1968-12-19

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 19 December 1968
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 19th December, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
X have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. [Translation]



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. A message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill No. C-141, an act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) is rising on a question of privilege. I wish to remind hon. members that according to the rules there should be an hour's written notice to the Chair. The hon. member, however, did send a written notice, and in view of the prevailing Christmas spirit I would think this should satisfy the rules of the house. I gather that the statement is to be of a brief nature.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to draw attention to the statement
by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) on Tuesday, December 17, which can be found at page 4035 of Hansard regarding the Hong Kong influenza vaccine. The minister stated at that time:
We hope we will have a supply in Canada by mid January.
The fact of the matter is the vaccine is now available for selected cases. The aged and those suffering from certain illnesses have a priority. The vaccine is now being supplied by one of the research-based pharmaceutical organizations in the United States. It is my view that the statement by the minister might well mislead many people who should now be contacting their family doctors for the vaccine into not contacting their doctors until January. It may well be that the minister is today in a position to provide further information to the people. Naturally I hope this is the case. I feel also that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), a prominent physician in Canada, should be commended for his knowledge of the circumstances and for initially alerting the house and the country to the situation.
In conclusion I wish to quote from a letter that was forwarded to doctors on December 11 by Merck, Sharp and Dohme of Canada announcing the availability of the vaccine in question. The letter states:
Due to the limited supply of this product it is recommended that you give treatment priority to those persons with the highest risk of severe complications as a result of influenza.
If the minister needs any further convincing I have here a syringe and the vaccine, if he would like to have a shot.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of standing order 42 read:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the house without notice having been given under standing order 41.
I hope to take some action under that standing order by asking subsequently for the

December 19, 1968
Indian Treaty
unanimous consent of the house to present a particular motion and to precede it, as the standing order indicates, by explaining the reason for the motion in a very brief way.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
My reason for this arises from the arrest yesterday of more than 40 of the St. Regis people of the Iroquois nation near Cornwall, people who have suffered insouciance and indignities at the hands of the government for many, many years. High honour and high recognition were given to the Indians in the treaty signed between the United States and Great Britain in 1794, commonly known as Jay's treaty, which said that the Indian people had the right to cross the international border without paying customs duty. Perhaps I should read what the treaty says in article 3:
-nor shall Indians passing or repassing with their own proper goods and effects of whatever nature, pay for the same any import or duty whatever. But goods in bales or other large packages unusual among Indians shall not be considered goods belonging bona fide to Indians.
The government of Canada never presented this treaty to parliament for ratification, and as a consequence it has been held to have no force and effect. The Indian people concerned have waited patiently for the government to take some action ever since this decision by the Supreme Court was handed down a dozen years ago. The government also expropriated certain Indian lands in the Cornwall island area. Contingent upon that expropriation was the thought that an agreement would be reached with respect to it, but to date the government has not even had the common courtesy to make efforts toward such an agreement.
As a result of these and many other situations the people at St. Regis finally expressed their indignation yesterday by means of a demonstration which saw more than 40 of them arrested. In addition to these events the mayor of Cornwall is reported to have made a statement to the effect that the city of Cornwall had extended the boundaries of the city a dozen years ago to include Cornwall island; in other words that it is no longer reserve land, and that the people there might expect to receive taxation notices from the city shortly.
On this basis I should like to move:
That it be resolved by the House of Commons that it is urgent and expedient to authorize the standing committee on Indian affairs and northern development to meet forthhwith and proceed as quickly as possible to hear evidence on

1.	The document signed between the governments of the United States of America and Great Britain in 1794, commonly referred to as Jay's treaty, and the effect that this treaty has upon the Indian people as well as the matter of parliamentary action with respect to the treaty.
2.	The action of the government of Canada in expropriating certain lands of the people of the St. Regis Indian reserve for any purpose whatever.
3.	The relationship between the people of St. Regis and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority or any other agency, branch or department of government.
4.	The matter of the city of Cornwall's claim that the St. Regis reserve has been annexed by that city, and
5.	Any other matter which the people of St. Regis deem it advisable to raise with the said committee.
And for the committee to report its findings and recommendations with all convenient speed and dispatch.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know this motion can be put to the house only if there is unanimous consent; this is by virtue of standing order 42, to which the hon. member for Skeena has referred. I have to ask the house whether there is such agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT SIGNED TODAY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, may I table copies in French and in English of the international agreement on sugar which Canada signed today?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon.
members will recall that on October 29 I tabled in the house copies of international treaties, agreements or protocols which Canada had signed or acceded to in recent months. Among those treaties was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
This treaty, which marked an important new step forward in arms control, was endorsed by the great majority of member states at a special session of the United Nations general assembly. It was then opened for signature in Washington, London and Moscow
December 19, 1968

on July 1. Canada signed the treaty in Washington and London on July 23 and in Moscow on July 27. More than 80 nations have now signed the treaty and three, Britain, Nigeria and Ireland, have ratified it. We hope that in due course all the nations of the world will recognize the importance of this treaty and accede to it.
Before the non-proliferation treaty comes into effect 43 states, including the three nuclear powers which have signed it, must deposit ratifications. We understand that the United States Senate will consider the question of ratification in January, and that the Soviet union will then make a decision regarding Russian ratification. As a leading proponent of the treaty and one of the major "near-nuclear" signatories, Canada has an opportunity to provide leadership by demonstrating our faith in the non-proliferation treaty. To do this we must take immediate steps to ensure that we are among the first to ratify. A positive decision by Canada may help to exert a favourable influence on other governments whose early support for the treaty is important to its future effectiveness.
The government therefore proposes to take the necessary action to permit Canadian ratification, if possible before the new year.
I am sure members on both sides of the house support the objectives for which this treaty was negotiated and will welcome the fact that the government of Canada now proposes to take steps to ratify it. I hope there will be opportunities in due course to discuss the treaty in the standing committee on external affairs and defence or when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are under debate in the house. In order not to delay Canadian ratification, however, we would propose to move forward immediately. For this reason I am taking this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the house.
As a member of the 18-nation disarmament commitee Canada played an important role in negotiations during the last seven years which culminated in the presentation at the April, 1968 session of the United Nations general assembly of an agreed draft treaty designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Our support for the principles embodied in this treaty has been unwavering. We continue to believe that without an agreement of this nature there is little prospect of progress toward controlling the dissemination of nuclear weapons or toward general disarmament.
Nuclear Arms Treaty
In effect the non-proliferation treaty will prohibit signatory countries not now in possession of nuclear weapons from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring such weapons and devices. It prohibits nuclear powers from transferring nuclear weapons or explosives to non-nuclear weapon states. It requires nonnuclear states to accept international safeguards on their nuclear programs but guarantees their rights to exploit nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to obtain the benefits of peaceful nuclear explosions.
In my opinion the non-proliferation treaty is a significant contribution to the three basic objectives that guided Canadian participation in the lengthy negotiations that led to its conclusion. First, the treaty will reduce the sense of uncertainty and insecurity which aggravates international tensions, accelerates the arms race and increases the risk of nuclear war. It is thus a contribution toward long term world security. Second, the treaty represents an initial but essential step toward the control and reduction of existing stocks of nuclear weapons. Further steps forward are urgently required, and at this current session of the United Nations general assembly I welcomed indications that the United States and the Soviet union are discussing the initiation of talks on the limitation of strategic nuclear armed missile systems, including anti-ballistic missiles.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Our third objective, that effective international safeguards be applied as widely as possible on all the processes involved in the nuclear field, is enhanced by this treaty. By extending and consolidating international safeguards procedures it should facilitate exchanges and co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Members of the house will recognize, I am sure, that the full potential of the non-proliferation treaty can be realized only if it is respected and accepted by a very large majority of states. The Canadian decision to ratify will, we hope, play a major part in convincing additional countries of the necessity of bringing this treaty into force at the earliest possible date.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, obviously any international treaty which has the effect of reducing the spread of nuclear weapons will be welcomed by citizens of this country. When I was listening to the minister I thought of all the cliches that could be applied when news such as this

December 19, 1988
Nuclear Arms Treaty
is brought before parliament and before the country, and I have tried to discipline myself not to repeat them. I thought it somewhat of a paradox that two of the earlier countries ratifying the treaty should be the United Kingdom and Nigeria, which have not found a civilized way to end a terrible tragedy. However, that is just a comment in passing.
The announcement by the minister gives all of us in the house an opportunity to recall the special service rendered to the nation and to the world by General E. L. M. Burns who, if newspaper accounts are correct, is about to end his very unique service to this country. It also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the need of a restructured United Nations, as has been eloquently stated to the world by Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour not to proliferate words on this particular subject. I think everybody in the house welcomes the announcement that has been made. It is a step forward in the direction of security in the nuclear world. We all know there are many other things that must be done, but we have to take each step as it is available.
We believe this non-proliferation treaty can hardly have its full effect until the present nuclear nations take further steps. First of all there should be a ban on underground testing as well as on testing in the atmosphere. We believe moves should be made toward limiting the means of delivery of the present nuclear powers, and toward diminishing the stockpiles they have at the present time. There is need for greater security and for strengthening the United Nations.
All these steps are necessary if this treaty is to bring the security that is its purpose. But, as I said, we have to take one step at a time, and we welcome the treaty that Canada is to ratify. We will be very happy in the committee of external affairs and national defence to go into the details of this treaty.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to comment the statement that the honourable Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has just made with regard to nuclear weapons.
I am convinced that the whole world would like to see them disappear and the advancement of nuclear science put to the service of humanity. Nuclear weapons are considered by humanity as destructive weapons when they should be a power of resurrection.

Many countries of the world are stunned by the destructive power of these weapons knowing full well that they can destroy everything on earth. The peoples of the world have to yield to the will of the four great powers that have nuclear arms.
Mr. Speaker, instead of endeavouring to reduce the proliferation of nuclear arms, we should use all those new technological developments to serve humanity and help the economic development of the world.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement about a change in hog premiums. A short time ago I announced changes in the grades and grading of hogs which will take place on December 30, 1968. The present grades of A, B and C will be replaced by an index scale based on the scientific principle of appraising carcass merit on the basis of back fat and weight measurements. Since the pricing policy of meat packers will be based on this premise, the immediate result will be a greater reward from the market place to the producer who sells hogs that yield a relatively high proportion of lean. The long term result will be an increase in the production of higher quality pork of the type the consumer wants.
To provide initial impetus to the attainment of this objective the hog premium is being altered to apply at a higher rate to fewer hogs. Commencing December 30, 1968 and until further notice, there will be paid a premium of $3 per hog carcass with an index of 103 or higher. This will be an increase per carcass from the present $2 premium for grade A carcasses, but as I stated earlier it will apply to a smaller percentage of hogs.
I am pleased to be able to report that this new system of hog carcass appraisal has been developed by representatives of producers and processors along with government officials working in close co-operation.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the minister this afternoon with regard to a change in the grading program is very important to the industry concerned. At last the government is taking concrete action that will enable this industry to meet competition and world
December 19, 1968

demand for protein rather than carbohydrates and fat.
The minister stated the long term result will be an increase in the production of higher quality pork. When the minister states that the $3 instead of the former $2 will apply to a smaller percentage of hogs, what he is really saying is that in the years ahead the industry will receive from the government far less by way of payments, and this at a time when the industry needs those payments most.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
This is a concrete illustration of what can happen to an industry when the government lacks a long range policy. Within two weeks there will be a change in the payments made to the primary producers, when, had the government announced its intention 18 months or two years ago, it would have enabled the producers to take advantage of this change in the grade system. As it is now, definite hardship will be caused among the producers during the next six months to two years, depending on the particular production engaged in.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this new grading system has been in the making for some time, and has been exhaustively researched. The federation of agriculture, the processors and so on have all taken part, and I think we will have to see how it works out in practice in the slaughter plants, whether it operates effectively on the production line and does not slow the product as it goes through. It will mean that premiums to some farmers who are now receiving them will be ruled out. Therefore I think the emphasis now will be on top grade hogs and producers of lower grade hogs will not receive any premium.
I think one area that has not been explored and researched in view of the proposals now made in the grade marking of quality hogs before they are passed on to the consumer. I think this top quality grading should be passed on from the farmer-producer to the ultimate consumer, as is the case now with beef. I did make this point in the committee on agriculture and was told that for certain reasons this cannot be done, but I think it can.
I do not think any objective examination was made into whether it can be done, and this is a real weakness in this new system. As I say, the main point here is that the quality product be passed on as such from the producer to the consumer.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the statement made
Statistics Act
by the Minister of Agriculture about the grading of hogs meets the need to encourage even more the production of higher quality pork.
That policy offers some advantages of course, but it also has some disadvantages, and I think that it will be necessary to proceed by stages in order to prevent too heavy losses for the producers who might produce hogs of a quality inferior to the standards that have just been announced in the house.
However, I ask myself a question which must have crossed the minister's mind and which might even have been discussed, although it was not mentioned in his statement. In view of special conditions in the province of Quebec where the government now pays a premium for grade A hogs, in order to help the producers even more, in view also of the fact that grades A and B will be abolished, will the Quebec government keep on grading hogs in the same way and paying the premium or has some agreement been reached? I presume that the federal Minister of Agriculture and his Quebec counterpart have considered the situation and, at the right moment, we would be happy to hear the minister's explanations.
At all events, it appears to us at first sight that this new policy will promote a higher quality production.
The other day, I heard an hon. member say that he was worried about the fact that farmers were not always concerned with quality. I think that this is a gratuitous assertion because even though it might have been so in the past, in 1968 farmers accept more and more to produce high quality products and meet the consumer needs, provided they are compensated for the quality of their products.



