What was the total amount of loans approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the federal constituency of Beauce during the past five years and how many homes were built with these loans?
2.	What was the total amount of agricultural farm loans granted by the government for each of the years from 1962 to 1967 inclusive in the federal constituency of Beauce?
December 16, 1968

3.	What was the average amount of these loans?
4.	How many loans were refused during these years?
Return tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence as I rise again in respect of question No. 4 having to do with the pensions of retired civil servants. I realize I have asked this question a good many times before, but I am obligated to ask again when an answer might be forthcoming. On Wednesday of last week when I asked how many more times I must ask, the President of the Treasury Board said I would have to do it every day until the 15th. The 15th was yesterday. The answer is still not forthcoming. When will we have the answer?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the death of a young native Indian girl on highway No. 1 just west of Brandon, Manitoba, early this month and the guilt of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in respect of her death.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he must address the Chair on the question of urgency of debate, and I think it would be helpful at least to the house, if not to the Chair, for the hon. member to make his contribution at this stage in respect of the question of urgency, which is the only matter that can be before the house at this moment.


Frank Howard: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that is the main question and that the other one ancillary to it is the propriety of setting aside the other public business in order to have such a debate.
If I may be permitted perhaps I might briefly outline the circumstances leading to the death of this girl, who was 21 or 22 years of age. Perhaps this would help put the matter in perspective. What I intend to say involves what I consider to be guilt on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, even though there
Responsibility in Girl's Death was action on the part of a particular superintendent of an Indian agency, who was only putting into effect what I consider to be the generally casual, administratively inefficient and, worst of all, indifferent attitude which exists on the part of the department. The superintendent's actions only reflect that casualness and indifference.
The young girl in question was from the Oak River Indian reserve near Griswold, Manitoba. She had been committed to the Pine Grove correctional centre in Saskatchewan for the offence of assault committed in the province of Saskatchewan. The sentencing magistrate, having some compassion, made a notation on the warrant of committal to the effect that the young girl was from outside the province and that some arrangement should be made in respect of her before her release date.
The superintendent of the Pine Grove correctional centre, after receiving the warrant of committal, contacted the John Howard Society in Prince Albert, which in turn wrote to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at Brandon, Manitoba, pointing out in the letter the date of her release, the desire and need she had for educational upgrading and trades training, with a specific request to the agency to assist her with transportation from Moosomin, Saskatchewan to her home about 50 or 60 miles from Brandon, Manitoba. I suppose because the province of Saskatchewan is unable constitutionally to provide money for such a trip outside the jurisdiction of that province, the superintendent of the Indian agency in Brandon replied suggesting that with regard to transportation the young girl should contact some of her relatives on the Oak River reserve, requesting that they meet her at Moosomin. The superintendent said in his letter that most of the Indians on the Oak River reserve had automobiles and no doubt would meet her there.
When the young girl was released from the Pine Grove correctional centre at Prince Albert she had approximately $2 in her possession and fully believed that she would have to hitchhike from Moosomin, Saskatchewan to her home close to Griswold, Manitoba. She had no other means of transportation.
Unknown to her the Indian superintendent on his own, without notifying this young girl or the John Howard Society at Prince Albert, had made arrangements for relatives to pick her up at Moosomin, without indicating the time of the arrival of the bus or anything of that nature. The young girl left Prince Albert
December 16. 1968

Responsibility in Girl's Death by bus at about nine in the morning. The next that was heard about her was just after midnight, at 12.45 a.m. following the date of her release, when the R.C.M.P. at Brandon received a call from a farmer that a girl's body had been found on the highway about six miles west of Brandon. She had a blood alcohol content of 0.283, which indicates a state of intoxication.
One can only speculate as to what took place between the time she changed buses in Saskatoon and the time she was discovered lying dead on the highway just west of Saskatoon. The sad fact is that she is dead and this is difficult for her parents and relatives to accept, but the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contributed to her death as the result of a number of things. First, by not making specific arrangements for her transportation home, even though they had been requested to do so.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously discussing the substance of his grievance. I would think that as soon as possible he should come to the procedural aspect of the matter which, as I mentioned a moment ago, is the one point that should be considered by the house at this moment.


Mr. Howard (Slceena):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted very briefly to lay the groundwork of the circumstances in order to point out the urgency and the terribleness of the situation as a matter of urgency of debate, because of the very things which the department of Indian affairs in its indifference and casual approach to this matter did not do and should have done. This is symptomatic of a whole, general sort of lack of sincere interest of many groups in society, including the government. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I refrained from adding the cliche "just" in front of the word "society".
There are dozens and dozens of similar cases where such indifference exists toward the fundamental human rights that we expect for ourselves but fail to accord to the native Indian people of this nation. Because the case is symptomatic of something general and is reflective of many, many other instances, I suggest this is the only opportunity that will exist for some time in the future, if the announcements of government business mean anything to us, when we will have an opportunity to discuss this matter and go into a great deal more detail with respect to the

involvement of the Indian affairs branch and the government in regard to this question.
If I could just sum up the matter of urgency, Mr. Speaker, I would say we are approaching that time of year when Christian generosity is uppermost in our minds, and no finer opportunity exists than for parliament to now take this question under advisement and discuss the humane values in our society and government attitude toward them.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the hon. member, I am in full agreement that he may have a very legitimate grievance. But I have to advise the hon. member I am not convinced that he has satisfied the conditions required under the standing order, that is, that the business called for today should be set aside for the purpose of debating the subject matter raised by the hon. member.
The hon. member for Skeena has made the suggestion that the house should consider things which the department should have done and did not do. The hon. member says there is a grievance in this regard, and he may be quite right. But I would not think this is sufficient ground to adjourn the debates of the house for the purpose of considering the matter at this time. I can only hope, with the hon. member, that there will be an occasion at an early date when this matter might be raised again for consideration and debate by all hon. members.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, but due to the minister's absence and the urgency of the question I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement on Friday afternoon by Unilever that four Bird's Eye plants in Newfoundland will close their doors, what emergency measures is the government taking to prevent further shutdowns of fish plants in the Atlantic provinces?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries will be here tomorrow and I am sure he would be anxious to answer any questions.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the seriousness of this situation cannot be overlooked. Some 4,000
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
people will be unemployed. I would like some idea of what the Prime Minister proposes to do by way of emergency measures to ease this situation.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not have solutions to all Canadian problems in his hip pockets. He has ministers who work on these problems, and the Minister of Fisheries is now doing precisely that.


Mr. Bell:: Ministers are always away in a crisis.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the question is urgent, that the announcement was made on Friday that four fish plants in Newfoundland would be closing down, and that a delegation from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland is coming to Ottawa tomorrow to meet with the government, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the house whether he will meet with that delegation because of the seriousness of the whole situation, which is such that the groundfish industry in the Atlantic provinces is on the verge of total collapse? In view of the serious situation, will the Prime Minister meet with that delegation to discuss what action the government will take to alleviate this problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the delegation asked to meet with me. I would suspect that they are going to meet the minister, who knows far more about this matter than I do.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the delegation does ask to meet the Prime Minister, will he be willing to receive them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is hypothetical.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since approximately 4,000 people will be affected by the announcement on Friday of the closing of four fish plants in Newfoundland, what program of assistance is the minister planning to meet this very serious situation?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the regional director of the department has been
DEBATES	3967
Inquiries of the Ministry made aware of this emergent and very serious problem, and all the facilities and services of the department will be available to assist in any way possible.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister of regional development. I would like to ask the minister or the acting minister what steps the department has taken to meet the serious economic and social consequences threatened by the closing down of several major groundfish processing plants in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this matter to the minister on his return tomorrow.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order directed to the fact that the Minister of Fisheries is not present in the house today. This announcement was made in Newfoundland on Friday afternoon. It is an urgent situation. I think the Prime Minister, by allowing the Minister of Fisheries to be absent, has shown a certain amount of contempt for the whole situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the impending meeting between the minister and the Atlantic trades tomorrow, can the parliamentary secretary say whether invitations have been extended to the Atlantic members? If not, would consideration be given to that request?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say whether invitations have been extended but I will inquire of the minister and let the hon. member know.



RESPONSIBILITY OF FARMERS FOR SALES- STEPS TO IMPROVE DRYING FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's reported statement in Winnipeg to the effect that the sale of wheat is the farmers' concern first and foremost, does this indicate that the wheat board is to be left on its own without
3963	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry substantial backing from government departments in terms of credit and sales promotion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not proper and that he may wish to rephrase it in some way.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, was the Prime Minister, in this statement as reported, announcing government policy toward the present situation that exists in western Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, if you relate this question to the previous one, which was not allowed, the answer is certainly not.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister have the appropriate departments address their attention to the situation which is currently reported to exist on the west coast, namely that ships are waiting at this moment for dry grain to load for Japan?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Prime Minister has breathed the western air and is able to understand the strength of the feeling toward government inaction regarding the wheat situation, would he advise what is going to be done to meet the situation in western Canada, where at present rates of drying only 106 million bushels or about one third of the wet and damp wheat will be dried by May 1? What is the government going to do? What action does it have in mind? We tried to get this information from the Minister of Agriculture without success, but now the Prime Minister has been out there can he tell us what hope there is that 200 million bushels will not be lost through failure to take action now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question has been asked many times in the past couple of weeks, and each time it has been answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. The only new thing in the matter is that I have been to Manitoba where I was given a very warm reception.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister does not intend to deal with a
[Mr. Gleave.l
DEBATES	December 16, 1968
matter like this in such a jesting and frivolous way. What is he going to do; that is the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Ministers really should be here to answer questions. This is frightful.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the impression he left that it was up to the farmers to sell the grain, it is now his policy to abolish a government agency, namely the wheat board, whose function it is to sell grain.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I made it quite clear that the government should assist in helping the wheat board in every way it can. I was just indicating that the farmers had a little bit to do with it. The alternative would be, of course, absolute communism where the state would own all the farms and the farmers would be paid salaries by the state.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is in substance some of the things I had to say, which were applauded in Winnipeg.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's reference to communism are we to take it that he still believes, as he stated during the election, that those farms that are not efficient should be taken over by the state, as is done in the communist countries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like the Prime Minister, in view of the statement he made in Winnipeg last Friday that first and foremost it was the responsibility of the farmers to market wheat, to indicate whether he will make a statement to the house indicating in what way the farmers are in a position to penetrate international wheat markets by private means.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was indicating that my understanding is that in the past wheat farmers, through co-operatives, joint ventures and the wheat board itself, have taken the position that they were essentially private individuals operating in co-operation with each other on the wheat market, and that they did not want the state to take over their farms and run them.
December 16, 1968


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. How does he relate that to the promise he made to the western farmers during the election campaign that the government would sell one billion three hundred million bushels of wheat over the next three years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is a point of debate.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question along the same line. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is withdrawing the promise he made that the government would sell one billion three hundred million bushels of wheat?


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the possibility that the house may recess for a period within the next few days and, more particularly, since the right hon. gentleman has now renounced any personal responsibility for the sale of grain, will he now suspend the roster system in order that the other ministers may be present in the house for the duration of this session to answer vital questions? May I have an answer, Mr. Speaker?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Have studies been made or are studies being made in the Department of National Defence to reduce the Canadian armed forces to one third their present strength, and to reduce the role of the forces to the single one of peace keeping?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I qualified this assumption last week as being wildly speculative.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question. Has consideration at the same time been given in whole or in part to the reduction of long term contracts for the D.D.H. destroyers, the CF-5 and other equipment to upgrade and modernize Canada's armed forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary question. Is it not true that all the minister indicated was that this problem had not been put before the cabinet or before a cabinet committee, and was this not the only part that was speculative?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Again no, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from the tragic incident referred to by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I wanted to address it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or to the Minister without Portfolio, but in their absence I will address it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the financial inability of the local Indian agency to help in this incident arose from the government's austerity program and the lack of funds for expenditures of this kind, would the Prime Minister assure the house that the austerity program as it applies to the special needs of our Indian citizens might be lifted, as it has been recently on health matters according to the statement made outside the house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our austerity program is to enable us better to address ourselves to the problems of all the underprivileged in Canada; and of course generally speaking the Indians are amongst those underprivileged. That is why we have a program of austerity.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question. I do not think the right hon. Prime Minister quite answered my question. Will the austerity program, as it has been applied to our Indian citizens, be lifted to meet the obvious special problems of this highly underprivileged group of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it is a gross oversimplification of the so-called Indian problem to assume that it can be solved just by pouring more money into that area. We take a much more profound view of that problem.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question Mr. Speaker, which stems from the original

December 16, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry attempt by the hon. member for Skeena to secure an adjournment of the house, and from the recital he made of the facts which are, to say the least, very heartrending and show a sordidness of attitude that ought not to exist. Under the circumstances would the Prime Minister be ready to have a full investigation made of this matter, not a perfunctory one or one carried out by department officials but rather one done outside the department? And if what is stated is correct, would some compensation be made to the family of this girl to show that we do in fact regard our Indian people as worthy of first consideration in the house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do intend to ascertain the facts in this case, and I will ask the minister to report to me. The proper way to go about it is first to ascertain the facts from the minister through his department. If I am not satisfied or if the house is not satisfied with the answers, we can then consider the next step.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of questions that were asked of the right hon. Prime Minister on Friday when the minister was not in the house. In view of the increasing unemployment across Canada, and particularly in the disadvantaged areas of Canada, would the minister inform the house what plans he and his department have to deal with the increasing unemployment this winter in those areas in particular?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is asking now that the minister or the Prime Minister make a statement which is very general. It is perhaps a type of statement which should normally be made on motions.


David Lewis: May I ask a more specific question, then. Will the minister consider or is he considering changes in the law and in the regulations regarding training so as to enable the younger people coming into the work force who are not absorbed in the labour market to benefit from training allowances which are now available to those who have been in the labour force for three years since they left school?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the hon. member refers is complicated and has been the subject of discussions with the provinces. We believe this rule to be in the best interests of the group we are principally trying to help, namely unemployed workers and adults in the labour force who in the past have had relatively little opportunity to improve their education and their chances of employment. It is principally for that reason that we are maintaining the three year rule, and also because of the provincial responsibility for education. However, may I say in answer to the direct question that it is not proposed at the present time to amend the regulations or the law in this respect.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question. Would the minister consider making a statement to this house in the near future- some time in the next day or two-with regard to any program that he and his department have worked out or are in the process of working out to deal with increasing unemployment this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the prospect of a statement, but I would not want my hon. friend to conclude that there will be one.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Justice voicing government policy when he said at a luncheon meeting in Ottawa on Friday that expecting aspirants for managerial and executive positions in the civil service to be bilingual by 1970 was totally unrealistic and that 1975, not 1970, was a more realistic deadline?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice was forecasting the course of events as it appears likely to him. This cannot be made the object of a policy, I would say, but the Minister of Justice was making a valuable contribution to our estimate of the future.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister talk to his colleagues and come out with a definite policy? This is a matter of great concern to civil
December 16, 1968



servants in Ottawa and across the country, and it is important that they know what this date is going to be.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Minister of Justice was basing his estimate on the rapidity with which people are learning the other official language, whether it be French or English. He may assume that 1975 is a more realistic assessment of the ability of some people to learn the other language. Other people may think the period will be shorter. I would not care to speculate. Whether the forecast errs on the optimistic or the pessimistic side does not change the policy. The policy was stated in the minister's speech, and of course as he stated it, it is still government policy.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. First of all may I ask him whether he would consider restoring to the nine Polish seamen presently in custody in Halifax freedom of movement so they might practice their religion, have normal exercise and, if possible, attend the English classes which are being given the five Czechoslovakians who are presently in custody in Halifax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the first part of the question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
related question. I wonder whether the minister, further to his comments on Friday of last week regarding the status of these men at the present time and the possibility of there being a retrial, has seen the sworn statutory declarations by these Polish nationals to the effect that their deportation would in fact mean their being committed to imprisonment and perhaps forced to serve in the Polish army in Czechoslovakia.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statutory declarations, because I would conclude that they are a matter for the immigration appeal board, which under the law carries the responsibility at this moment
Inquiries of the Ministry of deciding the outcome of the deportation order.


J. Michael Forrestall: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would acknowledge that he indeed is the respondent in this matter and whether, in light of that, he does not in fact have access to these declarations. If he has not, I have them here on my desk and I would be delighted to send them over to him and have him review them so that justice might be done for these nine men.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands the situation. Any hon. member may have the documents in his possession if he wishes, but under the law the decision in this case is for the immigration appeal board. I would be quite happy to examine the documents if such examination could lead to any possible result; but as it is, under the law the minister has no power whatsoever to exercise discretion in this matter.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would agree to hold up the federal languages bill until a similar bill is introduced in the legislature of the province of Quebec?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is customary to consider that federal jurisdiction can be exercised only when provinces take certain other steps.


Robert Muir: supplementary question. I thank the Prime Minister for his answer, and may I ask him which provinces have asked for postponement of the federal languages bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this came in the correspondence that I was exchanging with the provincial premiers in regard to the federal-provincial constitutional conference. Since this correspondence is not public I should not like to identify who asked that particular question.
3972	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



MONTREAL-PARTICIPATION IN INVESTIGATION OF BOMBINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General advise the house whether the R.C.M.P. is taking part in the investigations relating to the recent series of bombings in Montreal; and would he also advise the house whether they are taking any preventive measures against more of these bombings, which are causing a very serious threat in Montreal?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of the question. The answer to both questions is yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question that is in the minds of members generally, since this house has now sat for the 65th day. What date has he in mind for the adjournment for the Christmas recess? I ask this so that members can make their arrangements. Those of us who come from a long distance are naturally most anxious to have this information.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would be able to answer this with a little more precision after I have an opportunity of consulting with the house leaders opposite in order to program the business for the balance of this week and get through the remaining three measures for this part of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. What does the minister mean when he refers to three measures going through? Is the debate now before the house supposed to be concluded before we will be permitted to have an adjournment? Is that what it means? Surely there is not such intimidation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be desirable, having had a full discussion of this matter, to bring the two motions on procedure to a decision as well, of course, as the anti-dumping bill. However, I would be prepared to discuss this matter with the house leaders opposite to see what progress is possible on a voluntary basis.
[Mr. Trudeau.)
DEBATES	December IS, 1968



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the Solicitor General was deprived of an opportunity to make a government statement before the standing committee on justice and legal affairs on the expunction of criminal records and greater use of the pardon, would the Solicitor General make such a statement on motions at the earliest date?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have considered the matter. I too was troubled at having lost the opportunity to make the statement, and I proposed to circulate it to the members of the justice committee. If that is not satisfactory I will consider his suggestion.


John Gilbert: When?


George James McIlraith: Tomorrow, perhaps.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON DRYING PROBLEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the emergency one day debate held in this house one week ago last Thursday on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and more specifically on the problem of drying the huge volume of damp and tough grain, would the Prime Minister have the Minister of Agriculture give the house a full statement on motions before the Christmas recess as to government policy to meet this very serious situation?
Right Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Ministern
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister to consider that very seriously.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. His parliamentary secretary promised a statement on the first day of
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
the week about the Dunnville incident and the lack of response by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Would the minister care to comment?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: From what I read in the official report of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is exaggerating a little when he says that the parliamentary secretary promised a statement about that matter. The only commitment he made was to bring it to my attention when I returned. That is a problem about which the C.B.C. is willing to answer any specific questions that might be asked; but, for the time being, the corporation does not wish to issue a detailed statement in which it would refer point by point to all the charges made against it or to all the questions put to it. It would prefer to make that statement before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts when it resumes its hearings. However, if specific questions are asked, I will submit them myself to the corporation and I will be in a position to supply the hon. member with the replies that will be given me.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the house wanted a grand declaration from anybody. The house would like to know whether the corporation will give a simple and courteous answer to the chairman of the investigatory body which asked the corporation to respond. Could this be investigated?


Mr. Pelleiier:: Mr. Speaker, in this connection I asked the corporation what reply had been given to the committee of inquiry. Just a few minutes before the opening of the sitting today I received from the corporation copy of its letter dated April 10, 1968 to Mr. Hall. As I have not had the opportunity of getting in touch with the president of the corporation to find out whether or not this letter may be tabled in the house, all I can say to the member is that I have it in my possession.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it may be some considerable time before the estimates are brought down and investigated
DEBATES	3973
Inquiries of the Ministry by the standing committee, would the minister consider discussing with his colleague the government house leader the possibility of having specific terms of reference drawn up with regard to this issue and the matter referred by that means to the standing committee?


Irénée Pelletier: I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with the house leader, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In any consultations with the C.B.C. has the Secretary of State been assured by the corporation that this agency intends to put on a supplementary program in order to dispel some of the inaccuracies of the original program?


Irénée Pelletier: No, I did not discuss the matter with the authorities of the C.B.C., Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I did not receive any such assurance from the corporation.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would he care to make a statement about federal responsibility in the Dunnville pollution problem? Would he also care to set forth federal standards with regard to pollution control that are necessary at this time?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman or the government consider joining with others in an appeal for a Christmas truce in the Nig-eria-Biafra hostilities, which might lead to a cease fire and possible negotiations?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, our position on intervention in Nigeria, and particularly in a cease fire, has been stated earlier and it has not changed. Since the hon. member links the question of a Christmas truce to a cease fire, the answer is no.

December 16. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry GREECE-U.S. PARTICIPATION IN MILITARY COUP
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Mr. Papandreou, a former senior member of the Greek democratic government which existed until recently, made a statement over the week end elsewhere, and in Ottawa today, to the effect that the United States was instrumental in the military coup which took place in Greece and in maintaining the present regime. Does the Prime Minister feel these statements should in any way influence the government in reaching a decision on the question of Canada's membership in NATO?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is too wide in scope to be asked at this time.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. It arises from questions asked of the Prime Minister on Friday last concerning the interrogation of Miss Gagnon of La Presse and the use of search warrants in the case of her relatives and friends. Will the Solicitor General say whether, in the matter of obtaining the search warrants, any indication was given by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that criminal charges were imminent? Was there any connection between Miss Gagnon's relatives and friends and the alleged offence? In this connection will the Solicitor General obtain a copy of the supporting statements made by the R.C.M.P. on behalf of the government of Canada in obtaining these search warrants?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the evidence used to obtain the search warrants with me, but the search warrants were obtained in the usual way from a judge in connection with the charge or prospective charges to be laid under the Criminal Code. I have the name of the judge and I can perhaps find out what information is available from court records and bring it before the house, if the hon. member wishes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the categorical statement by the Prime Minister that La Presse has published documents which appear to be obviously stolen from the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, may I ask whether it is the crown's position that in publishing the material referred to La Presse has committed an offence? Is the investigation proceeding, therefore, with a view to establishing a precedent in which a newspaper is to be charged with receiving stolen goods?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is now arguing the case rather than asking a question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I then ask a related question with respect to this matter. Will the minister advise whether under his responsibility for the R.C.M.P. he is in direct touch with this investigation in all its stages and whether the police are reporting to him or to his colleague, the Secretary of State, in respect of the documents said to have been stolen from the royal commission?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the inference left by the hon. member in the question which was disallowed. The Prime Minister did not indicate in his remarks that this document was stolen by La Presse. He was very clear about it. I read the remarks rather carefully, anticipating the question, and there is no such inference to be drawn from those remarks. It must be obvious to all hon. members opposite that documents of the royal commission were obtained somehow and published before being transmitted to the government, their owner.
The answer to the second question, to whom does the R.C.M.P. answer in pursuing this investigation, is the Solicitor General. He is responsible to this house for them and they answer to him. No other minister is directing the inquiry.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely sorry that the minister had the impression as a result of my remarks that I believed the Prime Minister had indicated that La Presse was responsible for the theft. I am asking whether an investigation has been going on whereby a member of La Presse-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary question.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the
December 16, 1S68

minister indicate the nature of the charge or the prospective charge in respect of which the search warrant was issued?