STATISTICS ACT


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-149, to amend the Statistics Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that the long title of the Statistics Act be repealed and the word "Canada" substituted for the word "dominion". The purpose of the bill is to give effect to Canada's status as a nation and remove the anachronism "dominion", once useful but now embarrassing.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

December 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Speaker:: Government notices of
motions: the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent that we go into committee of the whole today and pass this resolution without debate so the bill can be introduced and given first reading today.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that the house go into committee of the whole later this day for this purpose. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act (inter alia to increase the maximum number of members of the National Parole Board from five to nine), the Penitentiary Act, the Prison and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is still appropriate to ask the secretary of state a question in this house relating to Canada's policy toward the conference to be held in Niger, even though that policy has now been announced in the other place. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could advise the house, in light of the statement made in the other place yesterday, whether the government of Canada has reached an understanding with the government of the province of Quebec as to the manner in which the province of Quebec will participate in the conference in Niger.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that subject is still under discussion with the province of Quebec.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, are we to assume in light of the statement in the other

place yesterday and in light of the minister's statement that no agreement has been reached with the province of Quebec, that the government of Canada is modifying its policy with regard to external relations as adopted and announced in the white paper last spring?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that assumption is incorrect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister of Quebec that the province of Quebec would be attending the conference in Niger, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government leader in the other place was in fact stating policy for the government of Canada when he stated that the government of Canada would be represented at the conference in Niger.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I intend to formally answer the invitation of the President of Niger concerning this conference. I expect to send that answer probably today or tomorrow. Until I have done so I would prefer not to tell the house what is in it. If I may give a hint, it would be our intention-and we have already indicated this informally through Senator Martin to the president-to indicate that we hope to attend but we hope also to attend as part of a Canadian delegation which would represent all the French speaking Canadians of all provinces. But the formal answer will be going out in a day or two.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Following the visit of Senator Martin to the President of Niger, was an agreement concluded to the effect that the president would recognize a Canadian delegation made up of representatives of various provinces, or will the Quebec delegation also be recognized by the president?


Mr. Trudeau:: Well, as mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the beginning of this sitting, it is a matter which is now under negotiation between the Quebec and Ottawa governments. We want to accept the invitation and we also want the representation to be adequate. We hope that we can agree in this matter. That is the position which Senator Martin explained to President Diori. I believe this is also the position taken by the President of Niger, but
December 19, 1968



the official acceptance on our part has not yet been sent.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should to like to put a further supplementary question.
How can the honourable Prime Minister talk about a Canadian delegation consisting of various provincial representatives if Quebec has not yet expressed the wish to take part in this delegation?


Mr. Speaker:: This is an argument and not a question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible for the Prime Minister to arrange to announce the same policy in the House of Commons and in the other place.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be contrary to custom for me to announce government policy in the other place. I would prefer to do it in the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right honourable Prime Minister.
Does he really intend to announce, within a month, the official recognition of Communist China by Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, if there are any announcements to be made, we will choose the time and the hour to do so.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in that connection may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government giving consideration at this time to the early recognition of communist China? If it is, will the government of the United States also give it recognition? My final question in this connection is, will this house have the opportunity of discussing this matter before such an irrevocable decision is made, that is so fraught with danger to the people of Taiwan?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the government has stated its intention of negotiating 29180-2631
Inquiries of the Ministry for the recognition of communist China. Whether we will be successful is quite another matter. I hope that in the committee on external affairs and national defence there will be many expressions of opinion on this question as part of the general foreign policy review before we make our decision.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister once and for all give an assurance that whatever is done in this connection, and it is a difficult problem and has been with us for a long time, the people of Taiwan, having stood for freedom in Asia, will not be sacrificed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister will not give that assurance. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he would give that assurance. He has given no indication that he will answer. That indicates the great danger of having this government play with this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise because you were on your feet and I thought you were considering this a very argumentative question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the house that we recognize the position of Taiwan to be a very sensitive issue. I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to give any such assurances. I believe it is a matter that must be considered most seriously in connection with any decision we may make.


John George Diefenbaker: Without assurances all such statements mean nothing.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiif (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to establish a diplomatic mission in Taipei?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is no change contemplated in the present situation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In that case, Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us if that is an indication that the government intends to break off relations with Taiwan?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.

December 19, 1988
Inquiries of the Ministry
BRAZII__REPORTED DETENTION OF CANADIAN

On the orders oi the day:


Mr, Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he, or has the government, received a report that a Canadian priest is being detained in Brazil during the recent political upheaval in that country? Has the government any information as to the identity of any Canadian clergyman under arrest in Brazil?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed, but I will make inquiries.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[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 his statement a few days ago that the purpose of the government's austerity program is to enable the government to address itself to the problems of all the underprivileged in Canada, can he say what measures to deal with the problems of the underprivileged will be placed before parliament when we meet again in January?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, these programs were dealt with in the speech from the throne. As hon. members know, we have only dealt with less than a dozen measures. There are some 40 left to be dealt with. I think the hon. member could check with the speech from the throne. We hope we will have the kind of rules in the house after we return that will enable us to deal with those programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if one of the measures that will be placed before parliament in the new year will have to do with housing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has indicated, if my memory serves me correctly, that he hopes to table his report in the house sometime in January.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the reply made by the right hon.

gentleman. Can he assure us that if we have an improvement in our rules, as we hope, we shall also have an improvement in the type of government we have?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question to the Prime Minister may I ask him to reconsider the erection of the C.B.C. building, which will cost $66 million, so that some of that money could be used for housing?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the hon. Minister of Finance but, in his absence, I shall direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether he approves the hasty policy of the Bank of Canada to increase the interest rate without previously consulting the authorities concerned?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance was here yesterday; everyone knows that today he is attending the federal-provincial conference. I believe he answered that question, at least in part, and the member must surely know that the government prefers the Bank of Canada not to act on the orders of the honourable Minister of Finance.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On September 13 I asked the minister whether, considering that minimum wages for employees in industries coming under federal jurisdiction had not been increased for some three and a half years, and considering that the cost of living had gone up by nearly 15 per cent in the meantime, the government would consider raising minimum wages in those industries, particularly as an example to provincial governments. He said at that time that this was under consideration.
December 19, 196(


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech; he should ask a question.


George Harris Hees: I had just arrived at that point, Mr. Speaker. My question is this. Since the cost of living has continued to rise in the last three months, I wonder whether the minister and the government will have anything to announce in this regard in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question as asked is of a very broad nature and very wide in scope. The hon. member is asking the minister to make a very important type of statement which I think should be made on motions.


George Harris Hees: Could I ask the minister if he would make a statement tomorrow on motions on this very important matter?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is not my day in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since the minister claims to be a member of the government that says it wants to promote the just society, could he not make a special effort tomorrow on behalf of the poverty-stricken people of this country and come to this house to make a statement in that regard?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might go to another question. I doubt whether a supplementary ought to be allowed, but I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a related question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will accept your word that I have a related question; I thought it was a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Labour if he would like me to give him my Bill No. C-74, which is already drafted and which if passed would raise the minimum wage in all works and industries under federal jurisdiction.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as I won't be here tomorrow-
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: You could be if you were interested.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would like to point out that this hon. gentleman has raised this question many times. His speeches are always uniform in quality, or lack of quality, and always of great interest. The hon. member suggested raising the minimum wage as an example to the provinces. I might point out that the Tory government of Ontario has taken three and one half years to reach the federal level of minimum wages now in effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must see what might happen with another related question. The hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my related question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is on the same subject. Will the minister extend the same courtesy to opposition parties in this house that he has extended to provincial finance ministers today in making an advance copy of the white paper on prices and wages available to them? My second question is, will the minister be in the house tomorrow for the tabling of this document?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: To reply in reverse order, Mr. Speaker, I will be in the house tomorrow and will be tabling the white paper on price stability. That I intend to do when we meet at eleven o'clock. The first part of the hon. gentleman's question is not quite correct. If the hon. member will read the statement I propose to make to the minister of finance this afternoon he will see that I have not given them an advance copy of the white paper, and in fact I expressed my apologies that it was not yet ready for them.


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Will he answer my question? Will he make a copy of the white paper available in advance to opposition spokesmen before tabling it tomorrow?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. The white paper will become available to all hon. members when it is tabled.

December 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL	appreciated". It is signed "Hayes, President
TRAINING	of the Association".



PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES DURING HOLIDAY SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I address this very seasonal question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, supplementary to those asked earlier in regard to students taking vocational training. Have the minister and his department been able to reach an agreement with British Columbia in order to keep the training schools open at this holiday time and thereby avoid deductions from the students, many of whom are married and are now taking retraining? I am speaking of their Christmas allowance. If he has not, and if there is to be a deduction, will he consider some plan by which the deduction will not be made during Christmas week?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
promised the leader of the New Democratic party that I would give an up to date report on this matter, and I shall do so later this week.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the large number of people who have plans to travel by air over the holiday period, would the minister say whether the contract with Air Canada employees has been signed or whether it is still outstanding?
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as I entered the chamber today at 2.30 I was given a telegram which I would like to read. I think it will be a consolation to all hon. members, not only those on this side of the house. It says:
New contract ratified by the Canadian air lines employees' association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, because of my normal modesty the rest of the telegram is very embarrassing, so I will paraphrase it. It says "The efforts of you, the Minister of Labour, and your departmental personnel, particularly Mr. McRae and Mr. Wilson,


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



WESTLOCK, ALBERTA-SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since we have been assured many times in this house that there is no shortage of box cars in western Canada, could the minister tell me whether he has had a request from the Federal Grain Company, situated at Westlock, Alberta, concerning the shortage of 36 box cars over the period since November 4 of this year; and has his department taken any steps to see that this shortage is rectified?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any personel knowledge of having received this representation; but I would not expect it, because I think if it is orders for cars it would be directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who answers for the wheat board.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he accept a copy of this letter I have received, and take some steps to see that the railroad company are checked up in this regard, because he has gone on record as saying that there is no problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture has he received a request from officers of the Saskatchewan wheat pool to meet with him? If so, when is this meeting to be held? Further, is he prepared to tell the agricultural industry of any financial assistance the federal government is contemplating in the light of the damp and tough grain situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I intend to meet later today with the minister of agriculture from Saskatchewan, and I think some officials from
December 19, 19G3

the Saskatchewan wheat pool will also be at the meeting. The meeting was called for earlier today but because of the pressure of other urgent business it had to be postponed until after orders of the day.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. However, as this is one of his days off this week I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the great concern which is evident among many resource industries in relation to the possibility of stagnating resource development if certain aspects of the Carter report on taxation are implemented, can the minister advise the house when the government will be announcing its policy in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether the preliminary part of the question is in order, but the parliamentary secretary might be allowed to reply.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the house that the minister is attending to his duties representing the government of Canada at the federal-provincial finance ministers' conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Second, I would like to inform the hon. member that I shall be very pleased to bring his question to the personal attention of the minister for his consideration.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. Can he make available to members of this house the economic forecast that has been made available to the provincial premiers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take this matter up with the Minister of Finance to see what could be done in this regard.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister say when the house can expect to receive the report of the MacDonald committee, established in the spring of 1967 to study the role of the federal government in support of research in universities?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this question is very urgent. It seems this committee was established some time ago, and this is the type of question which normally would be placed on the order paper.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Prime Minister won't consider answering that question, could be say whether he will take steps to have the production of the report hastened in order to avoid uncertainty?


Mr. Speaker:: That supplementary question should also be placed on the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received the report on the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of a young Indian girl near Brandon and, if so, will he be reporting on it to the house before the Christmas recess?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said I would ask the minister in charge of that department to inquire into it. I have not had any report from him as yet.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the opposition has waived its right to debate the resolution stage of the Criminal Code omnibus bill, which we have not yet seen, and because of the size of the bill, will the Minister of Justice assure the house that under whatever rules we may be operating we will have time to debate and examine the bill adequately?

December 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice): I
certainly intend to operate under the rules, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to congratulate the minister on the way he was able to slide through that answer hut my question is, would the minister assure the house that we will have adequate time to debate this bill in which many different matters are brought together in a large package?


John Napier Turner: I would think, Mr. Speaker, whatever rules are adopted, that certainly at the clause by clause stage, whether in the standing committee or the committee of the whole, there should be a very thorough discussion of the bill.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the council of Europe has decided to expel the representatives of the Greek regime from its midst and because of the fact that the government of Canada is currently undertaking a review of its foreign policy, does the government in its policy review anticipate looking into the advisability of discontinuing military aid to the present military regime in Greece?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday or the day before in the house I gave the extent of our military aid to Greece which is very small. Our review does not contemplate study of this particular subject.


Edward Richard Schreyer: In view of the fact that the present military regime in Greece is almost as monstrous as the Soviet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his questions?


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government of Canada in its foreign policy review intends to reconsider its posture relative to the Greek government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is restating or repeating the question he asked in the first instance.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was surprised, but not altogether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs think it appropriate for the government of Canada to supply small amounts of military equipment to Russia the next time that country decides to invade another country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not acceptable, and unless the minister is rising on another question-


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should perhaps say that Greece has not invaded any other country.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. According to a press report today the Canadian Radio-Television Commission will conduct a public inquiry into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television program "Air of Death". Would the minister advise the house whether the legislation establishing the C.R.T.C. permits it to conduct such an inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member is asking for a legal interpretation. The question as asked is not in order.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right honourable Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the commonwealth conference of prime ministers to be held next month will provide an exceptional opportunity to discuss the Nigerian problem, does the right honourable Prime Minister intend to
December 19, 1968

place these good offices at the disposal of the government of Nigeria so as to find a quick solution to that fratricidal war through negotiations or dialogue?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Well informed people tell me that it is not customary, during such conferences, to raise problems concerning the domestic policy of member countries. Therefore, I doubt that there will be any opportunities to take such a position officially, but I shall take into account the representations of the honourable member, when I participate in, shall we say, friendly meetings with the heads of states in London.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Interested as we are in the fact that death is now becoming a domestic problem, is it the policy of the government that Canada will support the United States initiative to bring about a cease fire in Nigeria, and what positive steps has the government of Canada taken recently to this end?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have continued what I think is the best policy under the present circumstances, that is, to make ourselves available on request to the two parties if they wish us to act in this capacity. But as the Prime Minister has said, in so far as the commonwealth conference is concerned this is a domestic matter and it could not be raised contrary to the wishes of the Nigerian government which is a member of the commonwealth.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the grandiloquent declaration regarding the danger of proliferation of nuclear arms, in the dissertation given by the minister today, is the government engaged in negotiating out of having nuclear warheads on Bomarcs? What steps are being taken in that direction, because I seem to recall a different viewpoint when this matter was raised five years ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, Please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of what is a nuclear power is defined in the non-proliferation treaty, and Canada is not a nuclear power.


John George Diefenbaker: Are any negotiations
going on, as promised on a number of occasions, for removal of the nuclear warheads in order to remove the danger that the minister has spoken of in such glaring terms?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With reference to a recent vote in the United Nations general assembly which called upon the United Kingdom to withdraw from Gibraltar despite the clearly expressed contrary view of Gibraltarians, can the minister advise how the Canadian delegation voted on this intriguing and intrusive resolution?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity of answering the question which was put to me earlier about our position on Gibraltar? Canada voted against the resolution calling on Britain to give up Gibraltar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as leader of the house. To paraphrase the words of a famous Canadian, where in Hades is the Minister of Transport? The Department of Labour is represented today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask a question. I do not think a supplementary question would be in order after his first question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not think the President of the Privy Council would be ready to reply

December 19, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry so quickly. The reason I asked the question in the way I did was that I was prepared to wait until the Minister of Transport came into the house, since this is his roster day. The Minister of Labour certainly shows how he pays attention to the leader and the teacher and follows the roster.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Minister without Portfolio was answering for the Minister of Transport and we cannot expect the Minister of Transport in the house. We have not seen him very much. I am asking the Minister without Portfolio whether he can answer today two questions which the Minister of Transport said he would answer, one on the National Harbours Board report which he said on December 4 he would answer the next day, December 5, and the other on the Roberts Bank report which he said he would table not later than the following week, or December 6. We have passed both those dates now. Can we have an answer today regarding both these reports?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: The Minister of Transport is in Toronto today. I am not certain at what time he left but he is away on important government business. I am sure he has very much in mind the two reports which have been referred to and I will be pleased to bring the hon. member's representations to his attention.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can we have a definite answer tomorrow, in view of the fact that something might happen tomorrow or certainly over Christmas, perhaps on Christmas Eve? Something is going to happen on Christmas Eve, but in view of something which might happen tomorrow, could we have an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question a number of times. He has had the floor now for quite a few minutes-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, very rarely do I challenge anything the Chair says but yesterday I tried to catch your eye all day. I knew the Minister of Transport was here for a very transient visit; he has been attending very infrequently. Both these reports have been promised, and it would be most informative and educational if they were tabled before the house rises, if it ever does.
[Mr. Nowlan.J



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Is it the intention of the government to transfer to other positions or to other parts of Canada those who are about to be laid off in the Atlantic area from what have been called redundant positions within the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is argumentative. I suggest to the hon. member that it cannot be asked in those terms.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a word on this question, which is fallacious, based on an erroneous assumption and might create in the minds of certain people in the Unemployment Insurance Commission the impression that they are about to be dismissed. I repeat what I said the other day. Nobody in the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be laid off until at least six months prior notice has been given.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I understood what the minister said the other day. I am asking whether it is intended to transfer certain people within the commission to other positions.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If they are being transferred to other positions they are not being dismissed.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern felt about Canadian participation in international trade fairs, particularly in West Germany, the most prosperous nation in western Europe, will the Minister of Industry, trade and Commerce undertake to make a statement on motions indicating his department's policy in this regard?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be easier if I were to write to the hon. member.
December 19, 19G8



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of last night's announcement by the Newfoundland government that it is taking action which will have the effect of nationalizing four fish plants in Newfoundland, will the government reassess its position and consider reinstating the deficiency payments to the frozen fish industry as requested by the Newfoundland government at recent meetings in Ottawa with the minister and members of his staff?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, we are giving urgent consideration to the program for next year.


Walter C. Carter: Is the minister in a position to tell the house what were the results of the meeting held on Monday or Tuesday of this week, and what he has decided to recommend to the government in order to alleviate the serious situation which now exists in Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: Recommendations are being made, but I am not in a position to announce them at this time.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but since he is out of the house perhaps I could direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of the report on farm safety recently released by Mr. Donaldson, a researcher with the royal commission on farm machinery, what action does the hon. gentleman intend to take to ensure that farm machinery manufacturers improve the safety features of their products?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we intend to study the report first; I understand it was only released yesterday.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The other day the Minister of Agriculture said he would inform
Inquiries of the Ministry the house when he was going to table the report from the commission studying the farm implement situation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What I said, Mr. Speaker, was that I would ask the commissioner for a report by the end of this year, and I expect I will get a report on some aspects of this study. But I cannot table it until I get it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister confirm that for the first time in history the National Research Council will not be hiring university students next summer?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question qualifies for this period of our proceedings but perhaps the minister might be allowed to answer it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to investigate the complaint made by the hon. member.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister tell us whether the government is planning any special program to employ students next summer in the public service as a means of alleviating the serious employment situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that both questions could be answered by way of a statement by the minister on motions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Before government orders are called, Mr. Speaker, may I say that as has been mentioned several times in the house there is general agreement that the resolution preceding the Criminal Code amendment bill could be passed without debate if it were called at this time. Perhaps the house would be agreeable to making such an order so the bill might receive first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed? Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4162	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE

John Napier Turner: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act (inter alia to increase the maximum number of members of the National Parole Board from five to nine), the Penitentiary Act, the Prison and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Criminal Code and to make other consequential changes. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 16, 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 concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 3762).
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on December 16 I was referring to the difficulties that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and some of the members of the government were having in trying to distinguish between the deliberative function of parliament and the investigative function of committees of the house. I dwelt at some length on that subject because I think it is very important and germane to any discussion in this debate. The committees of the house as they are now constituted are by their very nature investigative