George James McIlraith: I hesitate to do that off the cuff, Mr. Speaker, but it would be section 103 of the Criminal Code, I think.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the outrageous prices being charged for Christmas toys this season, would the Prime Minister consider requesting the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to conduct an immediate investigation into this serious problem?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not like to return at ten o'clock this evening to discuss this very timely question.


John Stratford Burton: Since millions of dollars are spent in this area and there are only a few shopping days left before Christmas, and since the influence of advertising helps create additional pressures on our society, does the minister not think this problem should be given immediate and serious consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOCKEY-GAMES BETWEEN RUSSIAN AND CANADIAN PROFESSIONAL TEAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that all Canadians take great pride in Canada's participation in international hockey; since it would appear that we are outclassed at present by the purely professional team operated by the Russians, and since that team has now challenged the Maple Leafs and the Canadi-ens, would the right hon. gentleman speak to Senator Molson and Stafford Smythe and use his influence to see whether the Russian team cannot be accommodated if it comes to Canada to play our top teams?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Health and Welfare has this matter under inquiry and is giving his attention to the fact that the Canadian team was defeated. As to the concrete and obviously constructive proposal by the hon. gentleman, I will think it over, but I must tell him I am not much more knowledgeable about hockey than I am about football.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that he has a gift for persuading people, and I think he could persuade those two gentlemen to make their teams available for one night if the Russians can come to Canada.


An hon. Member:: We will get parliament to make up the rules.


George Harris Hees: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since it is being acknowledged that our hockey team did not do so well against the Russians, would the Prime Minister not like to take notice of the tremendous acclaim being accorded in the Soviet union to the Royal Winnipeg Ballet?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the minister has announced outside the house a grant to the national hockey team, and in view of growing concern over the effectiveness of Canada's participation in international competition, would the minister make a statement in the house concerning this vitally important matter?


Hon.   John. C. Munro@Minister of National Health and Welfare: Mr. Speaker, I will take that suggestion under consideration.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. In view of the lack of sympathy and understanding of the Indian problem as illustrated by the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Skeena-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? I have to remind him that as far as possible questions should not contain statements or allegations. The
December 16, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member should ask his question directly rather than include allegations which make it argumentative.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Would the Minister of Justice consider moving the northern desk of his department to the Northwest Territories, so that his officials might be nearer those with special problems, such as Indians and Eskimos?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that question should be placed on the order paper.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of discriminatory anti-Asiatic legislation already passed in Kenya and further legislation which has been announced there against Asiatic ownership of business, will the Prime Minister consider raising the matter at the forthcoming prime ministers' conference in order that the Commonwealth may not appear to be supporting reverse apartheid?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I missed the final words of that question but I think I got the gist of it. The agenda for the prime ministers' conference has been set up and I have no information that it includes this particular item.


Robert Muir: Will there not be occasions upon which he can speak with his confreres and colleagues and can bring up this matter, one which I believe to be most important?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes, I am sure there will be all kinds of occasions in London when we can meet less formally than around the conference table. I will get a transcript of the question and see whether I should put it to some of the people there.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he advise the house whether negotiations
[Mr. Speaker.)
between his department and the county of Halifax with regard to medical care for Indians have progressed to the point where it will not be necessary for the county to take precipitate action affecting these patients by the end of the current year, two weeks from today?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we are working on this problem with the Halifax people and hope to have a solution by the end of the month. I so advised the hon. member by mail today.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's desire to extend Christmas happiness to as many people as possible, would he not like to make it clear before Christmas that some time early in 1969 something will be done about the pensions of superannuated civil servants? I think the Prime Minister would like to answer and I would like to hear his answer, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I was not all that anxious. The idea in my mind was to tell the hon. member that this question has been answered many times in the house, and that the Minister of Finance has answered for the government on this particular matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
the recommendations which were made by the special joint committee in the last parliament still being considered by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has been no change in government policy on this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday December 6, be
December 16, 1968
[Stage Direction]
concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 3762).
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what more the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) wants. For years the cry has gone out through the land that without majority government action is impossible. Now the Prime Minister has his majority. I do not propose to question some of the methods used by his party to get it, but the point is that the minority status argument can no longer be trotted out as a convenient excuse for failure to respond to some of the pressing social issues of the day.
What more, I ask, does the Prime Minister want? Mr. Speaker, times change. How revealing it would have been if the proposal contained in 16-A for closure in advance had been made at the time when the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) were crusading essayists and editorial writers. To use the phrase of Dr. Eugene Forsey, these two gentlemen would have "torn the purple from the clouds" if such a proposal had been made in those good, halcyon days when human rights and liberties were catechism to them instead of the catchwords this plan makes them now.
We have had ample warning, though, if we had but heeded it. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) gave us a little evidence the other day. He gave us a sample of what the days ahead would be like when he talked about the throughput of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) will become the new minister of throughput. He will be the chief programmer for the government. Under this proposal the royal prerogative will settle on a new prince, the Prime Minister. Ancient despots, if they watch us from their present stations, should envy the power of this man. One-time admirers should question his abdication of the principles which motivated his earlier and crusading days.
We seek efficiency, not impotence. We need to generate vital change. We need to speak and legislate when the speaking is done. Radical urgencies of the young, the poor, the Indians, about whom we heard just a few minutes ago, crowd upon us. But technology is not enough, as we have been compellingly reminded in a new book called "The Revolution Of Hope: Toward A Humanized Technology" by Erich Fromm. A reviewer reminds us that "For him that is joined to all the living there is hope." For any of you who do
Motion for Concurrence in Report not recognize it, that is an epigram from Ecclesiastes.
The alternatives that face man in these apocalyptic times lead either to a mechanized society in which man is caught like a helpless cog, or to a renaissance of humanism and hope, a society that puts technique not first but second, as a servant of human well-being. The absence of this philosophy in the government's proposal is what disturbs me most and troubles me deeply because of its illiberalism. It makes me wonder not about the mystery, because they are bound by this strange out of date doctrine of be-all and end-all solidarity, but why the Liberal backbenchers are saying th pv are ready to support thsss illiberal proposals.
Perhaps the most ominous development, as Dr. Fromm puts it, is that we seem to have lost control over our system and are being carried at an accelerating pace toward destruction. How did it happen? How at the very conquest of nature did man become the captive of his own creation? Fromm's answer is the same one that Emerson gave over a century ago: "Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind." Fromm puts it this way:
In the one-sided emphasis on technique and material consumption, man lost touch with himself, with life.
In a review of this book Ashley Montagu says:
People are constantly asking what they can do-
And all hon. members have responded to this frustrated cry. We heard it eloquently put just the other day in the frustration of the hon. member-I apologize to him-from Toronto, who asked about the response of the government to the problem faced by certain Polish seamen. We heard it a few minutes ago when this parliament, the agencies of parliament and the great departments of government are so unresponsive that they cannot deal with a girl leaving jail and needing transport to her home.
These frustrations and the lack of responses are the reason that all over the western world parliaments and the institutions that go with parliament are under question. And I think this is healthy. The debate is healthy if we see some resiliency in the government and particularly some flexibility.
People are constantly asking what they can do, meaning that they can in fact do nothing. That psychosis is much worse than the apathy, the passivity, on which Fromm comments so ably, for it represents not a negative uninvolvement but a positive disengagement from the human situation.
December 16. 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
This institution has been disengaged from the human situation for so long and instead has been dealing with its little petty problems. I will not go into them because the memory of them makes me want to be sick. But it is this disengagement that is the problem, not whether the government house leader is going to follow this new magical formula that he has proposed when he meets with himself in his office to program the business. Parliament and its members must be agents or catalysts to end this deadening passivity.
I am going to share with the house a verse by a contemporary New Brunswick poet, Alden Nowlan. In a book called "Bread, Wine and Salt" he has a poem entitled "The Nation's Capital." It is so apt it makes me shudder.
The first thing you learn here
is that the country
bears the same relationship
to the government
that outer space
bears to the earth
He goes on to depict a member of parliament having a maritini in the Chateau Laurier:
He must measure his sips and time them perfectly or there will he couriers from the Hill:
"The government may fall."
Ah, Mackenzie King,
I think I understand you:
how easy to commune with the dead
in a city wholly divorced from reality.
How easy for that former prime minister to commune from a parliament so out of touch with reality! If we need any other witnesses we have them. Jacques Maritain, the great and modern Catholic philosopher, whote a book called "Man And The State." In it he tried to re-establish the principles of democracy in a modem context. He bespeaks a redefining of the very essence of the democratic idea. He writes:
Democracy can be awkward, clumsy, defective, open to the risk of betraying itself by yielding to instincts of cowardice, or of oppressive violence-
But he goes on:
Yet the strength itself of a democratic body politic supposes justice, because it uses human energies as energies of free men, not of slaves. Nay more: a supreme effort of all the energies of freedom, in their own spiritual realm, is needed to compensate for the momentary increase in physical strength that is given Machiavellian powers by their determination to use any means whatsoever.
[Mr. Fairweather.l
I doubt that he had met the President of the Privy Council when he wrote those words. And such a supreme effort cannot arise if the body politic ignores moral values and standards. In reality strength is supremely strong only if not strength but justice is the supreme standard.
To try to reduce democracy to technology would be to try to deprive it of its very blood.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The proposed rule change in 16-A is illiberal. It is disheartening to see it stamped with the imprimatur of those who profess to be Liberals. It is unnecessary because the twenty-eighth parliament, if I am any judge of its mood, is one of co-operation and reasonableness.
In the speeches until now several large red herrings have been drawn across this motion. One red herring was that the various bills to assist farmers occupied too much of the time of the house. However, if anyone wanted to take the trouble to analyse the problem he would see that the three bills were expected to carry too much of the load in responding to the frustration of western Canada farmers because of a wet summer and a damp wheat crop. Those who do not believe me should reread the reports of those debates. The three farm bills were not particularly in question, although the high cost of money obviously was a matter of concern. It was more the fact that these bills gave some hon. members an opportunity to be representative. Once in a while we are representative, and those debates were representative in all their manifestations just as the debate was representative on the day that hon. members from Newfoundland in their representative capacity took a few hours of the time of the house to discuss a matter which to them was of very serious importance. Parliament must wait for this. The computer does not wait for it. Nor does the programmer in the Confederation building. If the computer is putting out at its full capacity it does not wait for the Newfoundland Bullet nor for wet wheat, but we make parliament wait for these things because we are here partly as representatives.
Another aspect, of course, is one that I think we must agree the Prime Minister carries out with very great effect. I refer to the educative role. The unhappy part about it is that he does most of his educating elsewhere. But we also have an educative role. That is the reason it is important that the President of the Privy Council does not spend all his
December 16, 1968

time pressing buttons in respect of his programming because education sometimes takes a little time.
The proposal of the procedure committee to abolish the committee of supply I suggest will, for various reasons, cause trouble. The principle reason, of course, is that the standing committees themselves are in no way equipped to deal with the business that will come before them. Let us not fool ourselves about this. This has been seen very clearly in respect of the British experience. The British did this a couple of years ago.
We had a Couchiching conference on the reform of parliament. Mr. Richard Crossman attended that conference. If you hear people who are in the opposition speak about this, and I suppose I obviously fall into that category, it is wonderful what they say they will do when they are in office. Mr. Crossman was a prime example. He said that the rules and proceedings of the British house would undergo such a fundamental change when he took office that one would not know the place. Well they abolished committee of supply and they are now in deep trouble in Great Britain. Mr. Stephen Fay, as reported in the Montreal Star of Saturday December 14, 1968, says:
The most radical of the changes introduced by Crossman (and one uses radical in a relative sense relating only to what happened before in parliament, not to general social change) was to take the major part of the debate on the finance bill off the floor of the House, and have the timeconsuming committee stage heard by a committee of 50 members, instead of a committee of the whole of the House of Commons. The finance bill's committee stage took five weeks of the House of Commons' time when its time was growing scarcer.
The object of the reform was to allow the house to debate more topics, and this year it did. But so great was the pressure on parliament created by new legislation, improvements were marginal. Now the Conservative party is demanding that the committee stage of the finance bill be returned to the floor of the House of Commons. The fact is that the proceedings of the small finance bill committee went virtually unreported.
Here is another responsibility. Not only will there be a crowding in on members of parliament but there will also be a crowding in on the press gallery. Unless adequate steps are taken to have full and careful reporting of the standing committees the proper type of public response to these committees will not be forthcoming.
Iain MacLeod, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, received too little publicity for his swinging attacks on government policy. The government is, of course, delighted by the experiment; the opposition, for obvious reasons, is less enamoured.

Motion for Concurrence in Report
The arguments are delicately balanced. The critics claim that backbenchers have no opportunity to put small amendments forward which can alter minutely, but improve, the massive bulk of the finance bill. Supporters of the change argue that private members will have more opportunity to debate more general motions.
In the end the argument is most likely to be resolved on one simple basis: the policy which most suits the government-
In spite of the little intervention by the President of the Privy Council concerning the point of privilege today of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, those of us who sat on the special committee on procedure had discussion on the issue.
Backbenchers clearly never will believe that, when government and opposition whips meet every Wednesday evening to decide on the business of the House of Commons for the following week, arrangements are made to suit the whole house, rather than the two leaderships. Indeed, some of the stormiest episodes in the house come each Thursday when the leader of the house announces business for the coming week.
Certainly, time has been won from the government. But not enough to appease the critics who say that the government regards the House of Commons as a rubberstamp.
Mr. Stephen Fay could have been writing from the press gallery of the House of Commons of Canada. I need not go any farther. Perhaps he would like to visit here during this debate.
It has been won, however, at the expense of some obscure, but residual powers.
"I don't know of any sort of great differences; there's no dramatic change anyway," says one of the rebels sadly. But the rebels' cause could not conclude in the worst of all solutions; a limited pyrrhic victory.
Bernard Crick, who was at the Couchiching conference a number of years ago and who wrote a book on the reform of parliament which has gone into a new 1968 edition, also has written a more popular type of book called "In Defence Of Politics". This book should be a parliamentary bible. Among other things he said:
To remove or destroy politics is to destroy the very thing which gives order to the pluralism and variety of civilized society, the thing which enables us to enjoy variety without suffering either anarchy or the tyranny of single truths.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There is a famous dictum of Lord Salisbury that if the public knew how their affairs were being managed they would not sleep in their beds at night I think that Lord Salisbury was being a little bit tough and rather harsh. The fact is that all but 16A and the supply portion
December 16, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report of the new committee's report will mean useful changes in our system.
May I enter a caveat to some of the speeches that have been made by government supporters? I find it depressing that they seem to think the majority the government received last June is an endorsation of rule changes. The rules are not the property of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his government or his supporters in this house. The rules are the property of the whole House of Commons. I think this has been overlooked by some members who have taken part in this debate up to now. We are not changing the rules of the Government, we are changing the rules of the House of Commons. That is why I ask for some measure of understanding from the government benches for the problem faced by that other part of the whole process whose members sit to the left of the Speaker.
The problem that faces parliament is a problem of communication. The day of trial by combat is over. In this area as in so many other aspects of our life, the battle is for men's minds. I have not been here very long, since 1962 but to get here and stay here I have had to face the public on four different occasions plus three times in provincial elections. It is my impression, if I have one that is immutable-I don't know whether an impression should ever be immutable but the President of the Privy Council (Mr Macdonald) wants to make rules that are immutable from concepts that apparently are immutable-that for a great part of my time here the problem has been that we have not been responsive enough to what has been going on in this great Canada and outside in the rest of the world. Let me quote:
The essential question is how far an active government wielding great and varied power, intervening in the detailed conduct of private business affairs, discriminating between one citizen and another on the basis of subtle and complex judgments of the communities' needs 10 and 20 years ahead, driving bargains with particular interest groups as administrative convenience dictates, can be subjected to effective democratic control.
That mouthful, Mr. Speaker, is contained in a book called "Modern Capitalism", written by Andrew Schonfield who was once the editor of the Economist. This is, of course, the core of the whole problem of effective democratic control. It is not the property only of the government of Canada but an obligation that is placed on all members of this House of Commons. Everybody has been jumping up and down during this debate telling the world they are on the side of reform. I was going to do that, but if anybody wants any credentials

they can look up the committee report of December, 1964. That committee in its way was a fairly daring group. One rather dangerous proposal was that we be allowed to take our secretaries to our constituencies when parliament was not in session. I may say that this proposal was readily and easily made by Dr. Pauline Jewett. It took the men of the committee to remind her that it was all right for her to go home with her secretary but it might be met with some question if we did so. That was not the only proposal. In fact, a good many of the rules that are still temporary and still being debated here were proposed in the December, 1964 report.
I want to pay a bit of a compliment, if that is permissible, to the membership of the present committee. One of the things I like about it was that there were some members who had never been here before. I think that is a great thing because it puts me in mind of the Swiss. Every year all the men in Switzerland who make up the parliament vote in their male arrogance to prevent the women in Switzerland from exercising the franchise. I really think that the gods which hover over the Alps of Switzerland must find this one of the most curious exercises of democracy when only the people who want to prevent the reform are voting on it. This is analogous to my comment to these new members, and I propose to name them. They include the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). None of these people have been caught up by any of the boloney here, and there is a lot of boloney here and a lot of sacred cows wandering about up and down the corridors. I found it refreshing to have a new look being taken by these members at these rules. Is there some problem from the rear?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They brought in some fresh boloney.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: They were able to analyse the boloney in a way that a good many of the members who have been sitting here for a good long time were not able to do. I will say that for them. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can wait for his purple heart, I was just about to give it to him. I was going to add, and I think the new members will agree with this, that it would have been impossible for the committee to function or make any report at all had it not been for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Edmonton
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
West (Mr. Lambert), the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), that very resilient and very flexible minister and, of course, my house leader, the member for Peace River, whose patience and good temper were an inspiration to all of us. I suggest that the new blood on the committee was a very good thing. I sometimes wonder whether the next committee might not be staffed entirely by neophytes.
The problem we are trying to solve will not be solved by the proposed 16A, however, or by the abolition of speeches or by any of the speeches that are being made here, including, first, my own. It has been the subject matter of a great deal of discussion, and lately some people are becoming worried about it. My daughter would say, "daddy, don't get up tight about it." I am not up tight about anything except that we are unable as members of parliament to participate in the give and take of dialogue. Dialogue is a pretty legitimate word if it does not get hammered to death by people who do not want a dialogue but want to dictate. Dialogue is a two-way business.
A book called "Democracy And The Student Left", which had its origin in a speech made by a distinguished diplomat and educator, George Kennan, at the opening of the library at Swarthmore College and was printed under the title "Rebels Without A Program" in the New York Sunday Times magazine of January 21, just eleven months ago, has now been published. Kennan's thesis drew unprecedented response from both academics and students at universities. If any hon. member has nothing else to do over Christmas, he should read this book and be as excited as I was about the quality of the response from the undergraduate community. If anybody is worried, as some people apparently are because their preserves are being threatened by these compassionate young people, I would ask them to read this book and their worries will be dissipated.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I thought that one of the better letters, a letter I wish had been written to the President of the Privy Council but I will read it to him or speak it to him or put it to him, whatever you like-