DEBATES	December 19, 1968
bodies, whereas this house, constituted as a committee of the whole in committee of supply, is in the main deliberative in its function. I think that is a very important function.
This has been a very useful debate. Even the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) agrees because in his speech he said it had been a good debate and had proceeded in the best tradition of parliament. We have heard excellent cases put forward by those speaking from both sides on this extremely important and urgent matter of procedure. In the main I think that the views expressed have been responsible. I subscribe to that, as I am sure my colleagues do, 100 per cent.
With regard to responsibility, we have just seen how the house can take its responsibility seriously. This was demonstrated in a move whereby debate at the resolution stage of a very important bill was waived by unanimous consent of the house. Unanimous consent could not have been possible unless the house leaders were in agreement and hon. members were unanimous in respect of that agreement. We have just passed without debate the resolution stage of the important bill to amend the Criminal Code, the so-called omnibus bill, in order that members may have the bill before them to study over the Christmas recess, if indeed there is to be one, and hence make a more useful contribution to the deliberations on that important piece of legislation.
Similarly, last evening we had another example of the house taking its responsibility seriously when we agreed, again by consent and after consultation, to limit debate on the resolution preceding the bill to establish a freshwater fish marketing board. We agreed to limit our debate at the resolution stage with the knowledge that we were giving up an opportunity accorded to us whereby we could have debated at great length the very serious crisis facing the groundfish industry in the Atlantic provinces. As hon. members who were present in the house know, we limited ourselves to a debate of just under two hours, I believe. We completed the resolution stage and now have the bill so that when we reconvene we can get right into the legislation. Those who are interested in the bill, the governments of the prairie provinces and others, will have a chance to see the legislation and appreciate exactly what is entailed in it.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of what can be accomplished by consultation, agreement, showing good will and being prepared to give a little in discussing the business of the house with the
December 19, 1968	COMMONS
various house leaders of the opposition parties. It is also well worth noting that this important debate on the rules was also adjourned by unanimous consent and after consultation and agreement among the house leaders of the opposition parties and the government house leader. Under our present rules it would not have been possible to adjourn the debate without this agreement. However, hon. members, taking their responsibility seriously as parliamentarians, agreed to forgo the rules whereby this debate would have had to be continued in order that Canada could fulfil an international obligation that the government had undertaken. We did that and considered the legislation dealing with anti-dumping duties. As I say, these are examples of what can be accomplished by agreement.
I have made a brief reference to the fishing industry and the very serious crisis facing that industry in Canada. Just a few weeks ago we were able, by our questions in the house, to get the government house leader to bring on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. Using that as a vehicle, we were able to have an emergency debate on the very serious problems facing the fishery of the Atlantic provinces. I raise this point because without the committee of supply, without the means to at least be able to consider some of the estimates in the house, a very useful vehicle of debate would be done away with. As a consequence, members of this house who feel it necessary to bring to the attention of the house matters which they consider of great urgency or indeed which may be in the national interest and of great national urgency would not have this traditional opportunity to bring these matters up in the committee of supply during the traditional examination of estimates or in committee of the whole house.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
As I said at the outset of my remarks, this type of deliberation is not possible under our present committee system, and if the government has its way and these rules are adopted we will not have the opportunity now accorded to us to bring up, to debate and to make speeches on matters we consider to be of national urgency and in the national interest. As a private member of the house I consider this a matter of great regret because it is a traditional right under our British parliamentary system that members can bring up grievances before granting supply to Her Majesty. This is a traditional and long fought
DEBATES	4163
Motion for Concurrence in Report for right of parliament. It is most regrettable that we will lose this tradition and this right and that we will not, in my submission, have the same opportunities in the future, if these rules are adopted, to bring up matters of great importance, great urgency and great emergency.
If these rules are adopted in their present form it is my wish and the wish of many of the hon. members who have participated in this debate that some changes be made in our committee system to make the committees more meaningful, to make them forums which would lend themselves to more meaningful examination of estimates and provide the means whereby this examination can take place. We are now used to having to meet in very limited surroundings. Sometimes committees overlap and one finds oneself having to be in two places at once. We had an instance of this during the present session when I found myself greatly interested in the deliberations of the transport and communications committee, as indeed many members from the Atlantic provinces were. On a particular day that committee was considering the estimates of the National Harbours Board and coincidentally with that meeting the committee on regional development was considering the report of the Atlantic Development Board. I raised a point of order at that time requesting that the chairman of the regional development committee bring this to the attention of the co-ordinating committee to ensure that overlapping is avoided if possible, especially on committees of interest to the same members. It is a well known fact that hon. members from the Atlantic provinces and from the other maritime areas in Canada would be greatly interested in the report of the National Harbours Board and at the same time the same hon. members would be greatly interested in the report of the Atlantic Development Board. This is one of the great weaknesses in the present committee system. It is a matter of great regret if we adopt the rules in their present form and have to refer estimates to the standing committees as they are now constituted.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) said that debates on supply estimates tend to be general speech-making events and that most of the discussion takes place on the first item. I do not quarrel with that statement because this is a well known fact. All of the well known authorities on parliament have stated that debate generally tends to take place on the first item because
4164	COMMONS DEBATES	December 19, 1968
Motion for Concurrence in Report the rule of relevancy is not so strictly applied. Thus hon. members can make far-reaching speeches, examine all aspects of the department and in so doing present their case to the committee, but in order to present their case it is necessary for them to make speeches. I find myself in agreement with the hon. member and I find nothing wrong with this procedure. Again I repeat that if these rules are adopted we will not have the opportunity to present our case in the committees of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: We will be deprived of the opportunity to present arguments building toward the investigation or interrogation of the minister or of the various departments whose estimates we are considering. I looked up one of the noted authorities on parliament, Erskine May, and in his 17th edition at page 765 he says in essence that criticism of departmental administration which usually takes place on the first item is "the real business of supply", that is, the real business of the examination of the estimates. It is the traditional practice and right of parliamentarians before granting supply to present their grievances to the house and thereby to the government and to say: Yes, we will vote you the money but before doing so we will take the opportunity accorded to us under our rules and according to the custom of parliament to present our grievances to the government. As I said, this is neither practical nor possible in the standing committees as they are now constituted.
Speaking of the committees as they are now constituted, one has only to look to the committee on transport and communications. I will not say much about it because the subject matter has been referred by an order of the house to the standing committee on privileges and elections as the result of a question of privilege. But the fact remains that because of the partisan nature of committees and because of the partisanship of the chairmen of committees the committee on transport and communications in presenting its second report to this house deliberately, in my view, left out of its report a very important resolution legally passed and adopted by the committee. One can only conclude that that resolution was left out because it was not palatable to the government. Consequently, this points up the fact that unless our committee system is changed and unless members of the opposition are recognized as having 
their full rights and responsibilities in the committees as they have in the house in the examination of estimates and the granting of supply, the referring of all the estimates to the committees as they are now constituted is nothing but a farce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the committees are given real powers, then perhaps a case can be made for a useful examination of estimates. But in saying that I would point out to the house that ours is not the congressional system. Thank God we still operate under the British parliamentary system. One must make that distinction. We do not have the enormous research facilities and the research help accorded to the committees of the United States congress. When we examine estimates in committee and interrogate witnesses in relation to those estimates we have to do the best we can as members of the house in presenting our questions knowing full well that the minister has behind him all the experts and all the substantial resources of the particular department that we happen to be investigating or whose estimates we are examining at the time. In contrast members of the U.S. congress and its committees have substantial resources assigned to them and moneys voted to them for this purpose by the House of Representatives. The committees of the United States congress do substantial work because the members of these committees are well equipped and have huge staffs to enable them to conduct useful interrogation and useful investigation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, and those hon. members who speak so highly of depriving us of our traditional right of granting supply in a committee of the whole house and referring all estimates to committees, that they bear in mind the distinct difference between our British parliamentary system and the congressionnal system in the United States. In that regard I commend the useful, very sensible and very moderate suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in opening this debate for our party, namely, that we retain at least 20 per cent of the estimates in the house and refer the remainder to committees. In that way we would still have a forum in which we could bring up matters of great urgency to the country.
In his criticism of the committee of supply the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that
December 19. 1988	COMMONS
members did not seek information but rather made speeches. Well, what is wrong with making speeches? What is wrong with having useful debate in this house? The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour spoke of the useful debate we are having now on these important rule changes. How else can we represent our constituencies? How else can we represent our provinces? How else can we usefully represent the country if we are not given the opportunity to present our views in this house?
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is bored. He does not like speeches. Pie does not like parliament for that reason. He does not like deliberative speechmaking, which is the main reason for the existence of parliament. I say to the Prime Minister. That is too bad. I say to the Prime Minister also that the government which he heads is playing with weapons that are very dangerous to the future of the country. When they start fooling around with the traditional, long fought for rights of parliament, when members are not allowed to make speeches to bring up grievances before granting supply, then they are playing with dangerous weapons. Let the Prime Minister come out and say he wants to amend the constitution and have a congressional system. Why does he not have the courage to say that instead of taking from us our rights in this house on a piecemeal basis and doing away with the very symbols of our British parliamentary system? In my view, if he has his way parliament as we know it will cease to exist and that will be a dark day for this country.
I see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) in the house. I hope he is going to participate in this debate because he was one of the most successful house leaders the government has had. I think it is a matter of regret that the hon. gentleman is not still the house leader because we would not have the problems we have today. I say that with great deference to the hon. and sometimes humble President of the Privy Council. The great problem is that he does not seem to be able to trust the other house leaders, and this is why he finds himself in trouble today.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: As one hon. member has said, basically his problem is one of communication, although he does not seem to have any trouble communicating with the committee on transport and communications.
DEBATES	4165
Motion for Concurrence in Report I believe, as do other hon. members who have participated in this debate, that our rules have to be modified; they have to be reformed. Nobody will quarrel with that statement. Our rules have to be reformed from time to time and brought up to date to make sure that our institution of parliament relates to the needs of the day. Yet I say we should not tinker with the basic rights of members of the house. Generally speaking, I think the proposed changes, especially those in 16-A and the proposal to take all the estimates out of the committee of supply, go far beyond the necessary reforms needed to bring parliament up to date and make it relate to the present day.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, when you take away from this house its deliberative function, when you take away from this house the right of private members to stand up and bring their grievances before the government, you weaken this institution to the point where it will some day disappear before our eyes. When that happens we will probably have government by directive. Let us abolish parliament altogether. Why bother going through first and second readings of bills, the committee stage, and so on? Why not do away with parliament entirely if the Prime Minister does not like it? He has a majority.
Why does the Prime Minister not come out and say: I have no use for this institution, so let us abolish it and have government by directive? This is the kind of government there is in the Soviet countries, in countries where there are dictatorships of either the extreme right or left. This is what we had in my own province of Newfoundland. We had government by directive when our constitution was suspended in 1933. We had a dictatorship imposed upon us by Britain. Our people had no say. We had government by directive, and as a consequence of that we came into confederation 50 years behind the other maritime provinces. This was the result of not having a parliament. Our people had no voice in the affairs of our province. I feel very strongly on this subject because I grew up in Newfoundland not knowing what the institution of parliament was. My people had no vote and they had no parliament to represent them. They had no place to present their grievances except by direct petition to the Queen at Westminster. Now this government is tinkering with the very thing of which we were deprived, our right to stand in this house and present our grievances to the government before granting supply.
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said debates on the estimates tend to be general speeches and most discussion takes place on the first item. As I have said, I do not quarrel with that statement. There should be discussion on the first item. Members of parliament are responsible in their examination of the estimates. They do not want to bog down ministers and departmental officials on each item; they want to present their case before asking their questions. The best opportunity to do this is the debate on the first item.
I hope that the government will be imbued with the spirit of Christmas. I hope that the President of the Privy Council will pretend for a moment that he is Santa Claus and not Ebenezer Scrooge-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Tiny Tim.


James Aloysius McGrath: -that he will be a little more conciliatory, that he will be prepared to give slightly and in return the opposition parties will also be prepared to give a little. In that way we will get the rules approved.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just taken his seat for introducing me to the house, and I gladly accept his invitation to participate in this very important debate. I had the honour of being a member of the committee which presented this report during part of its deliberations, and in the last parliament of Canada I had the honour of being the chairman of the special committee that presented a number of reports to parliament, the recommendations contained in which have been incorporated in part in this report that we have been debating. I want to congratulate the members of the committee, especially the chairman, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) for the leadership that he gave the committee, for producing the reports under the rather stringent time schedule that we all wanted to have.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Personally, I believe that the changes that will be made in the rules as a result of the adoption of these reports will strengthen the House of Commons and make the institution more meaningful to the Canadian people. It is because of that view that I support the major conclusions of the report. Indeed, they will make the Canadian House of Commons more British. If the hon. member who has just taken his seat thanks God, as he did, for

living under the British parliamentary system, then he ought to encourage his group to do in the Canadian parliament the things that have been done in the British parliament to make it more effective and meaningful.
I was a member of a committee that visited Westminster and conferred with a number of British leaders. The government house leader, Right Hon. Richard Crossman, told us bluntly that we were living under 19th century rules of procedure. He said to us: "You are way back where we were in the last century". That is what the British government house leader told us when we visited that country earlier this year.
What has struck me as a student of the Canadian rules is the inner conservatism of Canadian parliamentarians. All through our existence so far it has been very difficult to get members of parliament to change the rules. This conservatism has been deeply embedded in the mentality of Canadian members of parliament in all parties. What we are now doing in these reports is to take a very big step as a result of having failed over the years to take the many smaller steps that could have been taken to modernize and update our rules.
These changes will strengthen the house in a number of ways. They will give an entirely new status to the standing committees because the standing committees will be entrusted with the detailed examination of the estimates and will also have a new role in the examination of public bills. We cannot manage the committees on the cheap any more as we have in the past. I look to the day when the committee system will be entrusted with even greater responsibilities, when private members of parliament through the committee system will have a greater opportunity to participate in the parliamentary process. This will be good for parliament.
These changes will also give the house a greater opportunity to debate broad policy issues. Under the proposed changes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will have an opportunity that a leader of the opposition never has had before in the history of this parliament. He will be able to bring forward policy issues in a series of motions that he can introduce with notice and have debated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
not only the Leader of the Opposition.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In this instance I am making a special appeal to the Leader of the
December 19, 1968

Opposition. So often have we complained in this house that we do not have an opportunity as much as we would like to debate the great policy issues of the day. But now this will be possible. On the report stage on public bills, also, there will be an opportunity for members to focus attention on amendments and induce debate in a way that has not been possible in the past.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Provided you do not cut it off under 16a.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These debates will
strengthen the House of Commons.
In addition, the adoption of these rules will make a great contribution by giving this parliament the image that it so badly needs of order and organization. These rules will be tougher on the government, on any government of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members may hesitate to accept that, but the order, regularity and programming that are envisaged in these rules will present obligations to a government to plan its legislation in a way that has never been the case before in the Canadian parliament. So on that score hon. members ought to welcome them.
I do not intend to belabour my belief in parliament as a free institution. We had a great example of this the other day in the British house when the views of one million petitioners were presented to the British commons in whisky cartons in regard to the potential disbanding of the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders regiment. I must say that had I been a member of the British Commons I would have applauded that particular petition, but I do not want to go farther and perhaps be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of another country.
I want to deal specifically with a bald assertion that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is the most important assertion that has been made in this debate either inside or outside the house. In the Globe and Mail for December 17 the Leader of the Opposition is quoted as follows:
"No government in the free world has the power which is being sought by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau through changes in the rules governing the operation of parliament", Opposition Leader Robert Stanfield said yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition said that no government in the free
Motion for Concurrence in Report world has the power which the government of Canada is now seeking. That statement is simply inaccurate. The Globe and Mail for December 18, in a story headlined "Liberals Ready To Tarnish Nation To Get Rule Changes, Tory says", has this to say:
Mr. Stanfield was in Toronto to attend the inaugural meeting of the Toronto Conservative forum ... created to provide the national leader and the federal caucus with advice on policy matters-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I wish they would activate that group and get some advice about what is happening in the mother of parliaments, the British parliament, the parliament upon which the hon. member for St. John's East has drawn the blessings of God this very afternoon. The government in that parliament has had at its disposal a power not identical in every feature to the power being sought here, because of the various differences in rules, but which in principle is almost exactly similar to the power sought by this rule change, and I will demonstrate this if I do nothing else in this debate. I wish to quote from an article in the Parliamentary Affairs of 1958, since hon. members will regard what it says as more authoritative than a statement from a Liberal minister. It reads as follows:
When the House of Commons makes an allocation of time order, it may provide that each stage shall close at a stipulated time, or it may allocate a definite number of sittings, of the standing committee or committee of the whole house, as the case may be, to the committee stage, the report stage and the third reading.


Gerald William Baldwin: For one measure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Exactly. For one measure. The hon. member is quite right. But I will show that it has been used on more than one measure in the British house. That is the precise power that is available to the British government, and to say that no government in the free world has this power is ridiculous and unfair to this debate and unfair to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The article goes on to say:
Some changes of detail have been made in the application of the timetable procedure since 1945.
Previously time tables had only been applied on the floor of the house. Then they were applied by the labour government to standing committees. The Tory party in opposition opposed that change but when they
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report came into office they perpetuated it and carried it into practice.
An hen. Member: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition says, "Why, this is closure in advance, something new and unheard of. No free government has it."


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Right.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let us consider what the British do.


Martial Asselin: But we are Canadians. We are not British.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Absolutely.


Martial Asselin: That is what I say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Absolutely. We are
Canadians. I am only meeting the point that has been raised.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, the minister is not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am meeting the point that no government in the free world has this power.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: None has the power being asked for here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall therefore continue reading from the article to explain the theory behind British practice:
The assumption was that the government should produce to the house, as evidence of the need for a timetable, references to slow progress already made.
The Leader of the Opposition says and hon. members say, "Well, let us get on with it, let us have the flow of legislation and then, if we hold you up, you can apply closure. But do not do any timetabling or programming in advance." The British say:
We know that the opposition intends to resist this bill as hard as it possibly can, and it will certainly be necessary to have a timetable if the discussion is to be completed within a reasonable time. Therefore it is better to have the whole of the proceedings covered by the timetable, so that the. business sub-committee can make the most satisfactory distribution of time for the whole of the bill, rather than to wait until perhaps a quarter of the committee's time has been consumed on the first clause, and then be obliged to restrict unduly the debate on the later parts of the bill.
I want to demonstrate now how this has been used. In my hand I have an excerpt from British Hansard for 1954, when the time table motion was put before the house by the
[Mr MacEachen.]
then minister of housing and local government. And who was he? Later he became the right hon. Harold MacMillan, prime minister of Great Britain. He brought in his bill; he brought in his motion; he put a timetable down for the committee stage; he put a timetable down for the debate on report and he put a timetable down on the third reading in advance. Second reading was not included. I will come back to that later. He made a marvelous speech in defence of this timetable motion. It is so delightful that I will share part of it with hon. members. He said:
I have taken the precaution of looking through some of the present debates on similar occasions. They make quite interesting reading. A stranger to our proceedings might suppose that such a question would be debated as a mere matter of the most businesslike and convenient arrangement that can be devised, but, in fact, the debate scarcely ever turns on anything of the kind.
What happens is this. The right hon. and hon. members who find themselves for the moment in opposition are filled with an extraordinary devotion to the principles of constitutional government, to the free rights of members, to the long historic struggle of parliament against the executive, to the cause for which Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold. But when, with the allhealing flow of time, these same members find themselves upon the government benches, they become comparatively immune to these high-flown sentiments. They are influenced by the urgent necessity which every government feels to carry through their parliamentary business with some relation to the calendar and to the march of events.
That is what the prime minister of Great Britain said. Nobody could put it better than the former Tory prime minister of Great Britain put it as he placed before the British house a timetable on every section of the bill. It was a timetable in advance.


Gerald William Baldwin: Read what the Liberal leader said in reply to that. I defy you to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The speech continues with these words:
They abandon these elevated principles, or at least they mute the shrill strings of protestation.
We have heard a good many shrill strings of protestation from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Leader of the Opposition who have expressed lofty sentiments in this debate. The prime minister of Great Britain in his speech talks about the government becoming the opposition and about the opposition becoming the government. He says:
When in office, of course, they represented the guillotine as a merciful, convenient and lenient method of procedure. When they are out of office then the full horrors of the axe dominate their thought and inspire their oratory. Yet, by a strange
December 19. 1968
parallel, although the victims have to make the right kind of noises as they are drawn to the scaffold, when the axe falls, as we all know it must, nobody is more pleased than they are.
I want to take the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the scaffold.
It is a wonderful speech. Then the question came to a vote, and this is even more interesting because we may see who voted for the extinction of the British parliament, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition. Among those who voted to extinguish freedom of speech, fair discussion and parliamentary rights were the right hon. Sir Winston Churchill, the right hon. Anthony Eden and Mr. Edward Heath. Is the Leader of the Opposition trying to put over to the Canadian people that he has a better appreciation, a more sensitive understanding of the workings of parliamentary democracy-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In Canada, yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -than Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden or the present leader of the Tory party? Is he trying to sell a bill of goods that this government is asking for a power that is unheard of-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -a power that has been exercised by every British leader and that ought to have been in effect in this parliament a long time ago? I do not want to be unfair to hon. members. I want to deal with the Labour party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before he cuts my head off?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: Say a prayer for him before he goes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In 1947 the Lord Privy Seal, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, moved a time allocation order on two bills at the same time. They were the town and country planning bill and the transport bill-two bills in the same time allocation order. He put down the standing committee, the resolution, the report stage and the third reading. It was carried, and among those great defenders of British parliamentary democracy, for which we are thanking God this afternoon, who supported
Motion for Concurrence in Report the guillotine, the extinction of British democracy, of free debate, of the free institution of parliament, were the right hon. Clement Attlee, James Callaghan, Barbara Castle, Richard Crossman, an intimate of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) -


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -one of his British cronies, Richard Crossman, the government house leader at present. So it is-


Gerald William Baldwin: Those were related measures, the same debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There may be differences in detail between the British practice and our proposal but they have the same substance, the same principle. Will you accept the British proposal?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, no; not necessarily for Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Here is the U.K. standing order. Show me in this standing order anything that is similar.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have always enjoyed reading the Globe and Mail but it was particularly interesting today to read what was described as a conversation between George Bain and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It was described as a conversation but it read to me like a monologue. I guess the hon. member took George some place and told him the facts of life. He said, "Imagine, George, they tried to get us to accept that we take only one day on second reading. Just imagine. They asked us to conjure up in our imaginations the notion of one day on second reading." And then the hon. member said, "We scotched that"-a great triumph for parliament democracy.
I would like the hon. member to take a look at the British house. They, as a matter of course, take one day on second reading of every bill. They put the motion down and it is finished that day. I say every bill. I could find only two bills that took more than one day. I have here the time taken on second reading of all their bills in 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The bills range over every possible activity of British interest-foreign affairs, welfare, everything in one day. That is the British system. Thank God for the British parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

4170	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Would that my hon.
friends would agree to one day on second reading of all our bills in this house, but we are not asking that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Do you think a federal system is different?


Gerald William Baldwin: They bring in intelligent bills in the United Kingdom.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My hon. friends are
finding it very difficult to defend their position intellectually.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have not proposed in rule 16-A that only one day be spent on second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
might be one hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Take the Criminal Code bill, for example. It is an important bill. If that bill were in the British house it would take a day on second reading, that is all. We do not propose that. Certainly this government would not propose one day for second reading. It would propose more days on second reading.


Gerald William Baldwin: How many? Tell us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Here you have days on second reading, much more freedom than you would be offered if you were a member of the mother of parliaments. Here there are longer discussions on second reading. Then the criminal law bill will go to a standing committee. How much time will you have there? It may be weeks, months, and yet you are talking about the gag and the end of free speech. Then under the proposals made last Friday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) we could only put a motion down for second reading and the committee stage. That would give weeks of exposure to the bill. You could worry it to death in the standing committee. It could take weeks there. Then it comes back, the amendments are proposed under our new procedures, and a new allocation order is put down for the report stage and the third reading.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to deal with any questions when I complete my remarks.
This proposal of ours, Mr. Speaker, has been misrepresented. It has been stated to be

DEBATES	December 19, 1968
a unique development. It is not. It is a matter of course in the parliament to which my hon. friends refer. We are trying to utilize, as it must be utilized, the process of consultation, and that is the best way. It is always used in the British house and we have a provision in 16-A that there will be consultation, that there will be a sincere and genuine effort to arrive at a negotiated, an agreed time limit. When cases arise when opposition parties are so opposed to a bill that they will not agree to a time period of any kind, when the process of consultation breaks down, then the government will not go into some closet and pass an order in council. It will come to the parliament of Canada saying, "We are making a proposal. Will you support it or will you reject it?" And hon. members on all sides of the house will be asked to utilize their judgment. We on this side of the house are members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems that hon. members opposite think, in the most arrogant way, that the only true representatives of the people of Canada are sitting in the opposition. All the members of this parliament will have an opportunity to say yes or no to any motion put down by the house leader and they will be able to debate it. They will be able to debate it for two hours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can we have order in the house?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When the British had the old guillotine rule, when Harold MacMillan, for example, put down his time allocation on his bill his order had to be debated for a day.
Well, they changed that in the British house last December. The right hon. Michael Stewart introduced a motion for a change in the standing orders, producing a new standing order, 43A, which cuts down the time of the debate from a day to two hours because they all said, you know, that spending a day in debate on a time allocation order is really not a very sensible use of the time of parliament. That is the new rule, 43A, that was introduced in Britain last December. Under it the minister makes a motion. He can propose the allocation of time in his motion for the committee stage and his motion authorizes the business committee to allocate the time on the
December 19. 1968	COMMONS
report stage and the third reading. The business committee on a bill then meets. The business committee has a government majority. It is made up of the chairman's panel and five members nominated by Mr. Speaker. When the committee puts down its resolution the standing order provides that it will be forwarded on without debate. That is the British system which had been adopted not in the middle age, not in some murky period of the past, but in December, 1967.
Michael Stewart put the case in the British house, I thought, as well as anybody possibly could put it. He said:
The heart of this whole matter is-and it has been going on for quite a time in the history of the house-the effort to reconcile the two principles essential to democracy. The first of the two principles that are essential is that after proper discussion the majority shall be able to get their own way. The second principle is that the minority shall have a fair opportunity to express their view with vigour so that it may attract interest and support in the country as well as in the house itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what Michael Stewart said. The second principle is that the minority shall have a fair opportunity to express their view with vigour so that it may attract interest and support in the country as well as in the house itself. I subscribe to those principles, the two essential principles. In putting his motion on the order paper-the revised guillotine-and having it debated Michael Stewart expressed the two principles that every member of parliament must feel. The majority must have its way and there must be adequate discussion. Now, listen to this: They adopted this changed time allocation order in one day. They grappled with this issue in one day of debate. They put up their speakers from both sides and at the end of the day they voted and it carried.


Gerald William Baldwin: They fixed the day by
agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They carried on by tradition. As my hon. friend knows, a motion is usually carried on the day it is debated in the British house.


Gerald William Baldwin: By agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I ask members of parliament in Canada to remember that a year ago the British dealt with the very issue we are dealing with now and did so in one day.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is the reason they are so frustrated.
DEBATES	4171
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And we hear it said that this is an undemocratic government. Well, I think hon. members will understand for themselves the reason behind the British system. In the fourth report of the committee in the last session it was recommended that we take a look at the British system. The new committee took a look at it, and not a little look. I was in favour of the British system. I believe it is a good system. It has gone on for a long long time and has worked pretty well. The article from which I quoted concludes by saying that this rule has not destroyed or impaired free speech. It is still there for hon. members to examine.
If hon. members think the British practice is better than 16-A then they can look at it, but we on this side think there is an essential principle here. It is a principle that has been stated by Michael Stewart, by Harold Macmillan and, in a less definite way, by Canadian parliamentarians who say that at a certain time a decision must be taken.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just as we all do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But we do not admit that the opposition should have the right to determine the pace of public business. That is what is being put forward in this debate; that is it, that the opposition should determine the pace of public business. We do not accept that. We accept the principle that hon. members of this house should have an opportunity to express views on a public bill. Tell me how that is denied when a bill will receive second reading, when it will go to a committee for a period of weeks or months and then will come back on a second order for report stage and third reading. Remember this: If the good will that is now issuing forth from hon. members is genuinely based, then it will be only in a rare case of a breakdown that we will have to resort to this exceptional procedure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When it suits you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And in the case of a breakdown it will be put to a vote. I should like to refer again to what Michael Stewart said in the British house last year. He said:
One could not run a parliament without an ultimate sanction to prevent the minority preventing the majority from getting their way.
That was not stated by a Liberal in this house. It was stated by a labour minister in the British house last December, a house we are thanking God we have. So let us not have the argument that this is something alien to
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report parliamentary democracy; it certainly is not. We are trying to put order into the legislative process through 16-A.
We should be able certainly to deal with the question before us today quickly and now. I do not know what the objections of the opposition are to 16-A. They have stated now they do not believe the minority has an ultimate right to rule the majority. They have stated that now, so that is not the foundation of their objection. Do they believe that the purpose of an opposition is to obstruct? Do they believe that the purpose of an opposition is to do everything possible to prevent the government getting its business done?


Mr. Crouse:: That is what Jack Pickersgill told us in 1958.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely, with the increase in the work load which a modern parliament must face, most members will insist that that view of an opposition is outmoded and should be dismissed and rejected.
A third possible foundation for their objection is that they believe 16-A as now drawn could be used to rush bad bills through the house or that it could be used to put bills through the house before the opposition had an opportunity to put the torch to the heather. That is what they say they believe. If they mean what they say, then this debate can soon end. We can meet them easily on this point. We can meet them easily because the purpose of 16-A has nothing whatever to do with rushing bills through. If they do not mean what they say and if in truth their objections are founded on a belief in the rule of obstruction, then we on the government side cannot meet their point of view.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are being ridiculous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of the house that the minister's time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could the minister have additional time so that we might have an opportunity to ask him some questions?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