Mr. Mackasey:: Sock it to him.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is the word. It is such an inappropriate expression to be used by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that I hesitate to use it, but okay, I will sock it to
DEBATES	3981
Motion for Concurrence in Report him. It was by Professor Thomas Diamond-stone of Ohio State University who wrote:
The essence of democracy is not the will of the majority. This is merely the operational basis by which the political machinery is allowed to function.
If only the President of the Privy Council had listened to that before he proposed 16A. The quotation continues:
The essence of a democracy is, among other things, respect for the rights of minorities and individuals, which in turn implies that the basis of democracy is moral, not operational.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The problem we are facing concerns a minister who is 110 per cent operational. I am not going to say what else, but he is all operations, anyway. The quotation continues in this way:
This means that there are certain things which a majority cannot do, even if it wished to.
That is why we are standing here debating today, tomorrow and the next day. This is why rule 16A will not be accepted by the party I represent and neither will it be accepted by other parties. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who last Friday made a most extraordinarily complicated proposal that I do not think can be taken seriously, had better go back and get a proposal that is more acceptable to the house if he thinks these rule changes are to be taken seriously.
I do not know how much time I have, Mr. Speaker. I took a great deal of trouble to find out how to pronounce Walter Bagehot's name. I did not think it was "Bagot", like the constituency. Anyway, I have it on unimpeachable authority that it is "Bagehot". This is relevant because the old boy had something to say to us, whether he lived a few years ago or not. He wrote a book called "The English Constitution". He lists in that book some of the functions of the House of Commons. It is time we reread the book and paid more attention to it. He said in the book:
First. .. the House of Commons chooses the prime minister from among its members.
The second function, continues Bagehot, "is what I may call an expressive function." It has an obligation "to express the mind of the.. . people on all matters which come before it."
This is what has been missing from the parliaments of which I have been a member. This is why the hon. member for Peace River proposed that in private members' hours there be some determination-I think this
3982	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report proposal found general support in the committee from anybody who was not a minister-of private members' resolutions and bills. A proposal should be made in this respect and there should be, just as there is in the British house, what is called, I think, a one-day resolution or perhaps it is a short-day resolution. In any event there should be some means by which members, no matter to what party they belong, may express their collective will to the government. If we had had this procedure in regard to the Nigerian civil war there would have been a great deal more activity from the government benches than has in fact been the case. They were inhibited-I do not blame them for this-from expressing their free will.
I heard it said once that the former prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, said that when the free vote was called with respect to the capital punishment bill-I do not want to offend anybody but this may be read 50 years from now and it is a little bit of modem history that should not be lost-we would see the real liberals, with a small "1", stand up. I think there should be more times in all these terms and semesters-"semester" is a most uncommonly ugly word; "term" is shorter and plainer-when the will of members, be they government or opposition, be they doctrinaire, dogmatic, waffling or thoughtful, can be made known to the government and the people.
Walter Bagehot also says:
The third function of parliament is what I may call... the teaching function. A great and open council of considerable men cannot be placed in the middle of a society without altering that society.
Then he continues:
It ought to alter it for the better.
Of course, it cannot alter it here very much because we have not yet accepted some of the newer media for letting the public know what we are about. I refer to television, which people run from as if it were discovered the day before yesterday. The United Nations has been able to deal with this without too much difficulty. Nobody could ever calculate the value, for instance, of television prior to the hearings when Joseph Welch confronted Joseph McCarthy and destroyed him, really. Joseph McCarthy was seen for the first time by the American people for what he was, the incarnation of evil and bigotry. Millions saw this. It would not be a bad idea if some of the public could get a view of what goes on in this house. It would not be a dangerous thing;
[Mr. Fairweather.l
DEBATES	December 16, 1968
Hansard could deal with it handily. The problem would be the number of times the dial was switched off. Walter Bagehot goes on to say:
Fourthly, the House of Commons has what may be called an informing function ... that to some extent makes us hear what we otherwise should not.
In order to be able to inform, just as in the case of to teach, I suggest that the member himself must be informed. This may involve the use of methods of inquiry which are quite new. Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I am about at the end of my remarks. However, there is one other quotation that I think is relevant. Alfred North Whitehead said:
A merely well informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth.
I think every one of us should read those words every day because there are a great many bores and I suppose the member for Fundy-Royal is one of them. If we could be confronted with this challenge daily, perhaps it would be good for all of us. I wonder whether our sights are not too high here?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the external affairs and national defence committee we are about to launch into a fundamental review of Canada's defence and foreign policies. We are staffed by an idealist named Peter Dobell who persuaded the Speaker's office, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, and some Canadian industries to support an independent technical person in assisting members to ask the right questions. It is very difficult for the ordinary member of parliament to ask the right questions. If accountants are hired someone rushes around saying, "my gracious, we have paid an accountant a few dollars a day", or if a lawyer is retained the next thing we know there is a newspaper column saying that a lawyer has charged someone a lot of money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am interrupting the hon. member only to bring his attention to the fact that his time has expired. Has the hon. member the consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. I will not be very much longer. I have suggested that we are at the stage where we must accept the principle that committees should be adequately staffed. Certainly if the proposal to end the committee of supply comes into effect it will be the
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
responsibility of the government, and we will remind them of it, to ensure that committees are staffed with technically knowledgeable people who are not beholden to the ministry. This is the only way we can have independent and proper questioning. I am not greatly disturbed about the tendency to follow what is done in the United States, although we always seem to worship in fields other than our own, but if we are to follow the U.S. committee system we will need the U.S. staffing system. There is no gainsaying this fact.
The proposal to televise the proceedings of the house will come about sooner rather than later. We cannot keep out this type of technological advance. The fact that the press gallery is able to report by pen and ink should not prohibit the film-maker from reporting by means of his own technique.
The next point I wish to make could I think well be applied to myself. Nevertheless, may I say with great deference, Mr. Speaker-and I assure you I will be well within the rules-that I believe Your Honour has no idea how much members of parliament would support a tougher attitude by the Chair with regard to relevancy and repetition. I have sat in the gallery of the British house when the Speaker chopped a member down. Perhaps it was a devastating experience for the person making the speech but it kept members to the point. A study of this proposal might also be a thought for future committee hearings.
People like to quote their favorite parts of the bible to support their points of view, and Ivor Jennings has been referred to several times in this debate, in fact a sufficient number of times to warrant a testimonial dinner being given him in the parliamentary restaurant. He is a contemporary expert on parliament and he has summed up the issue very succinctly and clearly. I should like to conclude my speech with his words:
-the true function of the House of Commons is to question and debate the policy of government.
All that the opposition seeks is the opportunity to question and debate the policy of the government with the proper, modern tools that a great state like Canada can provide without any serious difficulty.
I am really deeply serious about this matter, as I have tried to be through most of this speech. I hope there will be a measure of flexibility on rule 16A. I hope that the Prime Minister and the administration will see that in this twenty-eighth parliament there is a mood to get on with the business of the coun-29180-252
DEBATES	3983
Motion for Concurrence in Report try. I am willing to be put to the test as one backbench member of parliament. I would not presume to talk for the other parties but if Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition does not measure up to a better adaptation of rule 16A, then we will have no one but ourselves to blame and the government will be right to take the responsibility for such a change. However, until we have failed I ask the government very seriously to make a concession.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, following my election to this house on June 25 of this year and after observing the proceedings as an interested private member since the opening of this session of parliament, I have a few ideas about what I feel is the function of parliament, the function of the executive in this parliament, and the relationship of the one to the other. I believe, as has been stated by many hon. members on both sides of the house, that this is one of the most important revisions of the rules to take place for many decades and perhaps the most far-reaching since the formation of this institution.
Much has been said in the country at large about parliament not functioning properly. It has been said that debates are slow, that parliament does not work quickly and efficiently and that it puts the executive, that is, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, at a great disadvantage in carrying out the governing processes in our highly technical society. Much has been made of the need for the reform of parliament by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). He said that the mother of parliaments at Westminster had instituted far-reaching reforms that had improved their parliamentary procedure.
One of the arguments advanced by those who favour a drastic revision of our parliamentary system is that we have enormous problems of health and welfare, of housing, education, big business, big unions, and the estrangement of the common person from the governing process, of the loss of individuality by citizens and of the overpowering of his personality by the sheer complexity of government. If parliament is to blame for the state of the nation at present, as many of its critics believe and state, I do not feel that the main reform of parliament along the lines suggested by the government will in its totality materially change our economic and social situation. Indeed, a look at the state of the economic and social structure of the United Kingdom would seemingly not disclose that
3984	COMMONS
Motion jor Concurrence in Report the great changes in their parliamentary system, as proposed by many here, have materially improved their economy or that their social system has materially benefited from the parliamentary changes at Westminister.
I suggest that perhaps parliament has been much too efficient in grinding out legislation which has affected and changed the lives of our citizens and the social structure in which we live. Anyone who examines what parliament has produced for the Canadian citizen in the last 25 years cannot deny that there has been a vast amount of legislation passed which regulates, changes and affects the everyday life of the average Canadian to a degree not even thought of 50 years ago. The average Canadian has become so dependent on the government that he looks to it to provide him with sustenance in his old age, protection for his health, access to hospital facilities of a highly complex nature at no cost to himself, to provide education for his family, at least to the end of the secondary level and for much of the post-secondary level, to provide him with maintenance during periods of unemployment, and to provide him with some sort of basic maintenance throughout his whole life from womb to tomb.
The governments at all levels are spending almost 40 per cent of the national income. It is small wonder then that disruptions arise and the individual feels that the government is not doing enough for him.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
But man is nothing if he is not an individual, and no system can be devised that will make him completely happy and allow him to fit into the social slot. He has not evolved yet to the stage where any one institution or set of institutions will make him completely happy or contented. All institutions devised for government are necessarily imperfect; but I believe that the guiding principle is that institutions that are imperfect but flexible are much better than institutions that are perfect but inflexible. Institutions devised only for the government of the day, by being made more rigid and inflexible, can more easily carry on the business of the day, but they quickly become outmoded and unworkable. As a result intolerable situations develop and social frustration and eventually upheaval are the main results. So I believe that parliament must be changed, but changed always with the view in mind that the governing of man is a very imperfect process, and that we
[Mr. Ritchie.l
DEBATES	December IB, 1968
should aim for a flexible, if imperfect, structure as compared to a rigid and necessarily more perfect legislating structure.
I am not qualified at this stage to judge the effect of all of the rule changes. I would like, however, to put forward some ideas on certain of the proposed changes that I feel will not work to the best advantage of the house and of the country.
The first of these changes relates to the committee of supply. If all estimates are sent to the standing committees I feel that this will be a very retrograde step. Since coming to this house I have attempted to attend every committee of which I was a member and to carry on a reasoned questioning of the witnesses. I feel I had a considerable knowledge of much of the subject matter discussed in the committees and in the subject matters of one or two of the committees I had a high degree of technical knowledge. None the less I felt that I accomplished little and that the committees little fulfilled the function for which they were set up.
The first and most marked observation about standing committees is that the government must necessarily appoint the chairmen. In the committees I attended the chairmen were usually reasonable and attempted to give an impartial right to each member. But they certainly were under no obligation to do this and in occasional committee meetings sometimes the whole period would go by without a single opposition member being allowed to ask a question. The standing committees very much lack the impartiality and protection that the Speaker gives to the House of Commons.
It is obvious that the chairman and members of the committee from the government side would in times of scandal, mismanagement or what have you, as best they can and in their own interests make the very best effort to prevent discussion of matters that were inimicable to the government's interest. As well as that, questioning of witnesses, who are usually government employees, reveals that they will answer only as long as the government is not embarrassed.
I do not see how the new rules can make any more time available for the scrutiny of the estimates. In fact, only a very few estimates can even be given casual scrutiny. Members of parliament lack the background information intelligently to question most of the items that come before the committees.
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
The purpose of parliament, I am sure, is not to decide whether a project is being carried out effectively, or whether money should be spent on one portion of a project or another. This decision is much too technical, and even with the greatest back-up staff only a few, if any, members of parliament can make a meaningful contribution.
The purpose of parliament, it seems to me, is to debate whether or not a project should be carried on for a particular reason. A case in point is the abandonment of the ING project while the Post Office Department went ahead with the satellite program. One project was abandoned in the interest of economy while on the other hand a new expenditure was made. Both of these projects were similar in scope.
It seems to me, if scientific programs are to be properly discussed, that this discussion cannot take place in a standing committee. Such a committee would be a rubberstamp for the government because all discussion could be effectively controlled by the government. The only place where a useful and realistic debate on matters of supply can be carried on in parliament is in the House of Commons. I realize that the estimates of every department cannot be scrutinized in this way because this would be too time consuming and probably unnecessary for the vast majority of departments. But surely a limited number of departmental estimates each year could be brought forward for consideration by the house so that the general principles relating to the departments concerned can be debated.
More and more the government of Canada is becoming involved in the taking of money from one individual and the giving of it to another. More and more the economic health of this country is dependent upon the monetary policies of the government. If the House of Commons loses control of the pursestrings and its means of criticizing and giving wide publicity to the country's monetary problems, then most legislation will be of little value.
If scrutiny of the estimates takes place entirely in standing committees, the control of the House of Commons over spending will be effectively reduced to little more than token scrutiny. I think this would be very detrimental to the power of parliament effectively to control the financial affairs of the nation. If the proposed standing order 16A is implemented, it will mean that the government house leader can unilaterally declare a committee null and void, should he so desire, and 29180-252J
DEBATES	3985
Motion for Concurrence in Report thus unable to examine a particular item that is before it. I believe that the committee structure as proposed just would not work.
In past sessions ministers of the cabinet were present on but few occasions in committee meetings. I believe pressure of government business will prevent them from attending committee sessions any more frequently than is the case at present. I have noticed that when the committee of supply was in session ministers did attend and often provided reasonable and valuable information.
As a result of comments made outside the house and by the news media the impression has been created that members are more prone to make speeches in committee of supply than to examine estimates. I suggest that the estimates will not be examined any more thoroughly in standing committees than they are at present, because the subject matter is just too vast and the time too short for members of parliament to carry on any real internal audit of the estimates. I feel that a speech can be very useful if it is directed to a particular aspect of the department under discussion. It is also important to have a forum wherein new trends and ideas can be analysed for the consideration of the government and the people of Canada. Only in committee of the whole house can one get maximum publicity of such analyses through the news media.
If parliament is to fulfil its function properly, it must be an arena for debate. A certain amount of such debate must be carried on on the floor of the House of Commons under the impartial jurisdiction of the Speaker. The days allocated to the budget and throne speech debates are insufficient for this important function of parliament. It is most essential that parliament debate some of the estimates in order to fulfil its role as watchdog of the public purse. If the control and money is lost to parliament, then control over the whole of the state will rest with the executive. I most heartily endorse the position taken by my leader that some of the estimates, by agreement, be retained by the house for discussion in committee of supply.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, some of the ideas I have may be new or at least different. As a previous speaker said, perhaps I have not yet been "steeped in enough boloney". However, to be fair I must say that since I have been in this house I have not observed the waste of time to which reference has been made in this debate. Rather, from my own observations I
December IS, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report think all of those who have taken part in the debates of this house have been earnestly trying to further the interest both of the debate and of the nation as a whole.
It does not surprise me too much that the rules of this house and the manner in which the house discharges its business should come under discussion at this time because we are entering a new era of communications and technology. People may very well feel that this demands new approaches because it is putting new stresses on those who make decisions and on the institutions which make decisions. This is just as true of the city council of Saskatoon or the town council of Biggar or the rural, municipal councils in the area where I live as it is of this house. These government bodies are being asked to spend more money and to do more things. They are being asked to undertake a greater role in the everyday affairs of individual men.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There was a time in the area where I live when, to fix a road, someone took what we call a slip scraper and filled in the hole in the road. That is all there was to it and that was sufficient to repair the road. Now no one would think of doing that. The ordinary, individual taxpayer has nothing to do with it. Certain moneys are voted, certain taxes are raised, council decides where a road is to be and it is built there. The situation has completely changed in less than most men's lifetime.
Now we have new means of communication. Television is beamed across this continent, across all the civilized world, telling people what a glorious era they live in and how lovely it is to belong to the United States or Canadian middle class for those who can afford to enjoy its benefits. Television programs tell us almost everyone can own a motor car, almost everyone can get a loan for more horses-I forget the exact wording of the advertising. In this new era of technology and communication the real problem facing parliament and the people of Canada is the difficulty of communicating between the ordinary citizen of Canada and those who decide many of the things that affect his life.
In some ways it is more difficult to communicate now than it was in the days of the slip scraper. In those days of the past when your road had to be fixed a councillor would come to you and say, "Well, Joe, take your horses and fix the road." Both men knew what they were talking about. They knew what had to be done, knew it was essential because they


could see the hole in the road, and as a result the job was done. It is different now. By one means or another we must convince the individual in Moncton, New Brunswick, in the Gaspe peninsula, in the prairies or out on the west coast that what is done in this parliament is essential for the individual and, more than that, that it is in his interest. These proposed rule changes are so important because, as I understand them, they will alter the ability to communicate.
If you limit the right of an opposition member or backbencher in this house to express the wishes and opinions of the people who sent him here, you limit or change any communications that might take place between him and his constituents. If he does not have the opportunity to stand up in this house and speak, then to a degree you limit his right to communicate. If he is not reported as having expressed in this house the wishes and opinions of the people he represents, most people in his constituency will say ultimately, "Oh, that individual-we should never have elected him." If they then send another man and the same thing happens, they will ultimately conclude that there is really no point in sending anybody. When we get to that point parliament will really have become downgraded. Parliament in my opinion will not be downgraded by excess of debate but rather by paucity of debate, by the inability of those who have been sent here to express effectively the needs of those who sent them. This is what we should be concerned about.
There has been discussion here about tradition, particularly the tradition of that parliament from which we have drawn our ideas and on which we have patterned much of our procedure. There has been discussion about rules and about the manner in which members carry out their roles in the mother of parliaments as well as about the manner in which debate is controlled there. Traditionally the individual member has the right to say what he thinks in the mother of parliaments and the right to a forum where he can say it. In short, he has the right to express his point of view. That is the basis of any real parliamentary tradition. It took centuries for those rights and traditions to be achieved. It took a long time for individual members to have the right to say in an appropriate forum what they thought, without fear or favour-and that is important because we must have certain guarantees in our parliaments. It took a struggle to achieve our rights and traditions, and it was not easy. We glory in the background of the British parliament, but I point
December 16, 1988	COMMONS
out that it was not always as it now is. Only in 1929, if my memory serves me correctly, did universal sufferage become general in the United Kingdom. That is not long ago. Our democratic institutions really are not that old and we have not used them for long-for a few generations only.
When we discuss rules in this house the most important question we ought to ask ourselves is not whether our time is well spent or otherwise but whether the rights of individual members of parliament are being preserved. Are we preserving the right of parliament to act effectively on the needs of the times? Are we preserving its right to act effectively through the media of publicity- press, radio and television-so that there is a two-way communication between hon. members and those who sent them? In regard to this chamber itself the real question is not whether the present procedure wastes time but whether it serves the people. That is a positive question. If the answer to that question is yes, then this parliament and this house are serving their purpose. There will be no communication through the press or by radio or television unless this parliament plays its part. Certainly there will be communication by the executive arm of the government. From time to time the representatives of the press will ask ministers what they are doing and ministers will give reports over television or radio. What the country wants to know is what individual members are doing.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mention has been made of additional work being undertaken by the standing committees. This may be a practical way of taking some of the load off the house. In the short time I have been here I have served on two committees-continuously on one of them. We held 11 meetings and the minister concerned attended four of them. I would say the chairman did a fair and even-handed job. But the committee was lacking in services; one could wait for days before the transcript of the proceedings had been prepared and was in members' hands. One could attend a second meeting and possibly a third before the proceedings of the first meeting were available. The steering committee met once. The chairman called it twice but only once was there a full meeting of the steering committee.
We called certain witnesses before us. They appeared and answered questions fairly. But it is likely that many more witnesses would have been necessary, and a great deal more
DEBATES	3987
Motion for Concurrence in Report time, before a complete picture of all the activities of the departments concerned could have been presented. I seriously question whether committees can effectively do the work which has been done in the house. This chamber does provide a forum for debate; it does provide for questions to be asked and answered. More important still, it provides an opportunity for an individual member to state his position. This house is the only real forum available to an hon. member. The only real protection against big government is parliament. This is the place where the representatives of the people can speak without fear or favour.
Whether we like it or not-and I suppose some people do not like it-government is playing an increasing role in the economic and political affairs of this nation. This trend is more likely to increase than to decrease. The choice is not, as was suggested today, between helping farmers to sell wheat and taking over their farms, placing them in the position of hired men. It is suggested that the government must either own the land and hire the farmer to produce or step outside the picture altogether. These are not the alternatives we face in this country. This idea is archaic. It is as out of date as the man with two horses pulling a slip scraper.
In this country we quit arguing about the alternatives of capitalism and communism years ago. The issue is not even relevant any more. The question we face really involves the degree and the manner in which government, business, industry and labour are to be mixed-how they will live together and under what conditions, the degree to which government will enter into the economic affairs of the nation. This is why parliament is of prime importance. It is parliament, either by positive decisions or by negative decisions, which will effectively direct the affairs of this nation or opt cut. It is therefore essential that parliament be a powerful force in our affairs, and for this reason we should not leave power in the hands of big government without seeing to it that the balancing effect of members who sit on the back benches is preserved.
The degree of government intervention can be observed day after day. There was a picture in the press the other day of the Minister of Labour just after he had successfully resolved the Air Canada dispute.


Mr. Blair:: Hear, hear.

December 16, 1968
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I agree with you, sir. But consider the implications. Air Canada is owned by Canada and controlled by the government of the day. The individual who moved to settle this dispute with a powerful union was a minister of the crown answerable to this house. In these circumstances, how important it is that members of parliament should be able to ask that minister: how well did you perform this service and how fairly did you perform it vis-a-vis the labour union? As I see it, this trend toward government influence and intervention is likely to accelerate rather than diminish.
Let me give hon. members another example, this time from the Globe and Mail of December 6. Here is a report saying that the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company of Winnipeg expects to complete its $18.4 million takeover of Sylvite of Canada Limited, Regina, by Monday. I would direct attention particularly to one paragraph of this report:
Development at the mine has so far cost more than 10 million. Mr. Austin said it is two years from production. He said pre-production expenses for the Sylvite project will be used to reduce Hudson Bay's taxable income beginning this year; without this provision for tax relief, the take-over would not have been undertaken.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Government, by its taxing policies, is the arbitrator, the decider whether or not a business take-over occurs, whether or not a certain project continues. In that light we see the importance of parliament in this debate.
I think it is also relevant to this procedural issue to ask ourselves why the government wishes rule 16-A. Why do the men who sit on the other side of the house wish unlimited power? To make these kinds of decisions so they can take action, or possibly so they do not have to take action? Which is it? Is it so that the government can deal with rising unemployment or so it will not have to deal with it? Is it so that it may deal with the situation fast developing in western Canada with respect to grain, or so it may be avoided? Is it so that debate will not be quite so severe, so prolonged, and so that not as much can be said about it? Is it so that someone may deal with the groundflshery situation on the east coast, or so that it can be avoided?
To what end are these powers sought? So that the government can do things or so that action can be avoided? So that the government can deal with the vast technological changes, so that the political and economic climate of Canada can be kept abreast of

these changes, or so that action can be avoided and leave the people of Canada individually to struggle along by themselves?
I suppose there are some people who support this move, but I submit that no prime minister who conceives of parliament as the dominant force of Canadian political and economic life can support this kind of proposal to parliament and to the Canadian people. Some portions of the press are becoming concerned. I read this editorial from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of last week:
A government that is unconcerned about the privileges and responsibilities of its opposition deserves a chance to serve in opposition for a while.
The Liberal government in Ottawa may be demonstrating such unconcern in its proposed rule changes for the House of Commons. One of the changes would give it the power to set limits on opposition members' debating time.
It goes on to say:
-an opposition in Parliament performs a vital function in a democracy-a function which could be significantly hampered by the proposed rule.
Normally government policy undergoes fairly thorough scrutiny in caucus before it is presented to the house. This can have a tempering effect on questionable proposals, but it is not a substitute for public examination by an opposition that is not interested in furthering the political ends of the government-
If the government is truly unconcerned about this, Canadians would have good reason to consider giving the Liberals another term or two in opposition-as a reminder that an opposition's role in parliament is sometimes of importance equal to that of the government.
Some of the press and some people outside the house are concerned about what is being proposed here. What the government seeks by these procedural changes is the impotence of parliament. Once the executive arm of the government has achieved its objective and deprived the opposition parties of the ability and freedom to protest, then it has automatically done the same to its own backbenchers. It can follow a course of political inactivity in an economic sense. It will then be able to follow the United States tradition of withdrawing progressively from small islands of economic intervention and it will not move to take effective economic action.
This is one of the differences between the tradition of our system and that of the American system. Since 1867 our parliament has been a parliament of action. It took the action necessary to weld Canada together. It created the transportation system that would
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
do that. It created Air Canada because Canada has to be welded together with a communications system. It created the C.B.C. You find none of these important means of communication in our neighbour to the south. Our neighbour to the south took a course whereby congress was not active. We, for our part, have taken the course of saying that in certain fields, at certain times, in certain necessities, we would be active.
One of the saddest things I have ever observed on television was the poor people's march on Washington, to see them in their thousands sit outside congress and yet congress took no action. Why? Because this is not their tradition. This is the same thing as the farmers selling their own wheat. The government is not concerned. Unless we turn things around, unless we reverse the traditions and the courses we have followed in the past we will continue to say that government plays a role in the economic affairs of Canada, in the planning, in the working out of our long and short-term objectives, in deciding the course of destiny for the Canadian people. If we follow our traditions this we will say and this we will do.
Our tradition has been one of communication and also of participation, not only in this house but on the local level. In the area I come from it does not matter whether people's antecedents were Ukrainians, Czechoslovakians or Germans. They were expected to and did take part in the day to day affairs of the councils and other government bodies in that area and in that province. This is the real tradition of Canada, not a tradition of race or of any particular ethnic origin but a tradition of people working together to achieve the end which they think is desirable, not being negative or afraid but being positive and constructive and willing to strike out on new paths when it was necessary to achieve those objectives which they desired. The rule changes proposed here negate the traditional approach which we have created in the short time we have been a nation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am not dedicated to the preservation of any "ism" because the isms often lead us into trouble. But I am dedicated to the preservation of the life and vitality of this parliament and to seeing it as an instrument to further the interest and welfare of the Canadian people. I believe the people of Saskatoon-Biggar see it that way. They expect us to act. They do not expect us simply to keep the ring, as someone described the British parliament in
DEBATES	3989
Motion for Concurrence in Report its heyday of Conservativism, but to keep safe the economic interests of the country.
We are being asked to limit the participation of individuals in this parliament while at the same time the government sets up regional desks some place back in the hinterland to give them advice when they should be seeking advice from their own backbenchers and the members of the opposition, if only they would listen. "Regional desk" is a good term. It is a nice term-a desk made of steel or wood which does not talk to anybody. It is the people who will sit behind the desks who will do the talking. If they are anything like most political servitors they will tell you, when you get their answers, all the things you want to hear. If you want the truth, then you should listen to those who do not agree with you and not to those who are committed to agree with you beforehand.
As is the case in respect of those who have spoken before me today, I am completely and utterly opposed to the provisions of 16A. They will muzzle and limit this parliament and it will be that much less effective if the government has its way.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker the only thing I regret in rising to speak is that some of my hon. friends are not here to give their applause. I am thinking for instance, of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who is a very good supporter of mine. In order that he may be somewhat enlightened I shall place my remarks on the record and he will have an opportunity to read them in any event.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order if I may have the indulgence of the house I believe we all hope that the hon. member's address will be as productive as his wife was on Friday night because he is now the father of another child.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that this is one point of order that is in order. I wish to thank hon. members for their very kind wishes. I think the wind has been taken out of my sails a little, but I am sure I will recover. First of all I should like to congratulate the members of the committee on procedure who, but for the grace of God, did an excellent job in their efforts. I should like to congratulate my colleagues who worked on that committee. I have come to know my colleagues in this regard. As a new member I was impressed by their sincerity and the role
3990	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report they took in trying to bring about changes in the rules that would benefit the whole house and the whole nation because parliament does serve the whole nation of Canada. I wonder why such a stipulation as 16-A was ever brought in as part of the report. I notice the attempt of the government house leader to apologize for its existence on Friday when he did the sort of thing one would do for a youngster who complains, that is, give him a popsicie or a candy. I have wondered what the motive was behind 16-A. After having listened attentively to a number of eminent members of this house make their representations I realize that 16-A was included deliberately to give to the government the power this provision gives.
Having read during my days as a student a number of eminent writers of the 17th century and their criticism of the British judicial system I was reminded of a statement attributed, I believe, to Pope when he said that beggars hang that jury men may dine. This is a very succinct summation of some of the inequities of the judicial system of Britain a few centuries ago. I wonder whether this is not a complete summation also of the content of 16A in that we will hang because they are hungry. This is the attitude of the government toward the problems which exist in this nation.
I certainly do not intend to stand here and take issue with many of the reforms that have been recommended in the report of the special committee on procedure. X am one new member of parliament who is a little impatient and who, like all new backbenchers of all parties, would like to see the government in power take action on many of the social, economic and other problems of our nation. I can say I have been very impatient with the way in which this government to date has not faced up to the problems confronting this nation, despite its great majority.
If I were to make one point only in my few remaining remarks I would dwell heavily on the one point which caught my attention in the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) last Tuesday. I shall quote from the remarks of the hon. gentleman as they appear at page 3758 of Hansard. These remarks represent the feelings of our leader and of all hon. members in this house who are legitimately and sincerely interested in the regional problems of Canada. They represent in a very brief fashion the part that parliament must play in dealing with these

DEBATES	December 16, 1968
regional problems. The Leader of the Opposition said:
X suggest we must remember that this is the only national forum in which spokesmen for all parts of Canada can speak and expect to be heard. I need not remind the house that different regions of the country have specific problems and points of view. Discussion in a national forum helps to knit the regions into a whole nation and to build a stronger unity. It seems likely that one of the serious casualties of any major limitation upon the time of debate would be the right of spokesmen to be adequately heard on the problems of the regions. I suggest that national unity would suffer.
As a member of a particular region of Canada I feel, as I assume all members who represent particular regions of Canada feel, that any attempt to restrict legitimate debate on matters pertaining to regional problems would be an infringement of the rights of the people of the various parts of Canada and the people in all of Canada. I consider that one of my main tasks as a new member, and one of the main tasks of any member of parliament, is to sensitize the members of the government in respect of the various regions of Canada, because regardless of how competent, capable or sincere a minister is he cannot expect to understand fully the importance of the particular problems which relate to the various regions. I suspect that had these ministers been so sensitized they would have made an effort to sensitize the bureaucracy into putting the policies and programs of the government into effect.
I consider that the regional problems of Canada which face the whole nation right across the dominion must be brought to the attention of parliament as time progresses and especially because of the changes in government and the changes of ministers of the government who occupy different roles and new portfolios. These people have to be sensitized to our problems across the dominion. How are the ministers and the government going to understand what is going on in Canada if we are not allowed and permitted the right to debate these issues in this house? I am amazed at the attitude of some of the new members who have suggested that by bringing in the proposed 16-A or anything which will or can be intended for the purpose of eliminating debate in the House of Commons they will be better off.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Perhaps I might be permitted to refer to my own problems for a moment. I have had the opportunity since I came to the house of mentioning several problems peculiar to the Atlantic region and I shall continue to do so
December 16, 1968

if the Speaker permits me and with the good will of the house. This is only one region of Canada which has and will continue to have social and economic problems so long as the government continues to take its present attitude. A number of members from the Atlantic region have debated the function change of the C.N.R. These remarks were made during our discussion of the C.N.R. financing bill. I only regret that we did not call for a vote and refuse to provide the financing sought. Any body such as the C.T.C. or the C.N.R. which proceeds to act as dictatorially and inconsiderately as they have acted does not deserve the support of this representative assembly.
I suggest that if there had been members of parliament from the Atlantic region who had been prepared to stand in this house during the last parliament to indicate the importance of a railway system to one province of Canada, Newfoundland, the Canadian Transport Commission and the C.N.R. would not have dared to make the kind of decision they have now made so far as our railway system is concerned. Had we had members with the gumption to get up in this house and make the points we have now made we would not be faced with this very serious problem.
We have heard members from British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Newfoundland talk at length since this parliament commenced about the serious problems facing our fishing industry. We have had little difficulty in convincing our own colleagues of the seriousness of the state of that particular economic aspect of the Canadian way of life, but we have had great difficulty in obtaining the interest of the minister in respect of our problems. Unless we are permitted to stand here and present our cases, and if the minister continues to take no heed of what we are saying, we will find the whole Canadian nation in a much more serious economic state of affairs than exists even now.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not understand the problem facing that industry. Undoubtedly he has heard some talk about it and he may have heard some ministers refer to it, but neither he nor the hon. member for Rosedale is familiar with the Atlantic fishery and perhaps they are not too interested. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and his colleagues might well be sincerely interested in this problem, but they are obviously not fully aware of the serious circumstances involved.
Motion for Concurrence in Report What I am trying to say is that unless members of parliament are permitted the right to stand here and indicate to the house and the rest of the people of Canada those problems which exist, the government may never do anything. When one speaks in this house one can influence policy because of press coverage, and one can sensitize the whole nation to the problems of various regions. Perhaps this right will also be taken away shortly. I hope for the sake of the members of the press gallery that they will still be in existence in the new year, and that the Prime Minister does not remove them as a Christmas present to some of his hon. friends.
Unfortunately I was not here on Friday afternoon to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Bruce. I should like to have been present because I was amazed at what he said about this institution being the most exclusive club in Canada. He used that phrase frequently throughout his remarks, and he suggested we should be ashamed of ourselves because we have only passed eight or ten pieces of legislation. Although he did not use this phrase, he said in so many words that parliament should become a sausage factory. This phrase has been used in respect of some educational systems in Canada which turn out young people as though through a sausage factory. That hon. member also said we should be ashamed of ourselves for asking the silly questions we pose in the house. I believe the only reason for this attitude is that a number of Liberal backbenchers are frustrated because they came here with the great idea of taking part in debate and with great ideas about our democratic system of government but have since found different.
Many Liberal backbenchers are blessed with ability and would love to get in their two cents worth but are not permitted to do so, not only because the government house leader and others steal the show most of the time but also because time does not permit. This might be one of the problems. In any event, quite a number of Liberal backbenchers are really frustrated, and I have talked with a number of them. They feel-I was going to say taken in or sucked in but that is not very parliamentary-they have been sold a bill of goods and that these reforms will result in giving them greater flexibility in being able to take part and put their points across.
One point which has been made is that the committees will become the forum for debate. Consequently this has given a number of
3992	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report Liberal backbenchers the feeling that, goodness gracious, there will be a chance for them to get into the debate. They feel they have lots of ability having spent ten years in this or that legislature, or having been mayor of a great metropolitan area, or this or that or something else. They feel that if they can get on a committee which is to be a forum for debate they will be able to get their points across and make a contribution.
I am really shocked by this feeling on the part of the Liberal backbenchers because they ought to realize that the house leader who controls parliament also controls the committees. We had an example of this last week when one committee functioned well and brought in a motion. This motion did not meet with the approval of the house leader and he threw it out. He can decide what is to happen in a committee and who will take part in the debate, when a resolution will be brought in and when it will be debated. He can decide pretty well whether committees will exist. I am shocked by those frustrated Liberal backbenchers who feel that by limiting the debate in this house they will have a greater opportunity to talk about their own constituency problems. They seem to feel that by limiting debate as a result of the proposed rule 16A they will get rid of their frustrations.


Gerald William Baldwin: They will have many more problems in the future.


John Howard Lundrigan: One of our major problems in this 20th century is in realizing the fact that we are living in a changing society. As Aristotle said when he was a growing boy, society is always changing. There is a need to make decisions which are going to result in a sensitive approach to the needs of people. This is one of the greatest challenges which faces any organization or institution. I am surprised that any Liberal backbencher could support the proposed change in 16A when in actual fact all they are doing is relinquishing their right to speak. Under the proposed 16A no one will have the right to speak except the Prime Minister, two or three of his friends in the front row and perhaps two or three of my friends in our front row. The opportunity for a backbencher to speak will be completely eliminated. We might as well go home. Liberal backbenchers might as well realize this, go home and send other stuffed shirts to Ottawa, or perhaps a tape recorder, because they will have nothing to do.
No one denies that we need changes in parliament. Having followed the proposed

DEBATES	December 16, 1968
changes since I have been here as a new member, and the report brought forward by the special committee, I believe the committee has done an excellent job in coping with some of the changes which were needed.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think we need a change, for example, in the sensitivity of the bureaucracy in Ottawa to the needs of the people. We need a change in the efficiency with which decisions of parliament are carried out by the bureaucracy, which tends to bog down and because of its inefficiency, rules, regulations and inadequacy never really puts into effect many of the decisions made by parliament. We need a change in the attitude of ministers of the crown in answering questions in the house. A Liberal backbencher told me that he made a count and one question, the same question, has been asked 40 times since the beginning of the session. He thought this was a terrible reflection on the opposition. What is the minister or his department doing if the question has to be asked 40 times? Obviously an answer has not been given to the question.
I have been frustrated to the point where Mr. Speaker must have taken great exception to my presence here, and rightfully so, as a member of parliament standing and asking questions and receiving nothing more than a shrug of the shoulders for an answer or a "ditto" here, a "ditto" there, here a "ditto", there a "ditto", everywhere a "ditto". This shows the frivolous attitude on the part of a number of ministers.
I have been really frustrated, especially on occasions such as today when we have a chronic emergency developing in one of our provinces and have not been able to get the ministers concerned into the house to answer questions. I think the whole attitude of the government has to change. The attitude of the Prime Minister and the attitude of the hon. member for Rosedale have to change. The people of Canada gave them a majority but they did not give the members of this government the right to eliminate parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: We need a change in the attitude of the government toward taxation. I listened with great interest during the budget debate to a number of members, including some of the Liberals, speaking about the aims of the government. This government still retains an out of date attitude toward taxation. Apparently it has never read some of the eminent documents emanating from
December 16, 1968

great writers to the south who have been advising administrations in that country. The attitude of our government toward taxation is 18th century. I do not think the government has one bit of interest in the farmers of Canada. We need a great change by the government in its attitude toward the farmers of western Canada. I have never heard such important speeches by sincere individuals, with so little result from this government, as I have in respect of the farmers of western Canada.
We wonder, when we rise in our places as members of the house, not only of the opposition but of Canada's parliament, whether this government gives one darn about the farmers and the fishermen of Canada. We wonder about its attitude toward unemployment. I read only two or three days ago that there has been a significant increase in the unemployment rate in Canada. I think the figures for the nation indicate that 4.4 per cent of the people of Canada are now unemployed. This is an increase of some 70,000 over the number of unemployed for the same period last year. Yet still we talk about a just society. Still we talk about the amenities of modern life. This is the kind of change of attitude that we can do with right now. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that none of my colleagues would take exception to this kind of change of attitude by the government.
Sometimes I wonder, listening to some members taking part in debate, whether they really realize whose rights we are talking about. We are not talking about the rights of the Liberal government. We are not talking about the rights of the Prime Minister or those of the hon. member for Rosedale, the present house leader of the government. We are not talking about the rights of the Tories, N.D.P.'ers or Creditistes. When we speak about rights we are talking about the rights of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: I think it would be wise for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to realize that parliament is responsible to the people. We are being asked to make parliament responsible to the Liberal house leader. This is in actual fact what could happen if rule 16A were passed in its present form. As I say, Mr. Speaker, we would make parliament responsible to the Liberal house leader. I do not mind going along with reform. I do not mind gambling a little bit. But I am certainly not going to commit suicide.
29180-253i
Motion for Concurrence in Report
I ask all hon. members to tell their constituents the exact nature of proposed rule 16A. Members should tell their constituents exactly what powers it could give any house leader. They should tell their people what powers it could give to the present house leader and to those who would follow the hon. member for Rosedale. The hon. member for Rosedale may well not be in the house after the next election, but in actual fact if we passed this rule we would be giving this power to anybody who happens to be the government house leader in the future.
I ask hon. members to tell their constituents what this rule could really mean. They should ask their constituents whether they would be satisfied if their rights were relinquished. This is what is sought to be done by rule 16A. We are elected to represent constituencies and to be the voice of our people in parliament. It is not the voice of John Lundrigan from Gander-Twillingate, or some other insignificant character in history who will pass on after a few years and that will be all that is heard of him. We will not be giving up the right of this parliament but the right of the people in our constituencies who have been gracious enough to give us the right to speak on their behalf.
I ask hon. members to ask their constituents whether they are prepared to give up the right of members to speak for them on the farming industry, the fishing industry, the mining industry or the housing situation. I ask hon. members:	If the house leader
decides that he is going to eliminate debate, as indeed he can under the proposed rule, who will speak for the miners of British Columbia? I have paid attention to the situation in B.C. and am aware that there are significant problems there. I have not heard too much about them, though, because some of my hon. friends are a little less than eager to rise and exercise their right to speak on these matters. This is their privilege. But given a little time I think they will get used to what happens in the house and will eventually rise and speak for the miners of British Columbia.
Who will speak for the farmers of the prairies of Canada if not the elected members from that part of the country, be they from the great Tory party or of any other political affiliation? Who will speak for the farmers of Ontario if debate is limited? Who will speak for the corn growers of Ontario, who faced a tragic situation this fall and who but for the great efforts of a number of my colleagues
3994	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report and others would have had to suffer even more intolerable conditions than those they already face? Who will speak for the language rights of Quebec if this government decides tomorrow, after two hours of skirmishing, that we will spend 20 minutes or half an hour dealing with the language rights of Quebec and the rest of this nation?
Who will stand up in this chamber and speak for the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada regarding language rights? Who will talk about and represent the interests of the lumbermen of New Brunswick, people who have hardly been heard of in Canada? Who will represent the lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia about whom we are very keyed up? Who will speak about the causeway and other problems of the people of Prince Edward Island who are awaiting the Christmas announcement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), if he ever gets around to making it? Who will speak for the fishermen of Newfoundland who have been left out in the cold for about 20 years? Only during the last few months have we heard about the problems of the fishing industry on the Newfoundland coast, because those people who came to this house previously did not exercise their right to speak on these matters. It is a good thing they are not here now because they would never have the right if this rule passes.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I ask hon. members, especially backbenchers new to parliament like myself, who will talk about legislation regarding the unemployment situation in Canada? Who is going to stand up in this house and indicate the serious problem of unemployment facing this country? Who will rise here to speak about the legislation on housing which we are all awaiting, or about this great city in the sky about which the Minister of Transport in charge of housing is talking? Who will take issue with some of the loopholes and some of the lack of thought regarding the legislation on housing? Who will be able to stand up and talk about the voting privileges of young Canadians, people who have not yet reached the age of 21 but are demanding the right to vote, if this government decides to increase the voting age to 23? Who will stand here and take issue with some of the inequities in our Criminal Code and point out to the Canadian people what is meant by the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada when this legislation is brought before the house and can easily be forced on the house?