An hon. Member:: Don't cut him off now.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have debated this rule change now for a number of days. The debate has centred on time allocation. It is called in the British house the allocation of time to

bills. If the opposition does not like 16-A as we have put it, would they accept the British practice in accordance with 43A? Would they accept the former British practice before 43A was introduced? Would that please them? We are not dedicated to any particular detail. When this debate began the Prime Minister said the government had not prejudged the issue, that he had an open mind and that the government had an open mind. We are saying to the opposition: Let us come to a decision before Christmas on all aspects of these reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If members opposite want to take another look at what happens in the British parliament, if they think the practice there, or a modification of it, would be better for our purposes, if they want to accept the reasonable suggestions put forward by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), suggestions which are very reasonable and helpful, and incorporate these in 16-A, we can help them on this too. We can meet them, ladies and gentlemen-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sorry. I was speaking to the press gallery and there are some ladies there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thought you were speaking to us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I say to hon. members that it is time for us to reach a decision on all aspects of these proposals except 16-A. If you want to take another look at it, we can agree to that. We are not going to push you into an intolerable position at all. We understand that this is a very important issue for parliament. It is something every member will have to live with in the future, and we regard it as serious. We say to the opposition: We want to test your sincerity of purpose. But we say also we are resolved that this government shall carry out the mandate it received from the Canadian people to put order into the business of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No amount of speaking will alter that position. If you want to send 16-A back to the committee, we will consider doing so. If you want to give an instruction to the committee to consider the proposals made
December 19, 1968	COMMONS
by the Minister of Agriculture, we shall give the committee an instruction to take a look at the British system. We shall give it that kind of latitude. But we shall not agree to depart from the basic proposition that order must be put into business and that the government must have the opportunity to get its business done in an orderly and planned fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising to ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I ask it as one who hopes we can arrive at a basis for programming the work of parliament. My question is in two parts. First, with respect to the fundamental changes which were made in the rules at Westminster last December, will the minister tell us whether those changes were brought in by the government or whether they were thrashed out in an all-party committee and presented by that committee after substantial agreement had been reached?
My second question is: Would the hon. gentleman take the time of the house, and I am sure it will be given to him, to explain to us the role of that human being at Westminster who is know as "usual channels" and the part played by him in helping to reach agreement among the various parties in the house before these allocations of time are made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the motion to which I referred was a government motion. It was moved by a minister and it was opposed on a vote by a certain number of members. So I cannot regard it as being a unanimous proposal from a committee.
As to the "usual channels" in Britain, the hon. member is as familiar with the useful role that this person plays in negotiating and planning as I am. I believe personally that the consultative process in this house could be strengthened if we took a good look at the way in which it functions in Britain. The consultative process there works very well. When it breaks down they revert to the allocation of time proposal, and British democracy is still pretty sturdy and healthy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
the light of what the minister has said, is the government willing to consider, as part of a new look at this matter, the establishment of an independent person, an honest broker so
DEBATES	4173
Motion for Concurrence in Report that we might reach agreement rather than have a rule in which there is resort to compulsion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not had an opportunity to consult with my colleagues on this point, but I think we would be quite ready to consider any proposal of that kind.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I also ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood that these questions can be asked only if the minister is prepared to receive them.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is so. But I believe the house had this in mind when it gave the hon. gentleman extra time. The minister has made a gesture toward what could be a useful settlement, and as negotiation seems to be out in the open at this stage may I ask whether it will be the intention of the government, supposing 16A were referred back to the committee, that there would be specific recommendations to the committee? In that case, would the minister consider including in those recommendations a direction that the proceedings committee and the house should not be asked to consider a number of measures without unanimous agreement in advance of the introduction of those measures to the stage at which we would know what was involved? Would he also let us know if he has in mind that the house would not be asked to agree to allocation of time with respect to any one single measure until that measure had progressed to a stage at which the house knew what was involved in it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: These go far to being fundamental questions and I certainly would want some considerable time to think about them and to refer them to my colleagues, particularly to the leader of the house. What I am really saying is: let us take a decision. I am not asking hon. members opposite to agree to all the proposals. Let us take a decision this week before we go on everything else, and take a look at 16a. I have made specific proposals that the committee be instructed to consider and report upon the amendments of the Minister of Agriculture, and on the British experience. The British practice gives you a pretty wide look.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It blocks you right in. You haven't got a chance, and you know it.
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member lor Osh-awa-Whitby on a question. The hon. member for Charlevoix. I would not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I did not understand clearly whether he was rising for the purpose of asking a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
wants to make a speech.


John Edward Broadbent: No, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Charlevoix.
tTranslation]
Kon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, since I have come to this house, I have always listened religiously to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) who this afternoon, made a very spirited speech basing his thesis on British traditions.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against British traditions, but when the minister-and the government-use them to further their own thesis for electioneering purposes, as we witnessed this afternoon on the part of certain members on the government side-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we could have a little quiet in the chamber so we may hear the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, when the members of the government take it upon themselves to trample down British traditions with a view to getting votes, as a Liberal member did this afternoon, by proposing that the word "Canada" be substituted to the word "Dominion"-to which I have no objection- under the pretext that it is another British vestige, I say that this is going too far.
During the debate I asked the hon. minister to make a speech as a Canadian but he preferred to refer to British traditions. However,
I find some consolation in the fact that, at long last, the government has decided to be reasonable, which doubtless proves that the presence of the opposition in the house is useful and necessary. Had we, on this side of the house, accepted off-hand the changes to the rules proposed by the government, we would not have heard the minister tell us: We are willing to negotiate, to discuss, because the arguments you have brought up in the last

few days on rule 16(A) seem reasonable to us. To my mind, that is one vital argument in favour of the usefulness of an opposition that is willing to prove its usefulness by watching over the government.
Of course, I am not authorized to accept the offers the minister made on behalf of the government, but our parliamentary leader expected the leader of the government to meet the other leaders in the house to come to an agreement. Once more, I repeat that if today the government made a proposal in an attempt to agree on clause 16(A), and if we accept various proposed reforms to standing orders, it is because the opposition was vigilant and because, since the start of this debate, it has not stopped telling the government, day after day, that under rule 16(A), the government was attempting to gag the opposition and trample down the basic principles of democracy.
I am very pleased that, as a result of our representations, the minister has shown himself ready to engage in a dialogue that might lead to an agreement.
The minister tells us: Consider us as reasonable men. That does not mean that we will allow only one hour for a bill such as the omnibus bill. But what guarantee do we have that the government will give a reasonable amount of time to the opposition to examine important bills introduced in the house?
Of course, the minister who is now leaving did not mention the fact that the House of Commons in London has already gone through an experience similar to that which we lived ourselves last February when the government held on to office, refused to resign and said to the house: We are the masters of the house, we will lead it in spite of the opposition's representations.
In fact, when dealing with a government that makes such statements in the house, I think the opposition is allowed to question the good faith of the leader and the members of the government when they tell us that they will be reasonable when applying rule 16A.
Mr. Speaker, I think we will never repeat often enough in this house-and we, as members of the official opposition, have said it many times-that we are in favour of parliamentary reform. In fact, we have been for it since 1964. At this time, I must say that the members of the Progressive Conservative party who sat on the special committee on procedure received from the caucus broad and definite instructions to accept whatever reasonable reforms the government wanted to suggest to the house.
December 19, 1S68	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the government for being more reasonable today and ready to negotiate with us. I should like also to congratulate the members of our party and the other opposition parties which, day after day, sat on this committee and made proposals which might settle definitely some problems which we, on this side of the house, wanted to see settled in the house.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As we said from the beginning, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration agreed with us this afternoon, when he wondered about the efficiency rule 16A. When he asks us whether we want to negotiate so that the provisions of rule 16A would come again before the house, I will point out to him that my leader presented this request when he initiated the debate on the motion. When the leader of the Conservative party asked that the provisions of our standing orders which we could not agree to be referred to a committee, he was speaking on the same line as did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration this afternoon.
Of course, we are not so stubborn that we will refuse to negotiate, but I say in advance that the Progressive Conservative party will negotiate with due regard for the rights and privileges of members. The question is not for us to accept any compromise, but to accept a compromise which is acceptable not only to government members but to all members of the house. The government will then understand that rule 16-A was merely a provision enabling the government in advance to prevent members from deciding on important matters.
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that the minister recognized this afternoon the usefulness of an opposition in parliament. We had the impression that this government, under the provisions of rule 16-A, wished to establish, in this parliament, a unitary government where decisions could be reached as quickly as possible. Yet we know that it takes a long time before the people are acquainted with a new act passed by the house. And rule 16-A gives the government the power, the authority, to say simply, through its house leader: We will discuss this measure during two hours, and then we will take the vote.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker-and that is a constitutional matter-that the majority in this house should have the right to decide. That is obvious, but authority in this house should be exercised with understanding, without arrogance and with a willingness to co-operate with other groups in the house, 29180-264
DEBATES	4175
Motion for Concurrence in Report instead of being exercised as it has been since the beginning of this session, by driving hon. members to the wall and telling them: You will accept what we propose, or else we will take the vote and crush the minority. Of course, the government can do that, and it is in that sense that the leader of the Progressive Conservative party was speaking when he said that rule 16A was giving the government powers which no other democratic country had yet received. That is the reason why the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) urged the government to be more reasonable, more understanding and to start a dialogue with the various opposition parties, in order that rule 16A may be reconsidered.
If the government wants to, I believe that we, on this side of the house, will get together to consider the government proposals, and if they are reasonable, we are ready to cooperate for, as I said a while ago, we are in favour of parliamentary reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that the government could take advantage of its majority, as this is in accordance with the constitution and many ways are available to do so. It has often been said during this debate that the government could make use of its power to apply the rule of closure. It is obvious that this rule did not always enjoy very great popularity with the Canadian people, but it is a weapon the government can use whenever the opposition becomes unreasonable in the course of discussions and lengthen debates needlessly.
I would not object if the government, deciding that the opposition was taking up too much of the time of the house, were to apply closure, as preceding governments have done. However, there is another alternative, which was mentioned this afternoon. There could be a meeting between the leaders of the different parties and being men of good will, we could agree on the order of business and the time to be allowed for the discussion of bills introduced in this house.
However, Mr. Speaker, rule 16A would give the government house leader absolute power. He could simply tell the house: Today, we will consider an amendment to the Criminal Code which is very important, but we only have so much time in which to discuss it.
We suggested that the committee of house leaders should have their word to say in the programming of the business of the house and that the decisions should be taken by the majority of members.
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
By insisting on rule 16A the government seems to consider us as people intent on filibustering. That is how the government has decided to consider the members of the opposition.
However, Mr. Speaker, as several of my colleagues have said, since the beginning of the session, I do not think that any party has been more co-operative than ours with the government. I see that a government member seems to have some doubts but I suggest to him that he should read Hansard to note that we asked the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to be shortened.
We passed important laws without discussion. Yesterday again we passed the antidumping legislation. I think that our discussion was reasonable and did not go beyond the limits that can be imposed on the members of the opposition. I think that we have co-operated in model fashion and, for that reason, I assume that rule 16-A is unacceptable, anti-democratic and would give almost dictatorial power to a government member who could conduct the business of the house as he saw fit.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we co-operated with the government but, from time to time, we also refused to when, in our opinion, it introduced measures which were not in the common interest of the Canadian people.
I think that if my colleagues of the government in office had the chance to speak as freely as we have, they would have been the first to criticize the government when it put an end to the winter works program, which resulted in a substantial increase in unemployment in the province of Quebec.
They would have been the first also to oppose an increase in postal rates and the levying by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) of a 2 per cent social development tax on personal income tax.
They would also have been the first to object to an uncompromising and inflexible attitude on the part of the government in federal-provincial relations.
Mr. Speaker, we do not approve the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and that of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I am sorry about that, because the President of the Privy Council is very friendly, socially; but in the house, he is completely transformed:	he then becomes
obstinate, arrogant and seems to want to make fun of the opposition. Naturally, we