DEBATES	December 16, 1968
These are the kinds of decisions that have to be made. I suggest that if the hon. member for Rosedale is going to assume responsibility for knowing what the people of Canada feel about these problems and for bringing it to the attention of the house, he will have his hands full for a little while.
There is another thing that worries me more than anything, and I think some of my friends in this house and some backbenchers in all parties are not aware of exactly what rights we are talking about here. I am a little worried that decisions are going to be made by this government without any regard for the wishes of the people of Canada. I indicated earlier in my remarks that I believe that the big problem facing our society today is to be able to make decisions that have been arrived at as a result of knowledge of the needs of the people. Any government that is not willing to listen to what the people want and to listen to the voice of the people from all parts of Canada is not interested in making decisions which are of practical benefit to the people but rather is more interested in making decisions which will perpetuate its existence in office. I am a little worried that before the next four years are up changes will be made to the B.N.A. Act and elections might be abolished.
People generally can be excused for not fighting for the rights which were gained by our forefathers down through the ages. But there is absolutely no excuse for a member of the house not fighting to preserve those rights. All of us here take great pride in saying we will not let the rights we do have go out the window.
I wish to say in closing that I am a little disappointed at the fact that the very simple amendment to the report of the procedure committee which was placed before the house last Tuesday was not accepted. I believe the government should have been aware of the fact that they were bringing in a controversial standing order 16A and I am sure they are now, after the last several days of debate. If the government house leader were not aware of the fact that this standing order is not in accordance with our rules then he would not have allowed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to apologize for its existence last Friday afternoon, and yet this is exactly what the minister did. He tried to move an amendment to it and he apologized to the house for the standing order. It is as if he offered a candy to the house and said I am sorry, we made a mistake. He went so far as to indicate
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
that the government is ashamed of what it has done. Why does the house leader not stand up and indicate to the house that we should get on to more important things because we have lots of work to do? We have had lots of work to do since last spring when the government decided to call an election, and yet we took five months off. That was a fairly lengthy holiday, if one may be permitted to refer to that period as such. All of a sudden we come here and are supposed to be ashamed of ourselves because we are not putting legislation through like a sausage factory. We have only passed eight or ten bills but we had five months out of session.
Why does this government not accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition? All it says is that it is a vote of confidence in many parts of the report of the procedure committee but a major part of it has to be referred back to the committee. Why does the government not assume its responsibility and stop wasting the time of the house? Let us get down to the work which awaits us and let the government accept its responsibility for governing this country. Let us not take cover under a standing order such as standing order 16-A which will drag out the debate during which time the government will sit back and refuse to govern the country, a responsibility which it has not assumed very well. Let us not allow the government to drag in this red herring-and I am aware of herrings, coming as I do from the Atlantic region. We are saying to the government that they should accept the amendment and get back to governing the country. They should stop wasting our time because we have important problems which need to be solved.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather), Highway Safety-inquiry as to safety standards for tires; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), Consumer Affairs- application for rate increases by Bell Telephone; the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), Sports-hockey-interference with freedom of choice of young players.
DEBATES	3995
Construction of Fundy Trail
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions, as listed on today's order paper.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of giving immediate consideration to the provision of special financial assistance to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for the construction of the Fundy Trail from St. Stephen, New Brunswick to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, using existing roads where possible, and assisting financially in connecting existing roads in order that a scenic highway be available to aid in the promotion of the tourist industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I should like to refer briefly to the last few words of the resolution which read as follows:
-in order that a scenic highway be available to aid in the promotion of the tourist industry.
These words represent the crux of the resolution and my purpose in bringing this motion before the house. The purpose of the resolution is to attempt to persuade the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to take the necessary measures to develop the Fundy trail as a tourist attraction which will greatly enhance the economic position of these two provinces. What is the Fundy trail? It is nothing new. For more than 50 years imaginative people have envisioned a 550 mile specially developed highway skirting the Fundy shore from St. Stephen, New Brunswick, to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. It would traverse some of the most breathtaking scenery on the North American continent. It would open up areas of historic significance, places where Canadian history was born such as the ancient French forts of La Tour and Beausejour; the land of Evangeline immortalized by Longfellow, and Blomidon and Tan-tramar, the land of the famous Fundy tides. These are places that have an irresistible appeal for tourists, both from Canada and the United States.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The Fundy vacation trail when completed would be 550 miles of pastoral beauty and magnificent seascape graced by dozens of locations enshrined in history, two cities, 15 towns, 350 communities and 490 miles of beaches, inlets and coves washed by the
3996	COMMONS
Construction of Fundy Trail world's highest tides. The trail will trace the entire bay of Fundy shore between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, its length halved between the two provinces. Its terminal points will be joined by two ferry services.
Developing the Fundy vacation trail means a long-term project, an immense investment and rich benefit, not least during the period of its construction, to the locales through which it will pass. To bring the trail as it now exists up to promotable standards by improving or diverting roads already built and linking them with new highways will cost Nova Scotia and New Brunswick an estimated $25 million. Viewed as a total concept, it may represent an investment of $100 million. The trail's development will inject financial adrenalin into areas in which it is much needed. It will stimulate large, localized capital expenditure. It will breed wide employment opportunity. It will give rise to commerce, particularly that associated with recreation, boat building, sports and resort development, dining and accommodation facilities. It will boost municipal coffers through additional tax revenue available from tourist accommodation services operating for a longer period of the year.
But it is the tourist boom that offers the Fundy vacation trail its most attractive potential. The influx of visitors into both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick has swelled during the last five years. The measure of the Fundy vacation trail challenge is the scope of its potential: it will be within easy reach of both American and Canadian travellers and is seen as the subject of a May to November season.
Let me again refer to the last sentence of the resolution in which I point out that this highway would basically be an aid in promoting the tourist industry. Bight now let me clear up any misconceptions that have arisen that the Fundy trail is being advocated simply as another highway for transportation purposes. This view has been put forward by New Brunswick highways minister, Andre Kichard, and on these grounds he has dismissed any immediate consideration of the project on the basis that other highway improvements are more urgent. The minister has missed the point. The Fundy trail is desirable not as just another highways system but ,as an addition to our highways system which would lead to a vast increase in tourist potential and an attraction of more dollars to the maritime economy.
.[Mr, Thomas (Moncton) .1
DEBATES	December 16, 1968
The Fredericton Daily Gleaner in an editorial in the December 3, 1968, edition had this to say:
Highways Minister Andre Richard says in a speech at Moncton that the war on poverty must take precedence over all other measures to improve the maritimes. Projects such as the New Bruns-wick-Prince Edward Island causeway, the Fundy trail, the Chignecto canal, the Corridor road across Maine, would be highly desirable, he says, when considered on an individual basis. "But considered in total, they would immediately bankrupt any society."
We agree with Mr. Richard that poverty should have top priority. Through the years we have never departed from that concept. But can poverty be cured without introducing industry? And how can industry be introduced without the implementation of projects to pave the way for it?
We disagree with Mr. Richard where he fails to distinguish between expenditure and investment. We believe that investment in certain great public works projects would yield a rich return. We believe that it would not be spending wealth, it would be creating wealth. And there is the fundamental difference in the two philosophies.
The Fundy trail would be an immense attraction to the tourist industry which could be increased if we could interest the great population to the south of us to come to this area.
This government has pledged itself to the correction of regional disparity. We are all aware of the problems of the Atlantic provinces-unemployment higher than the national average and underemployment because of lack of job opportunities. We realize the fact that we are at a great disadvantage in competing on the Canadian market because of our location and our distance from the highly populated areas. But this very handicap can become our greatest asset. Because of our very lack of industrialization and our underpopulation, this area has an irresistible appeal for the millions of people living in the heavily populated areas of Quebec, Ontario and the eastern United States. We are in the happy position of being next door neighbours to one of the biggest tourist markets on the North American continent-the state of New York and the New England states. These areas have become so congested that we are in a wonderful position to attract this tremendous tourist potential to the Fundy area.
The Fundy trail should not be confused with any express highway program. It is an opportunity for both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to join in a dynamic and further development of the tourist industry of these provinces. Tourism today is more than big business; it is a gigantic self-help program capable of producing highly lucrative returns solely in the public interest. The Fundy vacation trail would be a tourist magnet. The trail
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
would be an impetus to the employment of labour throughout the Atlantic provinces and would use locally made supplies and material. The Fundy vacation trail is the key to an improved standard of living and a better economic future for the Fundy folk and their families.
What can this mean? Tourism today is our second largest industry, second only to our forest products in bringing in foreign dollars. If it were not for these dollars from the tourist trade, our balance of payments with the United States would be in serious imbalance. In the present year some 2,800,000 people visited the province of New Brunswick alone and left behind $87 million. The tourist industry in Canada must continue to grow and remain healthy.
A recent study in the United States analysed the growth of tourism there. It concluded that increased leisure, increased incomes and increased mobility accounted for only half of the increase in tourist usage. It appears that some of the conditions of an increasingly urban life are adding to the number of North Americans who seek some part of their pleasure out of doors.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
We can look ahead and predict a 30-hour week. We can look ahead and foresee the day when no family will have an income below the poverty line. We can see the day when the mobility of man is enhanced so that a journey half way round the world is counted as a week end trip. The technical capability is almost with us. The productive genius of man is almost boundless. His social management is less to be commended. We can foresee the man of the future with an even more urgent demand for outdoor recreation facilities. The combined post-war phenomenon of more affluence and disposable leisure time has given rise to accelerated public outdoor recreational demands which have placed radically increasing pressures not only upon our national parks and outdoor recreational space but on all other landscape resources as well. The problem of providing adequate parks and recreational and other types of open space has become one of the major problems in an accelerating urban society.
The 500,000 people in the immediate area of the Fundy trail have recognized the need and expressed overwhelming support for this venture. Cities, towns, municipalities, boards of trade and the press have expressed enthusiastic approval. Let me quote one or two of
DEBATES	3997
Construction of Fundy Trail these endorsements. The first is from the Truro Daily News of June 16, 1966:
The construction of such a trail would be of great benefit to the two provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and if developed energetically and wisely will allow all communities to capitalize on what is now the area's largest industry. Such a project would not only give major impetus to the tourist industry but additional jobs would be created, as well as the possibility of the establishment of new industries.
My second reference is to the Moncton Daily Times of September 15, 1964:
The 1964 tourist season now drawing to a close has been a record breaking one in point of throngs of American and Canadian visitors ... The expansion of Fundy park is a project that cannot long be postponed, if its value and usefulness as a tourist mecca and popular outdoor rendez-vous for our own citizenry is to be maintained.
If it was urgent in 1964, Mr. Speaker, it is that much more urgent today.
Recognizing the need for such a project we may ask, how can it best be realized? I suggest that the federal government ought to take immediate steps to complete the unfinished portion of the trail between St. Martin's and Point Wolfe. The cost of this has been estimated at $12 million. Then action should be taken at once to enlarge the present Fundy national park which is the second smallest park in Canada. Lands should be acquired on the western side to develop new beaches and playgrounds and camping areas. The existing 29 trailer hook-ups are woefully inadequate to meet the increasing demand. Why, one trailer club in Moncton alone has over 100 members. Land is available at present and at small expense could be equipped with sewage facilities and trailer hook-ups which would more than double the present capacity. An excellent nine hole golf course attracts more players than can be accommodated. Plans should be made to enlarge it as soon as possible.
To complete the unfinished section of highway and to bring existing highways and bridges up to standard would require an expenditure of some $25 million. It is not for a minute suggested that this be done immediately, but I do feel that a ten-year program with a total expenditure of $25 million would bring at least another 200,000 tourists to the area. On the basis of figures now available this would bring in some $10 million of additional revenue. Surely this would be one of the best ways imaginable for us to bring living standards in the maritimes up to the level of the rest of Canada. The need for such a project has long been recognized.
December 16, 1968

Construction of Fundy Trail
Before closing may I refer to an editorial in the Moncton Daily Times of October 6, 1966, headed "Fundy Trail Should be Built". In part this is what it says:
The construction of the trail would involve an expenditure in the vicinity of $25 million and this is no mean sum. Nevertheless, the expenditure would be a worth-while investment. It would stimulate tourism, thus benefitting Canada as a nation, and it would lead to a tremendous expansion of tourist facilities in the affected parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The $25 million would generate many additional millions of dollars worth of building. The effects, both short-term and long-term, would spread through the areas' economy like ripples in a pond.
With every day of delay that passes the cost of the project will increase. The sound economy would be to embark upon this undertaking at an early date. Such a project would not be inflationary in this part of Canada for it is a well known fact -and the federal government has now recognized this-that the inflationary pressures which apply elsewhere in Canada are not operating here.
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia cannot shoulder the burden of building the trail themselves. Aid must be forthcoming from either the federal government or a federal agency such as the Atlantic Development Board. But the project must be tackled. Common sense demands it.


Mr. Guy Crossman (Westmorland-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time because the matter now before the house is of considerable interest to me. The proposed Fundy trail, in order to cover the shoreline of the bay of Fundy, would naturally be partly in New Brunswick and partly in Nova Scotia, and be connected at the provincial border by the isthmus of Chignecto. As you approach the northern end of this isthmus you enter Westmorland county, part of the constituency of Westmorland-Kent that I have the honour to represent in this house. Since it is apparent that a segment of this trail would pass through part of my riding it is only natural that 1 should show interest in any undertaking, no matter how small or big, if it will contribute to the economy of my riding and province.
How many times in past years have I wished for some magic wand which would enable me to grant the many valid requests coming from all segments of our local industries-the requests of farmers for better marketing facilities and higher incomes, the requests of the fishermen, to whom one's heart really goes out when one sees their need for better docking facilities and services. It has been their lifelong dream to see these improvements accomplished. I am also thinking of transportation rates that will enable our small and few processing industries to compete with the big and far away centres. I
[Mr. Thomas (Moncton) J

also think with emphasis about our tourist industry, the future potential of which cannot be overemphasized.
Requests from these and many other areas come our way each day, and it is our duty as elected members of parliament to shoulder our responsibilities. Every hon. member, I am sure, wishes to find immediate solutions to problems and it is here, Mr. Speaker, that we face reality.
Before continuing with my remarks about New Brunswick's participation I wish to read an editorial contained in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 26 which gives a clear indication of the priorities established by Premier Smith and his government, the members of which show responsibility in their decision. The heading is "The Fundy Trail", and the editorial says in part:
Premier Smith is reported to have made a most significant qualification to his official support for the building of the proposed vacation trail along the Fundy coastline of Nova Scotia.
Logan Barnhill, a member of the Fundy trail committee, said last week that Premier Smith had assured the committee of the provincial government's "solid backing" for the project. At an "opportune time", Mr. Smith was reported to have told him, the Nova Scotia government would give the project its full support, including financial aid.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
"Opportune time" is surely a significant qualification. There is no doubt that the Fundy trail envisaged as a tourist highway running from the United States border along New Brunswick's Fundy coast and then westward again along the Nova Scotia coastline is a most desirable objective. At present, so much of the Fundy coastline on both sides of the bay, and so many of its beaches and small harbours, are inaccessible. Certainly on the Nova Scotia shore, the coastline often can be reached only by dirt roads. The scenic beauty of much of the area can be enjoyed only by a few patient and resolute motorists.
A Fundy trail might do for southeastern New Brunswick and the Minas basin and Annapolis valley areas of Nova Scotia what the Cabot trail has done for non-industrial Cape Breton. It would be a boon to tourism, the motel and catering industry, and to the economies of the communities along its route.
Yet today is not the appropriate time to start work on the Fundy trail. This province's trunk road system is now being transformed in several regions. New, high-speed highways are being built, at high cost, between Halifax and Truro along those portions of the trans-Canada Highway not yet modernized, between Halifax and the valley towns, and along the south shore.
Rightly, priority has been given to these "bread and butter" highways. The appropriate time for starting work on the Nova Scotia stretches of the Fundy trail will be when the major highway program has been completed and not before.
When one looks at the New Brunswick highways map it is immediately apparent that
December 16. 1968

only the southwestern part of the province has highways completed to modern standards, namely, the trans-Canada highway leading from the Quebec border through Woodstock, Fredericton, Moncton to the Nova Scotia border and also to the P.E.I. ferry crossing at Cape Tormentine. One finds also the highway, in part finished, from St. Stephen to Saint John, and the highway from Saint John to the main trans-Canada at Sussex. The highways just mentioned cover in part only the reauirement in the south and west areas. It will also be noticed that the eastern seaboard from Moncton to Caraquet and the northern part from Caraquet to Campbellton and then to St. Leonard, including villages too numerous to mention at this time, also the interior from Newcastle to Fredericton, are all served today by an arterial highway system far below the standards necessary to meet the present day traffic. These major arterial routes have the most basic effect upon economic development, and they constitute the highest priority for highway system development.
The effect of an adequate highway system on the cost of transportation with particular reference to railway freight charges was a subject of comment by the McPherson Royal Commission on Transportation. The report noted, and I quote:
Expansion of highways has not been uniformly extensive in all regions of Canada and this fact explains some of the disparities which exist in freight charges among regions. In recent years it has become characteristic of Canada's transportation system that areas which are most heavily populated and industrialized have been able to afford the development of highway networks which, with the accompanying growth of motor transport, has forced the railways to lower their rates in these areas in response to competition. At the same time, those regions less generously endowed with the prerequisites for the rapid growth of a highway system have experienced not only a relative absence of competitive railway rates but also the burden of an increasing share of those railway expenses which can no longer be obtained from rail revenues in the competitive sectors.
The Fundy trail, were it to be constructed, would be a scenic highway and, as it is generally known, highway construction is essentially a provincial responsibility. Simply because the Fundy trail would cross provincial boundaries and involve more than one province does not make it, ipso facto, a concern of the federal government. It would remain the responsibility of the two provinces concerned and if they wished to make it a joint provincial responsibility, that would be a matter for their determination.

Construction of Fundy Trail
The two provinces, like the federal government, have established priorities for spending, and the provinces know full well that the federal government has limited funds and that federal money expended on one project may mean that money is not to be available for another one. So it is understandable that neither province has yet approached the federal government to provide assistance for the construction of the Fundy trail.
The federal government, through the Department of Public Works and the Atlantic Development Board, has committed substantial sums of money for road and highway programs in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The development of these programs was in each case the consequence of joint federal-provincial planning which followed agreement on common priorities.
On November 4 of this year the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) announced in the house that under the trans-Canada Highway agreements construction in all provinces had already been approved for a total cost of $1,196 million of which amount $90,900,000 would be spent in Nova Scotia and $121,900,000 in New Brunswick. Thus far the federal government has actually expended $724,400,000 on the program; of this $60,900,900 was spent in Nova Scotia and $86,400,000 in New Brunswick. In other words, 20 per cent of all federal money expended on the trans-Canada highway has been spent in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, provinces which contain less than 7 per cent of the country's population.
The federal share in the whole program thus far represents a cost of about $58 per Canadian whereas the share of the federal program completed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick represents a cost of almost twice that, $106 per resident. So looking at the federal government's involvement in the construction of the trans-Canada Highway in those two provinces, wherein the Fundy trail would run, it is obvious, no matter what basis of comparison is chosen, that relative to elsewhere in Canada the involvement is too high.
In summary, the Department of Public Works has spent $147,300,000 in the two provinces; committed and yet unspent by the department for the Trans-Canada Highway program is an additional $65,500,000.
Now let us turn to see the highway program of the Atlantic Development Board. In 1964, the A.D.B. initiated a program to upgrade and, in some cases, to construct main trunk highways in the four Atlantic provinces. Since that time the board has continued
4000	COMMONS
Construction of Fundy Trail and expanded this program. Costs have been shared with the provinces and while the relative shares have varied from agreement to agreement, the board has always borne 50 per cent or more of the costs. For the portion of the trunk highway program in Nova Scotia, the board has committed $19,500,000; a similar amount has been committed for New Brunswick. As of October 31, 1968, a total of $27,471,988 had been spent in the two provinces, $11,324,889 in Nova Scotia and $16,147,099 in New Brunswick.
In addition to its investment in highway and road programs being administered by the Department of Public Works and the Atlantic Development Board, the federal government has made further expenditures for the same purpose through some other departments. For example, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will see in this fiscal year the completion of the roads to resources program, a program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Invested in each province, essentially for tourist roads, will be the sum of $7.5 million. Tourism is also being enhanced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development through its program of building highways and access roads to serve the country's national parks. Not to be forgotten, either, is the Department of Transport which has also expended money on roads in the maritimes.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Instead of trying to recount every dollar spent by the government of Canada in the two provinces, I merely wished to demonstrate that the government has spent and is spending considerable amounts for road and highway construction there. Before the federal government even now, there is a joint submission from the four Atlantic provinces that the government contribute 90 per cent towards their ten year highway program, the total cost of which will be in excess of $900 million. It is against this backdrop of information that the proposal for additional funds for the Fundy trail must be viewed.
Having put on the record a brief outline of the federal effort in the construction of highways for New Brunswick, in comparison with other provinces, I think it would be of interest to see the provincial effort. The last fiscal year for which I have reliable statistics is 1966-67. In that year New Brunswick invested $75.90 per capita on the highway system, against an average expenditure by the other provinces of $50.57 per capita. New

DEBATES	December 16, 1968
Brunswick has the second highest per capita expenditure of all the provinces.
It may be of greater significance to consider the proportion of the provincial budget that is invested in the highway system. New Brunswick allocated to the highway system the highest percentage of net provincial budget of all Canadian provinces. I want to be very clear on this matter. I am discussing the expenditure of provincial dollars exclusive of federal contributions. During 1966-67 we spent 32.5 cents of every provincial dollar on the highway system. The average of the provinces to the west of New Brunswick was 16.7 cents, about one half of our investment.
I think I can say with some pride that the government of New Brunswick and its citizens have made a massive effort to solve our transportation problems and with the continuing co-operation that exists between the good offices of the federal and our provincial government I have full confidence that the people of New Brunswick will see these accomplishments realized, especially now that we have a federal minister and department charged with the responsibility of solving some of the problems in regions such as ours. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I will do everything possible on my part to work in complete co-operation with this minister, to see that this will be achieved.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to light an editorial from the Moncton Daily Times of April 26, 1968. It voices my sentiments with respect to one of my very good friends who was mentioned by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and who is also mentioned in the editorial, and it says:
This newspaper is just as solidly in favour of the principle of the proposed Fundy trail as it ever was, but we feel that its cause was hindered rather than helped by the intemperate remarks made about New Brunswick highways minister Andre F. Richard by the general chairman of the Fundy trail committee, Mr. Mitchell Franklin of Saint John, during a meeting held in the Hillsborough regional High School on Tuesday night.
Use of such uncomplimentary terms as "stooge", "obstructionist", "saboteur", to describe an elected minister of the crown was highly uncalled for, to say the very least. Mr. Franklin is not helping to hasten the ultimate realization of the * Fundy trail project one little bit by resorting to tactics such as this. An approach of this kind could very well have the opposite effect-of causing the project to recede even farther into the future than it is now. Differences of opinion are one thing-the right to voice them is part and parcel of our free democratic process-but they should be tempered with much greater respect and understanding than was shown in this instance, if the right of free speech is to be kept on the high level plane that we have come to expect of our public speakers.
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
This newspaper is fully convinced, as is Hon. Mr. Richard too, that the construction of the Fundy trail along the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia shores of the bay of Fundy and the other bays leading into it is capable of conferring incalculable benefits upon the tourist trade of the maritime provinces. But this project is going to cost a very large sum of money, and after all, there is such a thing as priorities in this, as in many other things on which taxpayers' money could be spent.
The New Brunswick minister of highways never has come out in opposition to the Fundy trail- he has merely pointed out that his province, for the moment, has a large backlog of urgently needed, year-round highway construction projects that must be tackled quickly if this province is to progress economically in the manner in which it should. High on this priority list is a desperately needed new highway built to trans-Canada highway specifictions between Moncton and Campbellton. The present old road between these two cities has been the scene of a large number of the many fatal road accidents which have been plaguing this province for some time past.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy F. Crossman: I have just one more paragraph to quote.
It should be remembered as well, that there is only so much money to go round-it doesn't grow on trees, as Mr. Franklin seems to suggest. This also is a time when all governments are retrenching on expenditures in the face of a continuing contraction of the national economy. Thus Mr. Richard and the government as a whole can find no justification at the present time for proceeding with construction projects other than those that come in the category of dire necessities.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have the highest regard for the minister of highways in New Brunswick, and under his able administration I am sure that if we follow some of his suggestions in the choosing of priorities we will certainly be able to build solidly for the future and continue our efforts in co-operation with the federal government.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the motion of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) regarding the Fundy trail. I had intended in a perfunctory way to state that I think he deserves credit for bringing this motion forward and that I heartily support everything he said. But the hon. member for Westmor-land-Kent (Mr. Crossman), who has just taken his seat, causes me to mention two or
DEBATES	4001
Construction of Fundy Trail three matters in order to get at the basis of certain misconceptions. I certainly do not want to debate what the previous speaker said because really his whole speech could have been delivered in a provincial legislature rather than in this federal parliament. But his speech does give me an opportunity to state that there are many misconceptions about the Fundy trail and the responsibility for it.
I think most of them centre around the government of New Brunswick which has failed to see the great potential in the Fundy trail. Members of the provincial government have not had the vision with respect to this marvellous project that we hope hon. members of this house will have, and when I speak of this marvellous project I am thinking of the very colourful language used by the mover of the motion.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The first misconception is with respect to the provincial responsibility, and the second is that this road or trail would be used only during a certain time of the year, that is, three months during the summer tourist season. This project was brought forward some 20 or 25 years ago. Delegations came to Ottawa to discuss it. I recall that the first person who had a responsibility for and an interest in this was Hon. Milton F. Gregg, a minister of labour and minister of veterans affairs in those days. Since that time this matter has grown in interest and, as I say, has been debated, although perhaps not as extensively as it has been today. I believe it was debated mainly during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which has the responsibility for national parks.
The reason I became interested in this is that in New Brunswick we have a very attractive national park. As everybody knows, it is one of the better family recreational parks in Canada, although it is small when compared with other national parks. I believe it is the second smallest in Canada. We feel that if we are to have the advantages which a national park of Canada should have, the boundary of the park must be increased. Alongside this park there is the land which has been referred to today. This is old timber land. However it has no further use as timber land, and has no other value in the foreseeable future.
This land could be added to the park without much difficulty or expense on the part of the provincial authorities. In that way the
December 16, 1968

Construction of Fundy Trail federal government would then become responsible for a highway or a trail through the park. In other words, we are not fighting over provincial moneys; nor are we talking about federal moneys that would otherwise go into highways in another manner. We are simply talking about extending the area of the park. In that way, with the resources available in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a very substantial and inexpensive part of this highway could be built.
In all the time that I have debated this matter I have never said that the provincial government should provide $50 million of their very scarce highway funds for the building of a Fundy trail, or a super highway down the bay of Fundy. I hope this will be clear, because this misconception is the biggest red herring I have ever seen dragged around in a debate in my life. I think everyone agrees that this is a situation where the government should take some of the moneys available in different ways for park expansion, and use it for this purpose, so that so far as New Brunswick is concerned a very substantial part of the highway could be started.
This is a project which could be extended over the next 30, 40 or 50 years. It could be done in the same way the western parks were developed. We might ask how much money has gone into the parks of Jasper and Banff. Millions of dollars have gone into those parks, and they are beautiful. As Canadians we are proud of those parks. But I suggest we should do something like this in New Brunswick, and that is the reason I am supporting this measure.
Another misconception is that concerning the suggestion that this park, and the highway, would be used during a very short tourist season. I believe there is a very great future in New Brunswick in winter sports. Money is being spent for this purpose in many of our other national parks. It is being spent in the national park in Nova Scotia to develop opportunities for winter recreation. We believe that in New Brunswick we are entitled to have a full assessment of the skiing possibilities. An assessment was made in a minor way, but a complete assessment is necessary in respect of the Fundy National Park, and this should include the potential for winter activity. If this were done, it probably would be possible to make use of the park facilities which have been put there, and 
are now being developed by private enterprise. In this way the park could be used on a year around basis. The facilities which are there, and in many other parts of the area, could be developed.
I commend the hon. member who is new to the house for coming forward with this measure, one which would mean so much to his area and the southern part of New Brunswick. I believe he deserves great credit for standing up and putting this forward in the house. The hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Crossman) is a good friend of mine, but I am sorry that he pulled this great red herring over the Fundy trail, because I think this is a project which can stand on its own four feet, without any of the bickering which goes on about it in the provincial legislature. It is a year around proposition, and I hope that all hon. members who are here today will put their minds on this beautiful park of undeveloped New Brunswick and consider this matter solely on its merits, in so far as we are responsible for it here in the way I have outlined. Then I know everybody will be pleased, as well as the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) and those of us who support the proposal, if we obtain at least 200 new supporters of the Fundy trail.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. First of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Moncton for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the house. It is one which should be considered very seriously, first of all because it requires a good deal of planning and because there is a large amount of money involved. Secondly, the people of the country, and of the Fundy area, have shown much interest in this project. I believe we should encourage the people to show their interest, because no doubt this is what the government means when it says it wants the people to participate.
I must say, now that I have heard the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. BelD speak, that I am a little confused. I believe he should have conferred with the hon. member for Moncton before he said he thought the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should do this and that, to carry out a federal responsibility. The notice of motion I have before me reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of giving immediate consideration to the provision of special financial assistance to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for the construction of the
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
Fundy trail from St. Stephen, New Brunswick to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, using existing roads where possible, and assisting financially in connecting existing roads in order that a scenic highway be available to aid in the promotion of the tourist industry.
So, I think it is very clear that the question here is not in respect of a national park but of building a highway. The way in which I should like to approach this, first of all, is to agree with the hon. member for Moncton, that we should think about this from an industrial, and not necessarily from the highway point of view. First of all I must mention that, regardless of what else it is, the highway is still a public utility. It is still a means to an end; it is a highway to go to some place. It is not just by chance that in Canada highways are a provincial responsibility. However I am not attempting to say that the federal government should not consider this question, if it would be beneficial to the tourist industry. If so, it should be considered, because this government has committed itself to looking after areas of regional disparity.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The government has committed itself to an effort to activate the economy of New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces. That is the reason it is important to look at this from an industrial point of view. First of all, because of the amount of money involved, when we consider it from an industrial point of view we must look at the priorities. We must say, first of all, in respect of industrial development whether we should give special emphasis to tourism, secondary manufacturing, mining or to the fishing industry, which is in a difficult position today because of a poor market. I think all these things are important. We must decide within the promotion of industrial development where tourism stands. I have been in some areas where the tourist industry is very important; for example, California. The people do not go there only because there are good highways, they go because there are other attractions there.
I could mention such other areas as Nassau, Bermuda, Jamaica and Porto Rico. People do not go to those places because there are good highways. There must be other attractions for them. We build highways when we have excessive traffic; we do not build highways to create traffic.
I think the Fundy area is most inviting; it certainly is picturesque. If there is need of a highway, and there is an overflow of traffic through that area-and there might be one
DEBATES	4003
Construction of Fundy Trail day-then I think we should consider building this highway. However, I do not think we should decide to build a highway only with the idea of promoting the tourist industry.
The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) said that the Fundy trail would probably attract 200,000 tourists each year, but he has not said where he got this figure- whether it is a guess, the result of some economist's work, or a figure calculated by a specialist in the tourist industry. Perhaps it is a figure suggested by the people of the Fundy area; I do not know.
Let me point out that P.E.I. is a very attractive spot, one of the most beautiful islands in the world; yet it attracts less than 500,000 tourists a year. I wonder if this Fundy trail would attract that many tourists. Where would they come from? Would they be the tourists who now visit New Brunswick or those who visit the Cabot trail? I fail to see how the construction of this highway would bring 200,000 people to the area.
The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) has suggest that this highway could be used all year round. I agree it could be used all year round, but he has not specifically stated why the people would visit there in the wintertime. I understand there are no hills in the area on which ski slopes could be developed. I do not understand why people would be attracted to go to the Fundy area in the wintertime, and I say this because I understand the tourist industry in New Brunswick is handicapped by a short season. There are only two months during which people would be attracted.
In the last few years the trend has been for people to travel with camping trailers. This trend has reduced the amount of revenue in any area, because people are not taking advantage of existing lodging facilities. If an area has a park which people visit, even though there may be a million people each year, how much revenue goes to that local area? New Brunswick, it has been suggested, obtains $77 million from tourists each year, and it is said, further, that Nova Scotia obtains $60 million. But to this point in the debate no one has said how much money is obtained by the local areas from tourism.
It may be that if we had this highway in the Fundy area we might have ten service stations, ten restaurants and ten motels or hotels. How much employment would this create? Some people might argue that the building of the road itself would create
December 16, 1968

Construction of Fundy Trail employment, but if we consider our experience we will realize that the major expenditures involved in highway construction can be related to the leasing of equipment, and the purchase of raw materials and finished materials. Very little goes to the local people. A few labourers would be hired, but from a construction point of view we cannot say this would create many jobs.
I know there are other hon. members who wish to speak and I shall conclude my remarks quickly. Both $25 million and $12 million have been mentioned. Perhaps the $25 million would relate to the whole project, and the $12 million to the part from Saint John to St. Martin, or to Fundy. Before this house decides to spend even the $12 million, I think we should consider the revenue which will be created. It is not very clear how much money the tourist industry will bring in. I am not sure that it is clear whether this extra revenue will go to the Fundy park area, Saint John or the province of Nova Scotia.
Whenever it is found that an area has a tremendous flow of tourists it is usually because there is something more than a good highway to attract them. The government should not go ahead with this project on the basis of its being simply a highway project. However, if a future need develop, through more people going to the area, this highway may become necessary.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, as a Nova Scotian let me break into this New Brunswick love fest simply to indicate that not all of the Fundy trail would be constructed in New Brunswick. At least half of it would be constructed in Nova Scotia. I support this for two reasons. This is a natural way to build up what we have, and if we are going to deal with the problems of Atlantic Canada, surely we should do so on the basis of what is there. There is a potential for tourism.
Since part of this trail would go through the northern part of my riding I should like to say it would provide an opportunity to combine another great plan with the Fundy trail, and that is a crossing of some sort-a bridge or causeway-over the Shubenacadie river, thus providing a great land link between Windsor and Truro, which is sorely needed in the province.
There is one tourist facility in the area which everybody should see. I refer to the W. D. Lawrence memorial at Maitland, where they have the only wooden bedspring in North America. I do not want to interfere
with the very important decision which I am sure the house will now come to in respect of this resolution.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the last speaker and I only wish there was more time for all of us who are interested in this matter to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being seven o'clock this house stands adjourned until eight p.m.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield, (p. 3762).
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great feeling that I enter this debate. Being a new member and backbencher, I have listened to the debate with great interest. When the people of Marquette constituency sent me to Ottawa as their representative, I came here with great expectations and hope that this was to be the beginning of the just society, the beginning of a new era for Canada and Canadians. After the report of the procedure committee and the proposals of the government, I am alarmed and disillusioned, not only for the future of Canada but for the future of the House of Commons. We all realize that certain reforms have to be made in the House of Commons. All parties and members agree with this. But the extent to which the government proposes to change the rules is, I believe, an infringement of the rights of members of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I will mention the points which concern me. I appeal to the backbenchers on the government side to consider seriously the implications of these proposals. It has been pointed out that the government house leader could limit the debate to two
[Mr. Breau.l
December 16, 1968
hours. I found it most interesting when the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) was asked whether, if a bill affecting mining in his area came up, he would be able to participate if there was a two-hour limit on debate. The hon. member was certain that through the good will of the government he would be allowed to participate in the debate. I ask: What would happen if the bill affected all mining areas of Canada, which would mean that the ridings of many members would be affected and they might want to speak? This would be impossible with a two-hour time limit. It will be said that these members could speak out at committee. This sounds good; but, Mr. Speaker, my experience with committee meetings is that often two or three committees are meeting at once-I mean committees which affect one's riding-and it is impossible to attend them all. In my short time here this situation has arisen more than once.
There is another point which alarms me about committees. We know a member can attend any committee meeting he chooses. However if he is not a member of the committee he can ask questions, but he cannot vote. Under this plan I feel that my constituency, or any constituency, is being discriminated against, because if these proceedings were left in the house any member could participate in the debate and vote. Again I stress that I am in favour of reform. But where does it stop?
This government is continually shrugging off the rights of opposition members. During this session we have had the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduce his now famous roster system for the presence of ministers in the house during the daily question period. Hardly a week goes by when it is not pointed out that this system is not only unfair but is not working; yet the Prime Minister will not change it. Originally he said we would try this idea to see how it worked. Any time he was questioned about it, we were given a shrug of the shoulders and a flippant answer.
I remind backbenchers on the other side of the house that some day they will be in opposition and will find how frustrating it is to want to raise an important question, which requires an answer that day, only to find that they cannot ask it because it is not the ministers day designated to be in the house. Or maybe it is a Friday, and because you cannot get the Speaker's attenion-and I fully realize the problems the Speaker faces in this regard -you are not able to put the question. Quite
Motion for Concurrence in Report often it is the following Wednesday before the particular minister is in the house. This means it has taken six days to get an answer to your question, when it should have been given the day the question was asked. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this roster system continues.
This session started off with the Prime Minister silencing his cabinet ministers. Next the government set up the roster system for the attendance of ministers. The next step was for the Prime Minister to bypass his own members and set up his own lines of communication or, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) called them, Trudeau's snoop troops. Now the Prime Minister wants to silence the opposition. Where is all this leading? I ask, what will be next? With the growth of staff in this government, and the number of executive assistants overflowing into the diplomatic gallery, perhaps the next step will be that the government will take over the press gallery.
Again I stress that we are in favour of reform; but we are not in favour of proposed rule 16-A. Rule 16-A would allow the government house leader to say how long any debate would run, and this is against our whole democratic system. Could we on this basis operate our school boards, our municipal, our councils, our church groups, our service clubs or any organizations which are so much a part of our life? They could not operate on this basis, and neither can parliament.
Mr. Speaker, during this debate hon. members on the government side have said that the opposition are holding up legislation. As an example, they claim that the three agriculture bills took three weeks to pass in the house. Why did they take three weeks? It was because the government would not bend in any way or allow amendments to those bills. What kind of bills did we end up with? The number of complaints I have received with regard to cash advances on farm stored grain confirms that this new act discriminates against the small farmer on a six bushel quota. We repeatedly asked the government to tell us the interest rates under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Corporation Act, but it replied that these rates would be set by governor in council and we need not worry. We now have the new interest rates. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the interest rate went from 5 per cent to per cent, and under the Farm Credit Corporation Act it went from 5 per cent to 7| per cent. If the government members think this is good legislation, I ask

December 16, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report them to come with me to western Canada and talk to the farmers, and they will soon find out what the farmers think of the legislation.
I maintain that if any government proposes good legislation, and the opposition delays it by needless debate, the Canadian voters will pass judgment at the next election. My point is that if the government presents good legislation it will pass in any parliament with limited debate. The Prime Minister says we are not in touch with the people, and the people want parliamentary reform. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Brandon Sun of September 12 this year. It shows the concern of people over the proposed rules changes. I quote from this newspaper as follows:
In addition, however, there are rather alarming reports about government efforts to streamline house procedures. Without question procedures sorely need streamlining, but if reports such as that carried earlier in the week by Peter Newman are accurate, the government is carrying things too far.
It must be remembered that parliament is moving into a new phase, a phase of majority government for the first time in over five years. Some restrictions on debate which were considered necessary during the period of minority government are potentially dangerous when the government is in a strong majority position. The opposition can no longer defeat the government. Therefore its only weapon is debate, debate aimed at bringing government misdeeds to the attention of the public. In a very real sense the public must be a check on the government, and the opposition represents a sizeable percentage of the public.
The new rules have not been made public. When they are. they should be examined carefully. Efficiency at the expense of full discussion should not be parliament's goal.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It almost seems from the government's stand on 16-A that they want to make a sausage factory out of parliament, so far as the passing of legislation is concerned. The question has already been asked how the government feels it can prepare good legislation to present to the House of Commons and keep it operating on an assembly line basis. I think this point deserves serious thought. Judging from my short experience here in the house it would seem to me that it cannot be done.
May I stress again that we are in favour of procedural reforms, but we do not support rule 16-A. Government members say the voters have given them a mandate and they are a majority government. This is right. However, they must remember that the opposition groups are united on this point, and although we are not the government we represent more than 50 per cent of Canadians.
[Mr. Stewart (Marquette) .1
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out the other day that we in the opposition are united on this point, and we represent the majority of the Canadian people.
I do not want to labour this point, as there are many hon. members who feel as strongly about rule 16-A as I do, and who want to speak on it. May I again remind the backbenchers and any other hon. members on the government side who have not sat on the opposition side of parliament, that they should give long and serious consideration to all the aspects of rule 16-A because some day they will be in opposition and then they will have a better understanding of what this fight is all about. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated, you have been given a mandate to run the store for the next four years, but you must remember you do not own the store.
In closing may I say that we are in favour of reforming the procedural rules of this house, as I have stressed. However, so far as rule 16-A is concerned, we are not only fighting the government on this point, we are fighting for the rights of the Canadian people.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Marquette on having made his maiden speech on such a very important issue as the change in rules which will affect our parliamentary life in the period ahead. I think he has made his points very clearly and strongly, and his speech, I believe, has been typical of the speeches made in this debate and in the debate which is going on in the press throughout the country. I have been impressed by the sober and temperate tone used both in the house and throughout the country, because I believe there must have been a temptation to make sensational reading out of some of this material; yet this temptation has not been yielded to. I think people realize that this is a very serious matter and that we should be careful to deal with it responsibly.
It is not my intention tonight to make a detailed analysis of the rule changes in the proposal now before us, and for two reasons. First, this has already been done exhaustively and well, and I think we know now what the significance of the proposed changes is likely to be. Furthermore these proposed changes have been explained to us in the house by the best legal and constitutional minds here, and they in turn have cited other authorities
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
along legal, constitutional and historical lines.
I want to say how much a great many of us appreciated the speech made by the hon. member for Funay-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) this afternoon, a speech which was philosophical and historical and at the same time reflected a great depth of thought, and much reading and consideration of this whole problem.
Nor do I think there is any need to take up time justifying the necessity for updating the rules of parliament. All of us here, even those who have sat here for only a few months since the opening of this parliament, have become convinced of the need for change and of the fact that the machinery of parliament should be updated, and made more streamlined and more efficient. So I do not think there can be any argument on that point. Where the argument comes in is as to the method in which this updating and streamlining is to be carried out.
We in the opposition parties are of one mind. This may seem strange because we are not of one mind on a great many other methods of getting things done. But in this particular matter we feel sure that any changes, if they are to preserve the democratic character of this parliament, can be made only by agreement and consent of all parties in this chamber. Unfortunately the attitude of the government has been that they will listen to what we have to say, but then they will make up their minds; and we will have to take it because they have what it takes to make us swallow the new rules, whether we want to or not. We do not think that this is the way to make changes in a democratic parliament.
Somebody has already pointed out in this debate that there are two ways of achieving a totalitarian form of government, a one party monolithic government. One way is to ban all the parties but one. The other way is to permit the members of the parties to be elected to parliament, and then either to gag them at once, or gradually take away their facilities for expression and for bringing their constituents' ideas before the body of the house.
I believe that this is the method being followed in these proposed rule changes. We on the opposition side agree that this should not be done. There are two alternatives: Either the government believes that these rule changes should be forced upon parliament to make parliament work more effectively, or else they are trying to force them on parliament in order to bypass parliament altogether. We believe that the effect of forcing these changes on parliament will be to enable the
DEBATES	4007
Motion for Concurrence in Report government to bypass parliament altogether. We do not believe that this is permissible, and we would not be doing our duty as members of this house, we, who have had these democratic privileges handed to us, if we did not ensure that the essence of democracy is handed on to other people who will sit in this parliament long after we are gone.
The effect of rule 16-A is to bypass parliament. In the first place it gives the government the power to dictate to parliament because it gives them the power to enforce closure ahead of time. I would like to remind hon. members opposite of what happened in 1956 when, in the infamous pipe line debate, closure was applied, not before the debate began but after it had proceeded only a little way. When that happened, to put it in the simplest and most expressive language possible, all hell broke loose and parliament determined henceforth that it would not suffer again that crippling blow to parliamentary privileges.
The effect of the application of closure was to put the then existing government out of power. I want to warn this government that should it be so foolish as to insist on doing the same thing again only in an even more objectionable form, on applying closure before we even start the debate, the same fate will again overtake this government, because no democracy-loving people will put up with it.


An hon. Member:: You are so right.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
know I am right. Anyone who remembers the pipe line debate will not want to go through that again in a hurry.
That is the first thing that rule 16-A does. The second is to gag and silence the ordinary member. I do not want to use the term "backbench member" because I think it implies a feeling of humility and a second rate status. But the ordinary members are important, no matter from what part of Canada they come. It is vital that they be given the opportunity to put the needs of their constituents before this body. I suggest that rule 16-A would gag, choke and throttle the private member whose constituents sent him here to do a job.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
When the proposed rule 16-A is coupled with other developments that we have seen take place this fall, then I think the situation becomes ominous. For example, reference has been made to the roster system. What is the
December 16, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report roster system? It has the effect of removing on most of the days of the parliamentary week about half of the cabinet ministers, with the result that about half of the subjects which are raised receive no answer. The worst feature is that the only day on which we do have access to all the members of the cabinet is the short day in the middle of the week with the half hour question period. On Monday, the day when we have a full hour, when we return from our ridings with fresh problems and difficulties, about half of the cabinet ministers are beyond the reach of our questions.
Getting the ear of the media is not the only matter. There are many issues of crucial importance which require answers within a very short period. If members have to wait over the week end, plus an additional one or two days, before they can question a cabinet minister, then they might as well not receive an answer because the issue is dead. Consequently the roster system has eliminated many of the democratic rights of the members of this house.
I should also like to couple this rule 16-A with what is happening to our committee system. I like the committee system; I think it has good potential. However, I sat on a committee which considered the estimates of several departments-or at least was supposed to, though the committee did not have time to consider them all. The members of that committee wanted badly to question the minister, but we were told by the officials of the department that they would have to take our request to the minister; the officials themselves either could not answer for government policy or did not have the authority to state it.
Again I suggest that this is depriving the members of this house of their democratic rights and privileges. Rule 16-A throttles private members because it brings the threat of closure before debate starts. This, added to the introduction of the roster system and the new committee structure which does not require members to attend, is an indication that the government is already depriving hon. members of a great chunk of their democratic liberties. We dare not let rule 16-A be adopted by this house.
If the government does not wish to destroy the power of parliament in general and of the ordinary private member in particular, then why is it proposing this rule 16-A? Does the government need this extra power? Hon. members opposite went to the people last


June and told them that they needed a majority because they were in a minority position and could not get legislation through. The electorate replied that they wanted legislation to go through, and hon. members were given a good, safe majority.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: When we have raised certain matters during the question period-and it is difficult under the rules, Mr. Speaker, to develop a question and give its background so that it makes sense-we have learned certain things. These things concern the people of my riding and the ridings of hon. members across this country. To make sure that these matters were acted on is why the people in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway sent me here. That is why the majority of the people in this country sent their members here, because what I am about to refer to affects almost everybody here. The government did not act on the matters I am about to refer to,
4010	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report although it could have done so. We tried desperately to raise these matters during the question period, as I say, and we learned the following.
No. 1: On winter works, we were told that the program had been cut out this year. The government said they believed there should be other measures to take its place. They are looking for those other measures and do not seem to have found them yet.
No. 2: With regard to family allowances, we were told there would be no increase this session.
No 3: On basic old age security pensions, we were told there would be no increase this session.
No 4: On veterans allowances, again we were told there would be no increase this session.
No. 5: On the subject of superannuated civil servants-and I raise this matter at the risk of trespassing on the territory of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre-there was still no promise of action on a report, agreed to unanimously 18 months ago, which said that pensions ought to be raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On
No. 6: Medicare, we were told that within five years the federal government would get out of the field and would allow the provinces to go ahead with it, if they wished to. I ask, what chance do the people of Prince Edward Island have to obtain a decent medicare system? My province, British Columbia, the wealthy province of Ontario and the oil rich province of Alberta without doubt will be glad to help the people of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick obtain medicare. I say that because we want one Canada, and carrying out the government's wishes with regard to medicare means that instead of one Canada we shall have ten Canadas. I do not care how much you may talk about Canadian unity, that is what it would mean. The government's proposal means that the country will be split up. To return to my original list:
No. 7. housing, we were told there would be no legislation before spring.
No. 8: Unemployment; it was drawn to the government's attention last Friday that at present 338,000 Canadians are unemployed, 49,000 more than one year ago. The Prime Minister's only answer to that was that there are also 268,000 more jobs-cold comfort for 
DEBATES	December 16, 1968
the 338,000 Canadians who are walking the streets looking for jobs that are not there.
I have enumerated the government's record to date in some of the more obvious areas. I ask, why do they want this power? They have sufficient power to legislate in every one of these areas I have mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They want power to do nothing.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, you know the government's record and you can guess at their attitude. Surely from all this you have a forecast of their intentions. You can guess what they want to do when proposed standing order 16-A is passed. And, one may ask, what is that? They want to throttle the private members in the house, including their own. Some of us do not intend to be party to this destruction of parliament.
Of course there are white papers and task forces and regional desks, royal commissions, committees and everything else under the sun; these are all devices to keep the government away from reality; these are excuses which are put in the way of legislation which should have been introduced away back at the beginning of the fall. As I said, of course there are white papers, task forces, regional desks and advisory boards; but the people cannot live on a diet of hot air and white papers. Nor can they live on a diet of the Prime Minister's promises. He goes out talking with women-whether they are young or good looking I do not know-and it is said he tries to discover their problems. Then he goes talking to all the other people-with chambers of commerce, etc., etc., etc., about their problems, and that is called a dialogue. I say we have had enough of this sort of thing from the government. What we want is action.