cannot approve the arrogance of the President of the Privy Council, nor the way in which he has tried to impose his views on parliament since the beginning of this session. If, in addition, we were to agree that the powers mentioned in rule 16A should be granted the government, we would be setting up a dictatorship. We do not want the President of the Privy Council to be called a dictator by hon. members, and he will understand that by refusing to grant the powers mentioned in rule 16A, we are giving him invaluable help.
What guarantee can the government offer the opposition that no limit will be set on our debates? I said, when I started my remarks, that last February the right honourable Prime Minister of Canada, then Minister of Justice, had risen in this house and in the heat of the argument had dropped this phrase: "Nous sommes les maitres de la Chambre". We are the masters of this house.
Mr. Speaker, considering the words of the right honourable Prime Minister and the kind of thinking they reveal, how can anyone expect us to give the government the powers which rule 16A would confer? It would mean that the opposition agrees to be gagged and deprived of the role assigned to it by the standing orders of the house, and by the Canadian people when they voted for the members of the opposition. The government should remember that even though it was victorious last June, the parties of the opposition still got more than 42 per cent of the popular vote, that they represent part of the population, and that their opinions must be expressed, not in committees but in the house. We are here to fight for an important sector of the Canadian electorate, which entrusted us with the mandate of watching and scrutinizing the actions of the government.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that we have decided, that if negotiations on rule 16A do not come to a satisfactory settlement, we will fight for the survival of the basic principles of democracy, despite the attitude of the government. Therefore, the debate will be pursued until the government is reasonable and proposes a solution likely to clear up the imbroglio where it finds itself by refusing to give up rule 16A and by persisting in enforcing a continued guillotine to the debates of this house, as rule 16A would permit.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we do waste time in parliament, and it is necessary to revise
December 19, 1968	COMMONS
our rules. But that does not mean, for example, that, under the pretext of improving procedure, the rights of the opposition should be restricted to the point of rendering it practically useless. The very reason for the existence of the opposition, and its only weapon, lies in the fact that it can sometimes force the government to re-examine its bills, amend or even suspend them, if we consider them to be inadvisable or harmful to the Canadian people.
That was the goal we set ourselves when we decided to fight rule 16A to the finish and ask the government to allow the house to consider a third, or 20 or 25 per cent at least, of the estimates, so that we may discuss and examine publicly the estimates which the government intends the house to vote.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the name of common sense that the newspapers of the country have espoused our cause. If this debate had taken place in committee, the newspapers of the country would not have had the opportunity to follow it as they did here nor to have a rather exact opinion about the debate. It is because of the support of the press and radio that this afternoon the government agreed to dialogue and to negotiate with us.
However, the mass media which are always on the lookout for any move on the part of the government represent a weapon which must continue to exist. And the best way to keep the public well informed about what is happening in the House of Commons is not to sit in committee. How can we expect the newspapermen, in one day, to cover five or six committees all sitting at the same time?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The major decisions are taken by parliament which is the supreme court of the nation, where we study, examine and pass legislation which is very important because it sometimes restricts the freedom of individuals and the people. Consequently, it is publicly, in this house, that the fate of the government must be discussed.
The press is a means of exerting pressure and if it had supported the government since the beginning of this debate, it is quite possible that the latter, with its majority, would have taken the necessary measures to apply closure and pass the amendments to the standing orders as proposed by the chairman of the committee on procedure. It is because the press fought on our side that the government decided to be reasonable and to negotiate.
29180-264J
DEBATES	4177
Motion for Concurrence in Report
Speaking of the press, Mr. Speaker, all the newspapers have supported our point of view, but there is one, in my opinion, which has been quite explicit about the matter. It is Le Devoir of Montreal, which is quite objective. In its issue of December 18, 1968, there was the following article entitled: "A Threat to the Freedom of Parliament", and I quote:
The new formula proposed by the government would enable it to have recourse constantly and regularly to a programming of debates which would be equivalent to automatic closure. For each bill or legislation, the government would decide in advance by its majority in the house that so many hours are allotted for such or such a stage and for consideration in committee. In this way, parliamentary proceedings would certainly be disciplined but the opposition could no longer play its role efficiently and would be muzzled.
The proposed rule would interfere with that essential democratic process. Our political system cannot be programmed as proposed, because that would destroy it. More flexibility must be allowed in parliamentary proceedings. The excessive power requested by the Trudeau government seems inspired by the view that the opposition will indulge in filibustering and that it must be put in a strait jacket so that parliament can operate efficiently.
But parliamentary rules must not rest on such abuses. Since he has become Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Stanfield has not shown such irresponsibility. Last year he could have toppled the Pearson government at a time when it would have greatly embarrassed the Liberals.
In view of the impressive majority he now holds, and of the attitude of an opposition led by a reasonable and moderate man, Mr. Trudeau has no excuse to gag the opposition as he plans to do.
This is the editorial of Le Devoir, signed by Paul Sauriol. I could speak to you of the editorials of the Globe and Mail and the Gazette and other papers that express the same views. I say this, in closing: Because of the pressures of mass media who have supported our cause, who have said to the government that it is senseless to impose rule 16A on parliament, and also because of the work of our leader and the members, this afternoon the government at last offered to negotiate on clause 16A.
As a member of my party, and knowing my colleagues, I am confident that offer will not be rejected, that they will deign to hear us and take our advice into consideration, to the effect that the co-ordination of the business of the House of Commons could be agreed upon in a cordial atmosphere by the various parliamentary leaders instead of allowing the government house leader to impose closure at every turn.
I think that, in this case again, we will not turn down the offer which was made to
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report us by the honourable Minister of Manpower and Immigration. We are going to consider it and if we think that it might help preserve the democratic principles whereby we can have in this house frank, sincere and loyal discussions on the bills presented to us, the government can be assured of our full cooperation in a further study of the provisions of rule 16A.
Before closing, I wish to congratulate my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative party and all the members of the opposition who, through their perseverance, have caused the members of the government to think the matter over. And if the government wants to be reasonable,-which is quite consistent with the spirit of the season-we, on our side, will prove to the government that, in the interest of the Canadian people, we are prepared to negotiate with it in order to safeguard the privileges and the rights of all honourable members.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the house for very long in saying one or two things about this debate. I am going to support the adoption of the committee's report that is before the house at the present time. May I say I have been very impressed by the tenor and high quality of the debate in the house this afternoon, particularly the magnificent speech by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). I hope that the offer he made to end the present impasse will be accepted, that the proposed rule 16A will be held in abeyance pending further study and the rest of the proposals made by the committee will be accepted and approved by the House of Commons.
A great deal has been said about the inherent danger involved in adopting the committee's report. It is said that this would present a danger to our democratic process. However, it occurs to me that a greater danger lies in failing to agree to a timetable prepared by the house leaders of the different parties, and certainly there is a danger of our leaders failing to agree to such a timetable among themselves.
Timetables for debate and for the length of such debates on government legislation presented to the house have been used by most modern democratic parliamentary institutions. This is particularly true, as has been pointed out this afternoon, in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, where such a timetable has been in operation for many years

under both Labour and Conservative administrations. There is no doubt that the development of parliamentary government is a subject of contention and controversy. Just the same, parliamentarians feel that there is need for talk on every subject that comes up for consideration. However, shortage of time does not permit us to talk for long, much less to obstruct and far less to filibuster.
Democracy cannot survive in face of obstructionist tactics on the part of elected oppositions in democratic parliaments. I am not saying that such a thing takes place in this chamber, certainly not by design or by contrivance. I have too many friends on both sides of the house to level any such accusation. Nevertheless, the danger of obstructionist, defeatist and filibustering tactics could be fatal to the democratic process in modern times, just as fatal in Canada as it could be in the United Kingdom. Is this country going to be compared with Russia, China and other countries that have no orderly democratic parliamentary practices? Good government is necessary for any nation to succeed in the world today.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We must sacrifice some of the inherited rules of practice and procedure in this House of Commons. This is not easy for us. Most of us I think want to maintain the old, traditional rules of the parliament of Canada. But in the modem world of technology I say that parliamentary reform is absolutely essential if we are not to be bypassed and if parliamentary government is to be effective. Here in Canada each of us should be thankful that we can express our views on matters of national importance. But we must be brief, we must be disciplined, and we must not overplay our individual rights and the liberty we have as members of parliament to oppose and to criticize. I fail to see why the present impasse should not be broken. In my opinion, what is asked by the President of the Privy Council is not so unreasonable. Can the opposition parties not agree to a time limit on bills that are to come before the house?


Mr. Schumacher:: Not in advance.


James Elisha Brown: Intransigence must not stand in the path of Canada's progress toward a modern and democratic set of rules and procedures in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been a knock on the door.
December 19. 1968



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill C-146, an act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping duty, without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping duty.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1969.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39-A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service -superannuated federal employees-Request for increased pensions; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), Criminal Code- Inquiry as to introduction of amending legislation; the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather), Old Age Security-Request for issuance of cheques before Christmas.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
Private Bill PRIVATE BILL


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks the incorporation of a company under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to carry on business in all classes of insurance other than life insurance. A similar bill has been introduced in previous sessions and I believe that many hon. members who are here are familiar with it. For this reason I shall keep my opening comments brief but will be happy to answer any questions that there may be with regard to the details of the bill.
The proposed company would be a subsidiary of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut. This is a respectable company which already carries on business with its affiliate, the Standard Fire Insurance Company, in all the classes of insurance for which application is being made in this bill to incorporate the new Canadian company. In brief, therefore, what this bill seeks to do is to permit this respectable and reputable group to carry on business through a Canadian incorporation rather than through the United States parent company and its affiliate.
The parent company, the Aetna Casualty Company of Hartford, has held a certificate of registry under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act of Canada for the past 49 years. It has reviewed its operations in Canada and has concluded it would be desirable for the Canadian business to be carried on by a company incorporated in Canada. That, in brief, is the object and purposes of this bill.
I think hon. members will be interested in how the company proposes to operate in Canada. Pending the establishment of the Canadian company, in order to expand its operations in Canada the parent company in September, 1966, opened an office in Toronto which is known as the head office for Canada. It is headed by a Canadian who is general manager for Canada. Canadians are also selected to head the fidelity and surety and underwriting operations for this office.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
There are presently 97 employees in this office, 71 of whom are Canadians. Of the 26 non-Canadian employees in Toronto, only 10 are United States citizens. Of the five non-Canadians in Montreal three are United

December 19, 1968
Private Bill
States citizens and of the four non-Canadians in other offices one is a United States citizen. In September 1968, an office was opened in Montreal. The head of the Toronto office is responsible for the operations of this office which numbers 41 Canadians among its 46 employees. All present employees of these two offices would become employees of the Canadian company. The parent company now has claim offices located in Quebec City, Ottawa, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. All but four of the 50 present employees in the six claim offices are Canadians and all present employees would become employees of the Canadian company.
In the two years since the Toronto office opened in September 1966, the number of employees in Canadian operations has increased from 90 to 193. Normal growth would indicate that by the end of five years employees in Canadian operations would number 450 of which at least 90 per cent would be Canadians. The Canadian company would be under the direction of the general manager for Canada who would have charge of the company's operations throughout Canada. Underwriting, sales, engineering and accounting will continue to be centralized in the head office at Toronto but, as the need becomes evident, facilities for these services will be placed in other important cities in Canada, as occurred with the opening of the Montreal office in September, 1968. Of course the experience and services of the United States company will be available for the assistance of the Canadian company.
One might ask what objection there could be to the incorporation of this company. I think perhaps the objection that would be raised is that it is intended to be a subsidiary of a United States company and that its capital will be United States capital.


Mr. Gilbert:: You are right.


Ian Grant Wahn: Yet there is no law against the incorporation of Canadian companies which are subsidiaries of United States companies. This house would have the option to pass such a law if it chose. Until such a law is passed it seems to me that these companies should be treated on the same basis as other companies and that if they are prepared to abide by our laws their incorporation should be welcomed. Capital from the United States should continue to be welcomed in Canada as long as the owners of that capital abide by our regulations and conduct themselves as good corporate citizens of Canada.

This company if incorporated will be subject to regulation by our Department of Insurance. The form of the bill of incorporation is standard. I understand there is no objection from the Department of Insurance to the incorporation of this company. I believe that probably all members of the house will agree that increased competition in the general insurance business in Canada would be an excellent thing from the point of view of the ordinary Canadian who from time to time buys insurance. This is a reputable company. The formation of a subsidiary in Canada will assist in extending its business and increasing competition in this important field and will confer positive advantages upon Canadians.
Members may be interested in the record of the company with regard to profits made in Canadian business. I have been informed it is the intention of the company to leave any underwriting profits in Canada in order to strengthen the financial structure of the Canadian company. With regard to the personnel policy I have been informed that a primary objective of the company will continue to be to employ Canadians in the management of the operation to the extent they are available. Of course nearly all clerical personnel will be Canadians.
In brief the establishment of the company or its incorporation as a Canadian company will create for Canada additional employment and additional capital funds. Additional capital is something which we need a great deal of in Canada at the present time. The parent company has stated that it looks upon the establishment of the company as an additional thrust for the already demonstrated expanding Canadian economy and as a permanent and growing part of this economy.
If there are any questions with regard to the company I will be happy to do my best to answer them. I hope it may be possible this afternoon to refer the bill to the appropriate committee where a more detailed study of the company and the proposed place of this company in Canada can be considered.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome and listened with interest to the introductory remarks of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) with regard to this bill. I think, however, with all respect and not unkindly, that there is a certain misleading element in the hon. member's remarks. This does not detract from his sincerity in presenting them, but I think there is another side of the picture which should be disclosed. I have in mind the question of a
December 19. 1968

foreign owned company meeting no objection by the Department of Insurance.
If I might be permitted to deal very briefly with the ideas expressed by the hon. gentleman, I should like to indicate to the house in what respect I do not think they are in the full sense valid reasons for accepting the proposition that we should endorse the bill. I understood the hon. member to say that foreign capital should be welcome in Canada as long as the owners of that capital obey our laws, regulations and the like. I do not even know whether the reference to obeying the law is necessary. The purpose of having laws is that they be obeyed. I would not even presume to cast any reflection on the company by suggesting it had any other intention than to obey the laws and regulations and work within them.
The assertion that foreign capital should be welcomed if the owners of that capital obey the laws of the country really begs the question of whether or not we should continue the practice of endorsing foreign capital investments in Canada to the extent that they control sections of our economy. That is the question that we should be dealing with and not whether or not they will obey the law. There is no presumption on my part or, I am sure, on the part of other hon. members that the Aetna company has any other thought than to live by our laws and regulations.
With regard to no objections having been made by the Department of Insurance, in terms of foreign control this is meaningless because Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance can do nothing else but simply look at the bill and the structure of the company in the light of the law as set out in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Mr. Humphrys has no authority to look at the matter of foreign ownership with regard to whether it is good, bad, or otherwise. Simply to say that the bill should be passed because the Superintendent of Insurance has given it his stamp of approval is not really a valid argument for passing the bill. Mr. Humphrys is a public servant and, like many other people in the Public Service of Canada, assiduous as he is he simply follows the narrow letter of the law which guides him. He has no authorization to step outside those bounds.
In fact, I am rather surprised that Mr. Humphrys permits himself to be used as an advocate of some kind in respect of some of these companies when he appears before the committee. In many cases, and this one is no
Private Bill
exception, Mr. Humphrys would appear to be the advocate of the company itself because he is the one who presents all the reasons and provides all the answers and explanations in respect of how the company intends to operate and what it intends to do, while the officers of the company who appear before the committee often say relatively little. This, I think, is a pity. The officers and lawyers representing these companies sit in the background and let Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, carry the ball for them in presenting the case.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Perhaps it is because this happens that the hon. member for St. Paul's argues that this bill should be endorsed on the ground that Mr. Humphrys supports it or has no objection to it. Possibly it is the procedure followed in the committee, which seems to imply that Mr. Humphrys is the president of some of these companies and is defending their position and asking for support that is responsible. I hope Mr. Humphrys will continue to be a witness before the committee but that he will confine his remarks to the relation between the proposed bill and the public law. I also hope that members of the committee will confine their questions to this simple relationship, and that the officers of these companies will reply to questions concerning the directors and so on and not leave Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, to carry the ball for them.
This bill was considered by the banking and commerce committee of the Senate on October 23 of this year. Mr. Humphrys was there, together with officers representing Aetna, and certain questions were asked about a subject which in my view is the fundamental aspect with which we should be concerned here, namely, the degree of foreign ownership involved.
As an aside, perhaps I can say that once again evidence was given relating to the number of people working in the different offices of the company, the number who were Canadians and the number who were not Canadians. But this information is not material to the point I have in mind. It does not really matter whether 100 per cent of the employees in the company's Canadian operation are Canadian citizens. It is still someone in Hartford, Connecticut, who is calling the shots and making the decisions. Even if all the people in the Canadian offices were born and raised in Canada, even if they