An hon. Member:: Legislation.
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) We
want legislation; we want bills that will help us to solve the problems and needs of this country. When are we going to get legislation? If proposed standing order 16-A is passed by this house it will take much longer for legislation to be brought forward than if the private members' rights were left unimpaired and respected. The people of Canada have been very patient and are still patient. They are giving the government every chance to make good. As a matter of fact they can hardly believe that the government does not intend to go through with all the things it promised last June. The people
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
believed the government would keep its promises. They still believe it is some horrid joke when we tell them what is happening. They cannot realize that they will get no action on housing until next spring-that all they will get is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) travelling hither and yon across the country finding out things which are already sufficiently well known. They still believe this is some nightmare from which they will awaken. They still believe that someone who looks as nice as Mr. Trudeau would not refrain from doing some of the things which are so important for our people.
s (8:40 p.m.)
They are still waiting, and they will keep on waiting for a little while longer because as yet they cannot believe the evidence of their senses. But when they realize that this government, with its safe majority, does not intend to use that majority to legislate for the needs of the people; once they get it through their heads that this government does not intend to legislate for the just society, but just for the society of the affluent, then hon. gentlemen opposite had better look out.
There was a king once in England who lost his head-twice. He lost it once when he took up the theory of divine right. He lost it finally when he insisted on putting this theory into practice and acting out his thoughts. This government is still at the stage of believing in its divine right, in theory. I suggest they would do well to reconsider rule 16-A before they begin to put their ideas about divine right into practice. That sort of thing is exceedingly dangerous.
If members opposite do not believe me, let them recall also that there was a queen, once, in France-I am being bicultural and balancing off England and France-who, when she heard that the people were in need of bread, was supposed to have said: Let them eat cake. She, too, it will be recalled, lost her head, as did the king.
I would hate to think of this sort of thing happening in Canada, particularly to our own gallant Grand Charles I of Canada. He, too, is playing with fire when he stirs up the expectations of people with talk of a just society, and then gags their representatives so that they cannot protest the building of a society just for the powerful and the affluent. Before it is too late I appeal to the government to reconsider this dangerous rule 16-A. If they
DEBATES	4011
Motion for Concurrence in Report are not impressed by the fact that it is dangerous for the future of democratic government in this country, let them at least regard it as being dangerous to themselves. Rule 16-A is just as dangerous for this government as closure proved to be for the government in 1956. I implore the government to bear in mind that though the introduction of closure in the pipe line debate did defeat the government, it had a lot of bad side effects for the country. It lost much of the respect for parliament, and as a result of those events the good name of parliament was under a cloud for a long time. If we let 16-A pass, parliament will suffer again; and Canada cannot afford nowadays to run the risk of a situation of this kind recurring.
Let this government remember that parliament was created precisely as a check on the power of the majority to ride roughshod over the will of the minority. Let them remember they have a majority in this house, they already have the weapons they need. But let them not try to force their will on the opposition by making closure the rule of debate. Let them send this proposal back to the committee so that agreement may be reached by the ordinary democratic procedure of argument and compromise. If they are willing to do that, then as soon as we get back here after the Christmas recess, if they will introduce the kind of legislation for which the people are crying out from Newfoundland clear through to Victoria, they will find no House of Commons anywhere in the world more willing to go along with the compromises required to make this democratic parliament work, and work well, in the interests of Canadians.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words concerning the motion now under consideration and, in particular, on the amendment to standing order 16-A proposed in the fourth report of the special committee on procedure.
Ever since our parliament has been in existence, that is, for the past one hundred years, the Canadian people have been fighting for their rights and prerogatives. Can we say that these rights and prerogatives have been respected by parliament when we are still fighting to preserve them today? How is it that, after one hundred years, we should still have to spend our time talking about our rights and prerogatves instead of doing something for the people?
December 16, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
From time to time, there is talk of changing and improving the standing orders, but ever since it came to power the present majority government speaks of renovating everything. When it is realized that the people are displeased or dissatisfied, they talk of changing something.
This may give them the hope that at long last the government is sincere and that it has taken a sober resolution of working and legislating in their favour.
Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous to see that the proposed changes bear only on the most elementary and superficial instruments of parliamentary procedure.
There is talk of the time allotted to the various stages legislative measures must go through, a purely superficial question that concerns the many ramifications of procedure, but great care is taken not to touch the essential. Indeed, in the committees, great care is taken to select members from various parties, various nationalities, various regions of Canada, various languages or creeds, but when it comes to important committees, such as the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs an absolute majority of members of the party in power is always guaranteed by appointing a chairman and competent senior officials who are under the authority of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and in favour of the policy adopted in advance by the government.
Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for the right to speak, which we have had in the past, but which we now may be denied. The opposition lost the right to act several decades ago. In this house, no member of the official opposition, can introduce any bill whatsoever which entails expenditures for he is called to order. This is to say that the opposition has very little weight; its members may only express what they think, what they feel and criticize such and such a bill. We are forbidden to act. Actually, just like in the parliamentary committees, we can change nothing at all. If we propose amendments to bills, we are always defeated by the opposition. In fact, we do not count for much in this parliament.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said the other day in a speech that we should try to find a balance, but that would not solve the problem, even if we adopted standing orders contrary to the ones we had. In fact, that would solve neither the problems of Canadians who are hungry or

unemployed, not the problems of the increase in the interest rates. That will not prevent the government from increasing taxes.
There was no rule 16-A before, and that did not prevent the government from increasing taxes, namely the tax on building materials. That did not prevent the government from establishing department after department and employing thousands of rather well-paid public servants. Those departments or public servants have not solved the problem because it still exists.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to change something, the head of the organization must be the target. The members are not entitled to take any action any more and we are now being deprived of our sacred right to voice our opinion. We have fought for this right for a hundred years and we will have to start again. It is not logical that we should have to fight today to make sure that we shall keep these prerogatives, these rights. It is illogical.
The government and the opposition are responsible for that situation. In fact, the opposition which we have had in the past and which we still have during this debate have suggested no solution. The hon. Leader of the Opposition did criticize the government, but he did not suggest any solution to reform this parliament. He did not say what was wrong in this parliament nor what was preventing it from taking action in order to give the Canadian people what they are entitled to.
In his speech on the measure under consideration, the Leader of the Opposition neglected to talk about the reforms aimed at giving the people what they are entitled to. He neglected to suggest solutions to increasing taxes. He neglected to suggest a solution to the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec which are no longer able to finance their operations. As for the municipalities and the school boards which are forever increasing taxes, bleeding the citizens in a terrible and shameful way, he does not mention them.
If one advocates reforms, one must explain them, because it is not enough to criticize and condemn.
This discussion on the rights and prerogatives of hon. members leads me to talk about the will of the people which is an indivisible whole. In fact, divided and broken up, it disappears because it cannot be the sum total of the wills of its parts. Man needs truth, security and justice. That is what we are fighting for in this house.
I am more and more convinced that after rule 16-A has been adopted, the government
December 16, 1368	COMMONS
will hold in its hands control of the whole country. Whether or not we will admit it, that is a colossal responsibility that the government wants to assume.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we, of this generation, must base our beautiful speeches on concrete and positive action. Our generation has been hearing beautiful speeches for a hundred years, but it has lived in pettiness. Beautiful speeches have never put bread on the table of Canadians. Amendments to standing orders alone will not bring about solutions which are liable to help our economy.
Changes in methods of speeches in this house or in doing such thing at such hour rather than at another time will not contribute to adoption of guiding principles and scientific methods that are adapted to the facts and realities of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of the present parliamentary reforms, what is the solution envisaged by the government in order to establish a new and just society which will insure, on a permanent basis, this measure of justice and freedom the Canadian people have been expecting for a long time? What can the Canadian people hope for? What are the plans made by the government in order to build a better world and to make parliament free of prejudice?
Mr. Speaker, subjecting to amoral legislation all the members of this so-called free parliament is restricting and limiting them in the pursuit of their freedom. This is contrary to natural law and to democratic principles under the guise of law and, consequently, the law of the modern world.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Essentially, these standing orders maintain the right of force. We should substitute therefor a fundamental legislation passed by the representatives of the people based on respect for rights and whereby all citizens are bound to the same duties and obligations. This should become an increasingly concrete and respected reality. Those are the great principles on which the human city should be built.
Mr. Speaker, man needs a certain number of specific and concrete liberties which are necessary if he is to be master of his destiny. Everything which is imposed reflects on the respect of man and introduces a factor of disorder in society. Standing order 16-A which would withdraw the right of speech to the members of parliament would be a factor of disorder if it were approved by the members
DEBATES	4013
Motion for Concurrence in Report of the opposition, because they are the members truly representative of the people, who must speak on behalf of those who cannot come here, whether they are rich, poor, powerful or weak. Consequently, freedom of thought and speech, without any restriction or reservation, must be unlimited. It is particularly true in the case of philosophical, political, economic and cultural views. The free exercise of the mind should not entail any danger in a society based on the respect of man, because the two nations intermingle.
It is less inconvenient to allow views to be expressed than to exert a restraint on the mind of members by refusing them that freedom. Freedom of opinion must not suffer any restrictions. The free exercise of intelligence is the only means to ensure a balance of responsibilities in a society whose members have necessarily reached different levels of education. In our society, one cannot conceive someone who would say: "I am the law, the right, the power".
Considered in its everyday life, a nation is at the same time a land, a soul, one or several languages, a history, a culture, a present and a future, an aggregate of mores, customs and traditions, a universe of tendencies and aspirations which it would be difficult to change, without the state becoming the absolute master. This is contrary to the rights and to justice so much sought after by free men.
For man as for nations, it is essential to live according to one's own truth, to accomplish oneself according to one's own vocation and one's own genius. It is by remaining itself that a nation, just like man, will be more useful to humanity and more faithful to the human race.
Therefore, it is not possible to have a law decide that the same political, economic and social system is valid for the whole nation. Each nation must choose of its own accord the means it considers best to build a land and cities.
Uniformity, Mr. Speaker, is the death of a nation, while diversity is life. We must give ourselves our own forms of legal, economic and social power. We do not have the right to copy the rules of procedure that belong to others, because our aspirations are different. We do not have the right to copy the British rules that date back 50, 100 or 200 years, because we are a distinct nation. We must adapt a rule based on Canadian realities and principles.
The right hon. Prime Minister was saying the other day that we should copy the British
December 16, 1988

Motion for Concurrence in Report rules. What has England done so well in the past that we should copy? We are not in England, but in Canada, and it is with Canadian provisions that we must reform our institutions.
We are intelligent enough and we have ministers and a Prime Minister who are intelligent enough to allow us to draw up ourselves legislative measures which will be distinctively Canadian. That Mr. Speaker, is how we will be able to give Canada the standing orders and legislation adapted to its needs. We must decide on our own legal, political and social powers and our own social system. It is neither possible nor desirable to establish the same social, legal and economic structures for all nations. On the other hand, it seems necessary to establish certain basic principles.
The role of the state is to legislate, to govern. There may be only one man who governs, but all the elected representatives of the nation take part in the legislative process. What everybody says and thinks must not only be put on the record but it must weigh in the balance of power. In a democracy, legislation results from a considerable number of actions, reactions, interference between the needs of the nation and the needs of men. It implies long analyses, confrontations, syntheses. It is necessary to weigh, compare, anticipate the consequences, which requires team work. We, the members of the house, constitute a team, and we must work, forgetting our political allegiances, for the good of the people, in order to give them the laws, the rules of procedure and the institutions which will serve them.
In human society, the state must play the role of an orchestra leader and set the example of free and responsible activity. The only conceivable order lies in respect of moral law, of which man is the beginning and the end, there is no way other than that which starts from man and leads to him. Everyone has great responsibilities in that field and every man has duties that he cannot shirk. He must therefore discharge the mandate entrusted to him by the people, according to his status and his talents, his know-how and his knowledge.
In order to express their will, the people must be free to express themselves on what they can really know. And for that, men must be free to consult, to discuss, without obstruction. Now, rule 16-A obstructs the action of our statesmen, of all members of this house. We therefore cannot accept such an attitude on the part of the government.
[Mr. Latulippe.l

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I could talk at length on this, but much has been said about it in the last few days; it seems that the whole opposition is ready to make changes and to improve parliamentary procedure provided it is for the good of the people. It is willing to accept some reforms, but not ready to lose its right to express itself. We must retain for the people their freedom and their to speak their mind, because those are sacred rights. Freedom is essential to man and nobody has the right to alter it, even in a democracy.
If we refuse to follow democratic principles, we might as well appoint two or three good dictators, close parliament and all go home, leaving the helm in the hands of the dictators. That would be a communist style government. But if we prefer a democracy, our legislation should not deprive members of the right to speak because that would be against the spirit and the letter of the very democratic principles we are here to protect.
It is our responsibility to uphold the principles of democracy. We have been elected under a democratic system and we are not going to yield to any kind of dictatorship. We shall fight to the end in order to prevent dictatorship from prevailing in parliament. We already have far too much of it here. While members may still be free to express their own opinions, they have actually lost the right of taking any practical steps. We are here as representatives of the people and our sole purpose should be to serve them well rather than building up our own private business or helping enrich, at the expense of the people, a small number of citizens across Canada.
The people of Canada have had enough, they cannot live because they are taxed and taxed again and crushed by all kinds of means. And never in this parliament does anyone find time to talk about them. There is never time for that. There is time to talk about such things as the measure under consideration tonight but I would much rather talk about political and economic reform. That is what we should talk about but there is no time and when we try to do it in committees or when we want to suggest amendments, we are always defeated by the government and even by some part of the opposition which does not believe in reforms. Yet they are careful not to make any because they do not see the need for them. They have no solution to any problem and they continue to be satisfied with the old system, wading
December 16. 1968

in dirty and polluted water that cannot be purified in order to allow the people to live in a normal, decent and healthy way.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, this has been a good debate and I think it has proceeded in the best tradition of parliament. We have heard excellent cases put forward by those speaking on all sides of this extremely important and urgent matter of procedure. I think in the main the views expressed have been responsible views.
I speak as one with a good deal of experience in opposition. I served in one of the most interesting legislatures in Canada for a period of nine years, at times under difficult circumstances. My experience on the opposition "barbed wire" was trying at times. I think I am as aware as any member of this house of the value and the necessity of good responsible opposition. I will not be party to any action by any government here now or in the future, to take away from the opposition its rights and responsibilities under our great parliamentary traditions. Without good and effective opposition, governments degenerate and deteriorate. They have in the past. The opposition is an integral and important element in the constitutional organization of parliament. As a former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, said on October 27, 1949, in a most excellent speech with reference to the responsibilities of the opposition-and this is set out at page 69 of the text:
"When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the shortcuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make."
This was a good speech. It was delivered by the former prime minister to the Empire Club in Toronto on the occasion of one of its meetings in 1949.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in one of his good speeches-


An hon. Member:: When was that?
4015
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Raymond J. Perrault: It was entitled, "The Role of the Opposition" and it is available in our library. The hon. member was speaking to the Empire Club at the Royal York hotel on March 21, 1957. He talked about the opposition and if the house will bear with me I should like to quote him when he said:
We who sit in the opposition in the House of Commons have all sorts of epithets hurled at us. Don't worry, we hurl some across the floor as well. We are called obstructionists, time-wasters, and so on. I submit that ours is a great tradition, that we play a vital role in the democratic process -a role without which our legislative process would not be democratic-and that posterity will continue to bless the pertinacity of those to Mr. Speaker's left who do their job as best they can.
He is right.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, during his brief period in opposition said "In opposition we form part of the peoples' jury and it is our duty to render a conscientious verdict regardless of person or party".
These three views about the importance and the responsibilities of the opposition are correct. Yet, apart from the excellent arguments advanced in this house during the course of this debate, and apart from the outstanding speeches, which have been part of this debate, the question remains in 1968: Are the government and opposition working effectively and efficiently on behalf of the people of Canada or have some features of the institution of parliament become obsolete and effete in the face of the challenges we face? There is a challenge to those on the government side, and surely there is a challenge as well to those in opposition who have been designated the equally important task in opposition as "watchdogs" of the public interest.
Within the existent procedural framework, can government members and opposition members be effective for we are sent here to be effective. The question is not whether opposition rights are being restricted. The question is not whether the government is attempting to force an unfair view on the house. The question is, within the existent procedural framework are government and opposition members able to be effective in the roles set out under our system? In this regard, what modern industrial organization or trade union would be satisfied with procedures enshrined and entrenched in the status quo of a full century ago?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The best Christmas present we parliamentarians could provide the Canadian people
*016	COMMONS
Motion jor Concurrence in Report with would be a reform of the procedures and rules which while at the same time preserving the concept and the tradition of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I would like to ask some questions of the house, Mr. Speaker. How many members will defend the procedures we presently follow in the matter of estimates? The former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in a moment of frustration on July 21, 1960, as reported at page 6673 of Hansard, said:
We have had 56 days or parts of days on estimates. I say that nowhere else, in any other parliamentary institution, is so much time taken in the examination of particular estimates as is taken here in connection with estimates.
This is the frustration which he felt when he was prime minister.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: After 56 days.


Raymond J. Perrault: This is what the former prime minister had to say on the same subject:
An opposition does not properly perform its functions unless it examines all expenditures made with a searching eye and with fearless criticism, yet members of the House of Commons have no proper facilities to enable the full examination of the public accounts and estimates.
This is what the former leader of the Conservative party said:
Debates on estimates are futile.
Then he said, Mr. Speaker:
An expenditure of millions of dollars that are totally unjustified could conceivably be passed without much danger of detection. Canadians have become so used to the expenditure of billions of dollars that a million here or there seems of little consequence.
This was the former leader of the Conservative party speaking out for reform.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That reform has been made.


Raymond J. Perrault: Let me bring to the attention of hon. members that when this speech was made in 1949 the total Canadian budget was $2.34 billion. The budget now is over $10 billion. If there were abuses in 1949, the abuses must be infinitely worse in the matter of estimates in the year of our Lord 1968.
Then we had another resounding speech by the former prime minister on July 21, 1960. I quote from Hansard, page 6675:
I hope it will be agreed by the house that the rules committee will be set up at the earliest possible date in the next session and will meet to the end that with your assistance, Mr. Speaker,

DEBATES	December 16, 1968
there will be an agreement on the part of hon. members in all parts of the house that we must bring about great changes in the interests of making parliament more effective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: This is what he said in that speech:
In all the years I have been in parliament I do not recall more than two occasions when anybody ever moved to reduce an estimate, or even divided the house on it. Hon. members opposite resort to condemnation and then conclude by allowing the item to pass. That is why it has been found sufficient in the United Kingdom to deal with the vast number of estimates in the large amounts that come before that parliament in just over one-third of the time that we have taken up to this hour.
This has been a situation which has been plaguing the Canadian parliament for years, and rather than be concerned, indeed honourable members should be delighted, that finally we have a government in this country willing to act on delicate procedural matters and willing to take the consequences. An hon. member asked earlier this evening: Where does this reform stop? The majority of members of this house ask: When does it start? The sooner the better.
Another hon. member said that we need action. We certainly do need action.


An hon. Member:: In the rump.


Raymond J. Perrault: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


Raymond J. Perrault: I mean the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and some of his colleagues, have been criticizing the proposal to have the estimates considered in detail in committee. This is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated in his speech of March 21, 1957:
-in the field of government expenditure, a particular responsibility-and a difficult one to discharge-rests upon the opposition. We have to try, in committee of supply, and in some instances in certain special committees outside the house, to examine into every dollar of government expenditure. This task is so huge that the best we manage is spot checking, but I believe it can be said that it does have a salutary effect.
We were spot checking estimates of $4.83 billion in 1957 when that speech was made. Are we going to merely continue to spot check, on behalf of the Canadian people, when the budget is now over $10 billion? Are we going to check every tenth estimate the
December 16, 1968	COMMONS
way the customs people check every tenth automobile to find whether there is contraband aboard? Is that the way we want the parliament of Canada to be run in the year 1968-69?


An hon. Member:: Darned right.


Raymond J. Perrault: An hon. member over here in opposition ranks says "Darned right." They are firmly entrenched in the status quo. The Conservative party sent a representative to the 33rd Couchiching conference, Mr. E. D. Fulton.


An hon. Member:: In 1930.


Raymond J. Perrault: No. The arguments from that side of the house often sound like those of 1930. What did he say? This is what he said:
The business of parliament can be discharged more efficiently and its members made more effective by placing greater emphasis on the committee system, especially in discharging the role of the critic of expenditures and guardian of the public purse.
That is what he said on behalf of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: Then he said:
The second advantage of this system would be that detailed examination of estimates in committee would result in better informed and more effective discussion of policy in the house.
How many in this house will defend the amount of time wasted under the present situation?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Don't you know the rules have been changed since all those speeches were made?


Raymond J. Perrault: How much time is wasted in this respect? This is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said to the same Couchiching conference, as reported at page 71 of "Order and Good Government".
Parliamentarians start with a notion that freedom of speech somehow means freedom to talk forever. Cutting off debate is felt to be a denial of a basic democratic right. But the fact is that we do this in many ways in parliament. The 40-minute limit or the 30-minute or the 20-minute rule that we have are denials of unlimited free speech. Although years ago there were no time limits on any debates, we did, in 1955, impose a limit of a certain number of days on the debate on the address-
Then he went on:
We accept the proposition that it is good to organize such things, but the key to accepting these propositions is that we make the rule before the game starts.
DEBATES	4017
Motion for Concurrence in Report
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It is on this basis that we have to take the next step. The worthy and hon. member said:
I think we have to look at the debates on legislation and find a way to agree at once as to the length of time we are going to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: Later, Mr. Speaker. I ask the question again: How many will defend the amount of time that is wasted in parliament today? What did the former leader of the Conservative party have to say about it on November 26, 1962 as recorded at page 2009 of Hansard? It reads as follows:
I am not one of those who argues that there should be any interference with the right of hon. members to express themselves, but I do agree with the hon. member that if the house leaders of the parties could get together and apportion the time, it would be a most effective and welcome expedient in order to achieve a high degree of efficiency in parliament. They do it in the United Kingdom, but we have never been able to do it here. It becomes more difficult-this is not a matter of criticism when there is a multiplicity of parties. That means a multiplicity of viewpoints, and it becomes more difficult to achieve. But if out of this discussion today we can bring about agreement to apportion the days between now and the Christmas adjournment, we will have made a tremendous advance in parliamentary reform, of our own volition.
How many will say, apart from the heat of partisan disputation, that parliament must become more efficient?
Again, the former leader of the Conservative party said the following in his address to the Empire Club in 1949:
Government has become so complex and its ramifications so extensive that no matter how industrious a member of parliament may be, it is impossible to master all the problems that come before parliament, and more so in that there are not available to the opposition the trained civil servants who are at the disposal of the government at all times. In my opinion the opposition will not be able to discharge its duty unless it has available to it trained and outstanding research experts whose salaries will be paid by the state.
That speech was made in 1949. No action in this respect was taken by the governments in 1957, 1958 and 1962. It was only this government, which has been pilloried by the opposition, that has taken action and has brought forward this basic and fundamental reform to enable opposition members in this house to be more effective and to serve the Canadian people better. The right hon. member for Prince Albert said:
The opposition cannot oppose without reason. It's alternative policies must be responsible and practicable.
December 16, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
We have heard very few alternative policies advanced in this debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: Did the Liberals comment on this at the Couchiching conference?


Raymond J. Perrault: He also said:
If parliament is to be made as effective an instrument in the modern world as it should be, the procedure of parliament should be modernized and brought up to date-
Parliament must continue to be the custodian of freedom. To that end it must constantly change its procedure to meet the changing needs of the modem world but must be changeless in its concept and tradition.
Where is the spirit of reform in this debate on the part of some of the members of this house? How should these efficiencies be brought about? Time does not permit me to review the excellent arguments which have been advanced by the government in this debate, but the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Fulton, said at the Couchiching Conference in 1964, speaking for the Conservative Party:
But no matter what mathematical disposition has been arrived at by the voters, parliament has the duty to get on with the business of the country; and the government has the right and the responsibility to govern, so long as it enjoys the confidence of parliament, or at any rate unless and until parliament accepts the responsibility of defeating it.
This is what your Tory spokesman said. And now, in 1968, this new government is accepting the responsibility for procedural reform, and it does so cheerfully and gladly. I think it is regrettable that needed reforms which are supported by so many hon. members are surrounded by the controversy which has developed over recent days with respect to differences relating to rule 16-A. Some members, unfortunately, have employed intemperate language to criticise this rule, or what they assume to be this rule. Others have grasped at the opportunity for debate to level wild and irresponsible charges against the government benches.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-and I am sorry he is not in his seat tonight-suggested that an attempt is being made to take away the control of the pursestrings of parliament. As he said on December 12 as recorded at page 3859 of Hansard:
__you make the executive all-powerful and
reduce parliament to a rubber stamp.

He accused the government of "attempting to muzzle parliament". In that same speech he said:
We in Canada are now faced with a real danger of the loss of parliament and the loss of freedom.
This kind of talk does little to reassure the Canadian people of the responsibility of certain members of this assembly. The members who occupy the government benches are just as concerned about the maintenance of a strong, democratic and efficient parliamentary system as are the members of the opposition. However, together with most of them we are not satisfied that parliament is working well enough for the Canadian people. Together with them we seek changes which will preserve freedom and at the same time expedite the business of the country.
Faced with the task of expediting the nation's business, the right hon. member for Prince Albert said this on July 21, 1960, as recorded at page 6672 of Hansard:
I think there is no reason why that debate should not be reduced so far as the number of days is concerned. Immediately I suggest that the opposition will say that they are being throttled.
The word "throttle" is precisely one of the words which is being used by members in the official opposition now. The remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North were quite predictable. Criticism of the kind that he and his colleagues have directed at the government-criticism of this courageous and long-needed legislation, is a price that the government party members pay cheerfully for the improvement and renewal of the parliamentary process in this country. And again, when government members are criticised for allegedly attempting to shorten debate in some areas, we remind ourselves of Churchill's words spoken to the British house of commons on November 29, 1944:
Do not suppose that you can strengthen parliament by wearying it, and in keeping it in almost continuous session. If you want to reduce the power of parliament, let it sit every day in the year, one-fifth part filled, and then you will find it will be the laughingstock of the nation, instead of being, as it continues to be, in spite of all of the strains of modern life, the citadel as well as the cradle of parliamentary institutions throughout the world.
Churchill said these words, but they were quoted by the former leader of the Conservative party on July 21, 1960.
When the government is accused of subverting democracy, and the air is ringing with agitated oratory, objective members remind themselves of the research assistance
December 16, 1968

which is being granted to the opposition parties in this house. I am proud and gratified that a Liberal government in 1968, with the support of its backbenchers, has moved to provide not only this reform measure but these additional measures to improve the contribution of the opposition. The other day the Leader of the Opposition was very critical of the efforts being made by this government to, as he put it, "cripple the opposition". I have in my hand an account of the years of Conservative government in the province of Nova Scotia. May I quote an excerpt from Maclean's magazine (March, 1968)?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: This is what was written:
-a few years ago a Liberal M.L.A., Dr. J. Henry Reardon, made some pointed remarks about the Stanfield government's ethics in turning over the provincial tourist advertising account to Dalton Camp's firm. This criticism so incensed Stanfield that he announced he had given "serious consideration" to the idea of introducing a bill that would remove Reardon's legislative immunity retroactively.
It is interesting to note the official opposition's concern for the preservation of members' rights.


J. Michael Forrestall: What happened to Reardon? Who was right?


Raymond J. Perrault: We know that a good opposition is good for parliament. Rule 16-A may meet the test of time: perhaps it will not. Let us hope it does. If in practice it demonstrates there are some shortcomings, then let it be modified to the needs of the time according to the will of a democratic parliament.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
But let us not be afraid to experiment, to change, in this House of Commons. If we parliamentarians of Canada are content to rest on the present big, fat, over-stuffed procedural status quo, then we deserve the contempt of the Canadian people. We will win the admiration and acclaim of the Canadian people only by demonstrating that we are willing to take those actions that are geared toward improving our own productivity. We are not citizens of some kind of totalitarian state, some petty little principality that is under dictatorial edict.
In the final analysis, all of us who are sent here know that the people will judge the merits of this legislation and the merits of this government, as they always have done. The final test will come at the ballot box. If
Motion for Concurrence in Report the government appears, to the majority of the Canadian people, to be unfair, then it will lose the next election. On the other hand, if the opposition's criticisms lack validity or the opposition is unfair, then they will not be elected in place of the present government, and will remain in opposition.
However, let not fear of failure at the ballot box petrify any section of this house into inaction. As for 16-A, a majority of hon. members are convinced that under most conditions it will be possible for the house leaders to achieve agreement. I think most members predict that the meetings will be cordial, because the party house leaders in this assembly are reasonable and good Canadians.
Let me repeat what I said earlier; I believe that the best Christmas present that this house could present to the Canadian people would be procedural reform achieved in a spirit of amity. This would be a fine Christmas present, because these reforms will enable the people's business to be done in an enlightened and efficient manner, for the benefit of all. Surely in the process the lustre of parliament will be restored.
There are many members in this house who want to participate in this debate. Therefore I should like to move a motion to enable more people to participate in the debate in order that this question can be resolved-hopefully-before Christmas. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald):
That pursuant to standing order 6, subsection (6), this sitting be extended until 12 o'clock midnight tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: object.


The Deputy Speaker:: All those members who object will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There being more than ten members who object, the motion cannot be put at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask the hon. member the question he asked me to hold until he had finished his speech.


Raymond J. Perrault: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
4020	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Stanley Howard Knowles: First of all, may I thank the hon. member for his reference to the things I said regarding this matter. Is it not a fact that all of the rules that limit debate to which the hon. member referred were rules that have been agreed to by the whole house, by all parties in the house? Is not the essential difference between this and the present rule 16-A just that? Are we not now being asked to accept a rule that is being supported by only one party in the house?


Raymond J. Perrault: The point I was endeavouring to make was that there is a widespread feeling on the part of responsible spokesmen of all parties that there must be major reform in the way that we conduct the people's business in the House of Commons. At no time have I suggested, nor do I intend to suggest, that there is unanimous agreement on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to all of the proposals made by the government with respect to procedure. But I think the hon. member made a very valid point when he talked about the manner in which estimates have been passed in Canada. Traditionally and historically there has not been sufficiently detailed study. I agree as well with some of the other criticisms he has made of present parliamentary procedures. These have been outlined in a number of excellent speeches that he has made in various parts of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
is not the meat of parliamentary reform agreement among all parties in the house, instead of having rules imposed upon us by the government?


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit another question. In the course of his very interesting study of the statistical information that he gathered, did he observe that for two years in succession when this irresponsible Liberal government was the irresponsible Liberal opposition it took 75 days and 79 days respectively to deal with supply?


Raymond J. Perrault: I do have a quotation from the former prime minister in which he thanked Liberal members for their outstanding co-operation on the question of procedure in the house. I would be glad to table this quotation before we leave here tonight. It is to be found at page 6177 of Hansard for July 13, 1960. Talking of the Liberal members the former prime minister said:
As far as possible we endeavour-and this brings in the co-operation that we have had from the
[Mr. Perrault.l
DEBATES	December 16, 1968
opposition in recent days-to place before the house in ample time notice of the impending estimates... At all times that must be the endeavour of both sides and I am sure that, having regard to the extent to which we have made satisfactory progress, we shall continue to work in that spirit of co-operation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate. I have heard a number of brilliant speeches-for example, the speech made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), by the former prime minister, the distinguished member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). They were great speeches which proved to this house that parliament as a debating forum has a place in our national affairs. If hon. members want further evidence of this I would refer them to the brilliant speech made in this house on December 10 by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
I also listened to the speech just made by the hon. member for "what's his name"-the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault). I listened to it with interest but I still do not know what it was he was saying. All I heard was a recitation of what other people have said. I heard the hon. member compare parliament to a modern industrial organization. He likened it to a trade union. May I tell the hon. member that this is not an industrial organization or a trade union, it is the parliament of Canada. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour sat in opposition in British Columbia for far too long. Yes, Virginia, there is an hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I like to think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are interested in this debate. They have heard a great deal about the function of parliament. Let there be no mistake about this: Parliament's main function is to represent the people of Canada. I resent the suggestion that we should subvert the traditional right of parliament to function by passing laws with a minimum loss of time. Why not do away with parliament altogether? Why bother with it? Why waste time? Why not have government by executive directive? Surely that has proven to be an efficient way to govern; totalitarian states seem to do it very effectively. Let us do away with parliament entirely. Our system is under attack
December 16, 1968

every day. We have violence in the streets. Violence is now accepted as an instrument of political action. The very people who advocate certain methods of reform and are the most outspoken critics of our traditional parliamentary procedures are loud in support of those who take to the streets in violence.
In my view you do not defend parliament by restricting it; and restricted it will be if we do away with committee of supply and adopt proposed rule 16-A. Every objective hon. member will agree that parliament must be strengthened, and that strengthening parliament means that we must reform the rules of procedure. But you do not strengthen parliament by weakening the opposition. You do not strengthen parliament by abolishing the traditional grievance procedure of private members of this house, or committee of supply. In my view the question before us is simple and goes to the root of the issue. Will parliament govern the country or will the government, representing as it does the huge bureaucracy in Canada, rule without parliament.
I was disappointed with the Prime Minister's speech during this debate. Despite his characteristic modernization he could not refrain from showing what I consider a basic dislike of this institution.


Thomas Miller Bell: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: That dislike came to the fore when he referred to a filibuster. Under our rules there is no such thing as a filibuster. In parliament there is only debate. Take away the right to debate and you take away parliament. If parliament is to exist and if members of parliament are to discharge their responsibilities properly as representatives of the people, this institution must continue to be a meaningful forum for debate. I resent the unilateral use by the government of its majority in this house; I resent its unilateral attempt to impose new standing order 16-A which would limit debating time in advance of debate. That is closure in advance.
The Ottawa Citizen of December 12 had this to say about the new rules. The heading of the editorial is, "A dangerous reform plan", and it says in part:
The allocation of time for debate is a necessary change, accepted by the opposition. What is unacceptable is that the cabinet should have the unilateral power to set debating time limits in advance

A chief function of the parliamentary opposition is to probe for weaknesses in government legislation. If it finds such weaknesses, it needs time to make the point for the general public and to rally opinion in the country. It is hard to see how that
DEBATES	4021
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion could be done under the present plan, especially if the government set out to prevent its being done-
It would be a great mistake for the government to make use of its new majority to ram its own plan down the throat of the Commons.
The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), the government's spokesman in moving this measure, have shown a complete disregard for the right of private members in this house to contribute by meaningful debate to the process of governing this country. Nobody questions the government's responsibilities or the responsibilities of the executive. But surely we have the right and the obligation to question the government's arbitrary use of the power it has in this house by virtue of its majority. In a rather slurring reference to the committee of supply the Prime Minister said at one point of the debate that hon. members tend to make speeches rather than probe for information. In my view the Prime Minister failed to distinguish between the deliberative function of parliament and the investigative function of the committee system.
I wonder if those hon. members who wish to discuss business they consider to be more important than the present debate would be good enough to do so outside the chamber.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, a week or two ago on orders of the day I attempted to raise the question of tire safety in Canada, as this relates to the general question of automotive safety in Canada and the United States. At that time Mr. Speaker ruled my question out of order and I take the opportunity of discussing it again now. My question was and is prompted by the fact that whereas in the United States a good deal of attention is being paid to tire standards and specifications, to the retreading of tires and the grooving of bus, school bus and truck tires, with proper standards and specifications being established, so far as I know in Canada there is no bureau of tire standards. We have no specifications setting out what must be the quality of retreads and grooved tires.
4022	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
For quite some time now I have been interested in the whole question of traffic safety involving, as it does, the standardization of the quality of car parts and car repairs. The entire subject is currently under review in the United States by a senate subcommittee, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs told us the other day that similar action might be taken here. I think we are living dangerously in Canada when we neglect to establish proper standards for tire safety, or to make adequate provision for tire safety checks and call-backs when tires are found to be faulty, as is the case in the United States should tires be found wanting after a safety inspection has been carried out.
When it comes to tire safety I think we depend too much on what our United States friends are exporting into this country. Tires are checked there to the extent I have indicated, but we do not provide our own Canadian standards, although we certainly have our own geographic and climatic conditions which affect tires used here.
Tire safety is just one aspect of automotive safety. Every week in the past few years at least 100 Canadians died on our roads and highways. Some 3,000 are injured, many of them to the extent that they might as well be dead. In economic terms, the toll runs to $600 million a year, including car insurance.
In the relatively short period of six years during which I have been a member of this house, 30,000 Canadians have died in traffic accidents and 950,000 have been injured. The economic loss amounts to more than four billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, this is a very warlike total, and tire safety, or rather the lack of tire safety provisions, is one of the reasons for these alarming figures.
My question was, in effect: "Having in mind reports concerning tires which were given safety tests in the United States and which failed such tests, and in view of the fact that some of these tires are imported into Canada, I want to ask when we are to have a testing bureau for tire safety with a system of call-backs for tires proven faulty?"


Yves Forest: On behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) I wish to inform the hon. member with regard to the first part of his question, which he asked on December 5, 1968, that earlier this year all provinces adopted the standards issued by the Canadian Standards Association

DEBATES	December 16, 1968
as the basis of their regulations governing the quality of tires sold in Canada. Hence, the entire matter of tire quality, including tire testing, the question of call-backs and the suspicion of noncomplying tires, is within provincial jurisdiction.
As to the second part of the question, we have heard of no cases of either the tire suppliers or the vehicle manufacturers issuing such notifications, but here again only the provincial departments can supply the answers.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-APPLICATION FOR RATE INCREASES BY BELL TELEPHONE

John Gilbert: On Friday December 6 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) who redirected it to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans). My question was:
Is the minister aware of the application by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to the Canadian Transport Commission requesting a sharp increase in telephone rates in Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and other cities and if so is it the intention of the government to oppose such an application?
The Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) replied:
Mr. Speaker, the application is before the Canadian Transport Commission. Since this is a court of record hon. members would not think it appropriate for me to make any remarks about this application.
I was surprised at this statement by the Postmaster General because in the past and in the present he has been pontificating on so many problems that Canadians have faced. I was shocked that he would shelter himself behind some legal principle regarding the Canadian Transport Commission being a court of record because he knows that the commission is responsible to the government which, in turn, is responsible to all the people in Canada. He also knows that the Bell Telephone Company has only 250,000 shareholders, that it has 5 million telephones serving Canadians, and that the company controls 70 per cent of the telephone industry in Canada.
The Postmaster General also knows that January 17 will be the last day for filing opposition to the proposed rates and, if he does not do it, then the opposition will have to come from the municipalities which are supplied the telephone services. As I say, I was shocked that he would give such an answer to such a question.
On May 4, 1966, the Board of Transport Commissioners announced that the company's
December 16, 1S68

permissive level of earnings should range from 6.2 per cent to 6.6 per cent of total average capitalization. Last year it became apparent that the company's earning rate would rise to 6.7 per cent or 6.8 per cent for 1967 and 1968, and the Canadian Transport Commission asked what steps the company planned to take to reduce the rates. Now we have the Bell Telephone Company announcing that it has made an application to the Canadian Transport Commission to increase its rates. This came as a surprise to the other telephone companies within Canada.
An article by George Linton in the Globe and Mail of December 6, 1968 said that "Bell shares reach '68 high, up $1.87" on the Toronto stock exchange. His article added:
The company's statement appeared to catch the smaller companies by surprise.
B.C. Telephone said it had no plans to seek rate increases. New Brunswick Telephone said it also has no such plans-
Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Co. Ltd. of Halifax has not applied for an increase in its rates, although the company faces the same factors that prompted Bell to seek an increase, according to D. W. Myers, Maritime's vice president and general manager-
Quebec Telephone refused to comment on whether the company plans to seek rate increases.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker, that many of the other telephone companies within Canada had not planned on making applications for any rate increases.
Bell Telephone Company officials say the new rates are necessary to improve the company's financial position and its abilities to raise capital. The increase of 10 per cent would bring Bell $80 million, and if in effect for all of 1969 the company's return on invested capital would be 8 per cent.
We should also note that so far as this year's earnings are concerned analysts are estimating $3.25 to $3.30 a share, as compared with $3.16 in 1967. It is obvious that they are not anticipating any loss or any reduction in the earnings on their share capital.
Bell Telephone claims it will need $180 million in external financing in 1969, and if it were to go to the market for debt money it would have to pay around 8 per cent. Since 1967 Bell has raised $287 million by bond financing and its rates have ranged from 6.25 per cent to 7f per cent. The most recent was this summer's $75 million issue in U.S. funds with interest at 6.9 per cent. Bell's over-all debt service cost is still below 6.2 per cent.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
A few weeks ago on the program "Twenty Million Questions" the Postmaster General was asked questions concerning the communication systems in Canada, and in reply to a question by Mr. Jones he said:
Well I think the problem that worries me the most is probably the international law aspects of communications; and secondarily the federal-provincial relations aspects of it. To go the second one first,-you know we have control over,- although I don't think the regulations are all that good,-over the Bell Telephone and the B.C. Telephone, but not over provincial telephone companies.
So you can see the Postmaster General is concerned about this communications problem and the regulations controlling this particular company.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The time has come for the government to do a study in depth to determine whether the Bell Telephone Company should come under public ownership. The main purpose of the Bell Telephone Company should be to provide the best available telephone service at the lowest possible rate. Telephone service should not depend on satisfying 250,000 shareholders that they are receiving a high return on their invested capital or the necessity of paying high interest rates on bonds for expansion capital. This is the reason many Canadians would like a government feasibility study of public ownership of our communications system.
If the Canadian Development Corporation had been set up and functioning Bell Telephone ownership by the corporation would at least have spread ownership to many more Canadians. Therefore I should like the Postmaster General to state whether the government is opposing the application by the Bell Telephone Company for the rate increase and whether the minister would announce the setting up of a task force to study the feasibility of public ownership of this company which is now operating for the benefit of only a few and certainly not all Canadians.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, for an opening remark, I think I can only repeat what I said before; that is, the Canadian Transport Commission is a quasi judicial body empowered to make its own decisions. Neither the government nor the minister of communications has any right or power to intervene in the judgment of the C.T.C. This is the reason it was set up. While I do not doubt the figures of the hon. member, I think that while they may have an
December 16, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion average rate of interest on their current outstanding bonds and debentures of 6.2 per cent, their problem would not be the past but the future, and the current cost of raising money is closer to 8 per cent. This is not said in any way to justify their decision to make the application at this time.
The hon. member, however, has raised an important point. The decision of the C.T.C. will be based, naturally, upon the information made available to it. To me the major issue that is raised is how complete will be the information that will be made public by the telephone company. In this regard the hon. member made reference to some doubt I have expressed about the completeness of information that we presently have. I should like to confirm that statement and say that on the basis of a preliminary assessment by my department much more information will be necessary in the future than heretofore.
The present information is insufficient for the department of communications, a department which as hon. members know is in the process of being established. Why? The function and the mandate of the department of communications it to create a national program and a national policy of telecommunications. We can only do that job if we have the necessary tools, and the essential tool is information on the state of Canada's telecommunications industry, the entire industry. I repeat that I do not believe we now have the information we need to make wise economic, technological and sociological decisions for the maximum benefit of the Canadian public. I say this not intending any inference in respect of the information before the C.T.C. to which the hon. member referred. This information will be judged upon its own intrinsic merits in respect of the long term development of communications in this country.
For that objective, and I am choosing my words with care, I intend to do everything necessary to ensure that the department of communications will be able to command the tools and have the information it needs to make a complete audit of the economic and financial fabric of Canadian telecommunications. Once that inventory is completed we can proceed to make rational decisions on telecommunications development. I am certain that with co-operation we will be able to obtain and compile that information and inventory. At any rate I can assure hon. members that I intend to spare no effort to make sure that the inventory is compiled.



SPORTS-HOCKEY-INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF YOUNG PLAYERS

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises tonight, addressed to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and involves a complaint I have had from my riding, specifically from Stoney Creek, Ontario. It arises from a letter I received from one Karl Beckwick, Stoney Creek and dated December 3, 1968 in which he says:
Dear Sir:
It was suggested to me by John McLellan, a neighbour, to write a letter to you. Apparently my boy, Jim, is in the same predicament as young Frank McLellan.
We were informed in a letter from the Ontario Minor Hockey Assoc., that Jim can no longer play hockey for the Saltfleet team-
This is a ridiculous situation. Jim has played for Saltfleet for four years. We still reside at 15 Durham Road. There has been no amalgamation or annexation of our area, and certainly the Salt-fleet club has not released Jim.
It escapes me, why, all of a sudden there are changes made by the Ontario Minor Hockey Assoc., after the boy has become so well established with his home club. I can't see how he can be forced to play for a strange club, and leave all his friends that he has skated with and gone to school with all these years. It is preposterous.
Recently there have been a number of this type of complaint received from this area. It has been widespread that throughout Canada the tentacles of professional sports organizations and commercial enterprises are creeping in to take control of boys of school age, who should be getting the opportunity to play amateur hockey. We will never really get a well trained team in this country, and we will never be able to develop our youth with the proper spirit of sports when this type of practice is widespread.
It appears the coaches of some of these teams have been notified by the president of the Ottawa Minor Hockey Association that certain boys are prohibited from playing for their home teams. The parents of these boys strenuously object on their behalf and I protest on their behalf this unwarranted interference with a boy's right to play for his home team, in this case Stoney Creek or Saltfleet. Is this not a matter which should be investigated by the task force on amateur sports? If anyone questions the constitutionality of this matter I submit it is an example of professional control of amateur sports. When this matter is investigated in detail it will become quite apparent that this is what has happened.
December 16, 1S68

I am suspicious of the monopolistic control of amateur sport by commercial interests. We will never get a world championship hockey team by destroying the free right to choose a team, and by stifling the spirit of these boys. There is far too much interference by commercial groups with the careers and rights of these boys in Canada, and I believe an inquiry by the task force will bring out into the open the nature and extent of this abuse. Can we not free the boys from this power? I ask the minister to make an investigation into this matter.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, from the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), one would think that he plays on the same team as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). I should like to reassure the hon. member by quoting some remarks the hon. minister made in Moncton on November 23, 1968 when he was talking about the need to give a new status to amateur sports. I quote:
These measures include several changes. First of all, if professionals really want to respect
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
such a system of hockey, they must let each player decide for himself whether he wants to play on a national or an amateur team, such as a university team, for example, and how long he wants to be a part of that system. Consequently, they must stop pressing the young to enter a professional league at the earliest opportunity, and that means they must stop any pressure they apply during the whole school year.
Any premature signing of contracts, whether public or private, must cease. Businessmen cannot be permitted to buy and sell young athletes as if they were real estate. Hockey players are not chattels.
I want to assure the hon. member that this very problem is on the agenda of the task force. Meetings have taken place between the task force and the amateur and professional hockey associations and all those interested in this problem on a national level.
A report by the task force is expected early next year. I think their recommendations will contribute to raise our national and amateur sport to Olympic standing which will make us proud while it will respect the freedom of the people.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
4027

Tuesday, December 17, 1968