December 19, 1968
Private Bill
were all good Canadian citizens, it would not matter as much as a pinch of snuft because they would be carrying out the intentions of the parent company. It is the parent company which decides policy questions.
I recognize it may make nice reading. I am sure the hon. member for St. Paul's was absolutely sincere in his representations to the effect that it is valuable to have Canadians working for the company in this way. But it is meaningless in terms of what the company will do because the people who control it are not Canadians. They do not live in this country and they have no political or other responsibilities to the nation.
In the committee on October 23 certain questions were asked and I may have to read from the record at some length in order to establish my point. Both Senator Croll and Senator Thorvaldson directed attention to the question of foreign ownership. As reported at page 45, Senator Thorvaldson said:
I think we might as well get a complete answer to Senator Croll's question. What he was wanting to know was what proportion of the share capital of the parent company which, I take it, is Aetna Casualty, is owned in Canada.
The question was answered by Mr. Clarry, counsel for the company and one of the provisional directors, if I am not mistaken. In any event, there is a Mr. Clarry who will become one of the directors. The answer was as follows:
Senator, it would be a little difficult to give a precise figure, but as Mr. Rhine has indicated, there are approximately 300 shareholders so it would be a relatively small proportion.
Mr. Rhine is a vice-president of the company. I have interpreted his answer to mean that 300 shareholders are Canadian out of approximately 25,000. The exchange continued:
Senator Thorvaldson: But that is meaningless. They might each own one share.


Mr.   Clarry@: I do not think we have the precise relationship with regard to the number of shares.
In other words, he did not know.
Senator Thorvaldson: I am talking about the percentage of money.


Mr.   Clarry@: That is, of the shareholdings of the parent company?
Senator Thorvaldson: Yes.
We now have an intervention by Mr. Rhine who is, as I have said, a vice president of this company and a big wheel in its affairs. He said:
X understand your question, but I am afraid X cannot answer it. You are asking how many dollars of value is represented by these some 300 shareholders. Is that not what you are asking?

The record continues:
Senator Thorvaldson: Yes, what I am wanting is the percentage of Canadian ownership in this company. I ask that question because I think it is something you will meet in the other house and I am trying to help you a little bit.
That is the understatement of the day, Mr. Speaker. He went on:
It is also, I think, something we should know since the other house has made an issue of this very point.
In other words, until now the Senate has not concerned itself with this aspect; it is only because it has been raised here on a couple of occasions that the Senate itself was bothered about it. Mr. Rhine said the figure would have to be determined, after which Senator Croll remarked almost incredulously, I think, knowing Senator Croll:
Do you mean to say that you were not asked that question during the two sessions you had before the other house?
Mr. Clarry replied:
That is right. That question was not asked.
Then Senator Croll, having in mind the necessity of bolstering the position of the Senate from time to time, commented:
Then you can see the usefulness of the Senate. It can be relied upon to come up with something new.
I do not see where the newness is unless it is in this comment as to Canadian ownership made a little later by Senator Croll:
I was going to suggest that it is infinitesimal.
In other words, there is no Canadian ownership in any real or meaningful sense.
I wanted to read this whole exchange so as to draw attention to some of the ludicrous features which are apparent when taken with other things that have been said during these proceedings. At one stage one of the senators expressed surprise that this bill had been before the Senate on two other occasions. He subsequently cleared this up by saying he had remembered.
The Senate, supposedly a valuable asset to Canadian politics, a part of our political system, is trying desperately to justify itself by saying how valuable it could be in conducting committee studies, how it could easily replace royal commissions which might otherwise be set up in the future and perform a useful task by inquiring into all and sundry subjects and arriving at meaningful proposals for the solution of problems which arise in Canada. On the other hand, the proceedings of this committee indicate that the Senate is not sure
December 19, 1968

what it is about and has not exhibited the degree of interest necessary to promote Canadian ownership of enterprises in this country. I submit that notwithstanding anybody's individual opinions the Senate is not in the least interested in Canada or Canadian ownership because it has treated this whole question very lightly and very inconsiderately. As Senator Thorvaldson said, he only asked this question to help the company a little bit.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
He said as an aside and an incidental comment, "It is probably something they should know about as well." I think this is one thing that showed up in the discussions about this company.
However, when it gets to the house, this is where public policy is enunciated. This is where the cabinet is and where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sits and makes announcements. He made a point of telling the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) about that today. With some relish the Prime Minister said that he would make announcements in the House of Commons because this was where he is; he did not have any right to be in the Senate. This is the place where public policy in these matters should be developed and determined.
Until a few months ago we thought the position of the Canadian government was in favour of Canada. We thought that the government of this nation was concerning itself seriously, thoroughly and completely with the degree of foreign ownership in this country and wanted to take some measures to ensure that Canadians would have some determination over what was happening to our economic activity. But this has obviously gone by the board, and we are fast coming to the conclusion that not only has the government not paid much attention to what is going to happen to Canada in terms of economic development and control internally by and for ourselves-


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


Ian Grant Wahn: Would it not perhaps be wise, in view of the importance of the basic principle the hon. member is now discussing, to permit this bill to go to committee where a proper forum could be provided and it could be discussed at much greater length and in much more detail than we could possibly
Private Bill
have here in the few minutes remaining this evening?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for St. Paul's can guarantee that the government will present to that committee its views about Canadian ownership, the policy it has and the steps it intends to take in order to put us in the position to regain control of our economy; if he can speak for the government and guarantee that a member or members of the government will appear before the committee and make this sort of declarations, I will gladly agree with him. Can the hon. member make that commitment to us?


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately perhaps from my point of view, I am not in a position to speak for the government. However I can assure the hon. member that there are a great many highly qualified people who would be happy to speak on that subject. It would be a very interesting subject to discuss in the committee.


Frank Howard: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is here. He is prone to speak for the government from time to time. Perhaps he can tell us whether government policy will be presented to the committee to make sure that Canada will have an opportunity to control itself in so far as its economy is concerned. But without such an assurance I think I can answer the hon. gentleman's question only in the sense that to agree with him to send the bill to committee, without any assurance such as I have just mentioned and which the hon. gentleman says he cannot give, would be simply an exercise in futility. There may be many qualified people on the committee; but it would result in our coming out by the same door through which we entered and we would have no adequate answers about what the government intended to do in this situation. And we are talking about government policy.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member not agree that public opinion has great force and that committee hearings are proving increasingly important in bringing public opinion to bear? In all sincerity I say that the hon. member has raised an extremely important question, that of the Watkins report, which has not been discussed in detail. I suggest this would be a very useful thing to do.


Frank Howard: I do not know if you can exhume the Watkins report and bring life

December 19, 1968
Private Bill
back into it. It has been buried, as the hon. gentleman knows; it has gone. The government has rejected the concepts of the Watkins report; it has ignored them. Is the hon. gentleman trying to tell me that the Prime Minister is wrong? Is he trying to substitute his statements for those of the Prime Minister? I am sure he would not want to do that. In fact, I do not know anybody on that side who would want to challenge the Prime Minister, no matter how stupid and wrong he is in anything he says. Nobody over there is brave enough to say anything about it. Even Steve Otto, the hon. member for York East, when speaking to a Liberal association meeting not too long ago, said that the role of the member of parliament is going to be eliminated as we know it by the proposed rule changes; but he would not say anything unkind about it because-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I know the house would agree to extend the time of the hon. member, if he asked, but we would not want to deprive other members of the opportunity to take part in this lively debate. The Aetna Casualty Company is an old friend; they have been before us at least three times. On each occasion we have been opposed to the incorporation in Canada of a foreign owned company. This company is operating in Canada and has been for many years. We have no particular objection to that, and there is nothing we could do about it if we did have an objection. We are objecting to their coming into Canada and establishing a subsidiary company to operate like a Canadian company on the Canadian scene, without giving that Canadian company the autonomy that would in fact make it, as a former minister of trade and commerce used to say, a good Canadian corporate citizen. This company obviously does not intend to be a good corporate citizen at all.
In fact, when questions were asked on this matter the answer was that the insurance business is an international matter and therefore should not recognize the bounds of nationalism, or any other provincial or state restriction that would limit it. This sounds very much like the Rothschilds when they talk about finance. They believe that money has no conscience, no nationality and no patriotism, and therefore it does not have to be a good corporate citizen. Their theory is

that you can take money where you can get it; there is no dirty money, no matter from what source it comes. They believe that money from the common brothel is as good as that which comes from somebody's hard earned pay cheque.
I believe this is something with which many Canadians will disagree. I disagree with it, as I am sure do many of my colleagues. I think many members of the house agree that we face in this company a phenomenon that has taken place on the North American continent in the last 50 years and in fact has spread to all countries of the world. We face a totally different type of company than that which was originally formed when the great American interest developed, in the mercantile sense, when the United States was able to gain the benefit of money from other countries without losing their soul in the process.
When the United States was starting as an industrial nation and needed large amounts of capital-and there is certainly a similarity between their progress 100 years ago and ours today-they were able to borrow these sums of money in the form of direct loans. This money was paid back, together with the interest charged in respect of it. Companies were originated because of the capital obtained and the generation of input from other sources, namely Dutch and British interests, and the people who lent the money got it back, plus the interest. But when it was all over it was apparent that the economy in that area was more vibrant and self-sustaining. As it happened they went bankrupt.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
This is not what is happening in Canada in this case. Here is a company that has a very large interest in the United States. There is no question about its being an old and reliable insurance company which has been doing business in Canada for years and which has been supervised to a certain extent by Canadian authorities in terms of the liabilities it retains. However, in the main it has been operating as a corporate citizen, not even of the United States but of a state in the United States, because of some insurance principle that must have existed in Connecticut which was not common to other states. I think that any hon. member interested in background information relating to insurance companies could look up the insurance legislation of the state of Connecticut and he would find that hundreds of insurance companies have their
December 19. 1968

head offices in Hartford, Connecticut because the legislation in that state is favourable to their business.
There is no reason why we as Canadians being faced, with the development of a new company which desires to do business in this country, and to operate under our protection and our legislation, should not demand that they set up a Canadian corporate company. That is not what is being done. This will never be a Canadian company but only a federally incorporated company. It will be supervised by our superintendent of insurance but it will always be a foreign owned and foreign dominated company because it is only a subsidiary. This has been the history of insurance companies in Canada. I have already said that the United States was able to develop on borrowed capital; we have been able to develop as an extension with subsidiary companies in every industry in Canada, as a consequence of which we do not own any of the industrial development of this nation and we continue to operate only with branch offices. I suppose the easy way out for the company would be to buy government securities, but it will be necessary for them to carry in Canada only the amount of money needed to cover their liabilities, and I doubt if the company will maintain much capital beyond that.
It surprises me that members of parliament, who are surely as good Canadians as I hope I am, fail to see the dangers that are entailed in allowing these very capable companies to come into Canada and operate in such a manner that they can never become part of the Canadian development. I think it is important for us to be aware of our potentialities. This company wants to come to Canada and do business here. I am sure that if we had a law specifying that all the directors on the board of the company must be Canadians, and that a certain percentage of their shares must be owned by Canadians, the situation would be different. All the companies that want to start operating in Canada want to have a big investment on their money. So long as this is the case and so long as they get a reasonable interest, they will want to remain on the Canadian scene. On the other hand, we as Canadians should insist on the right to buy into those companies and to become part owners. If tomorrow we were to pass a law saying that 75 per cent of this company must be Canadian owned, they 29180-2651
Private Bill
would surely be willing to set up their company here and to sell their stock on the market in the hope that Canadians would pick it up. Obviously $500,000 is a small amount of money for this company to pay to cover their incorporation. They really could do much better than this if they wanted to, but that is all we require and that is what they will provide to obtain their incorporation.
I am sure that we in Canada could put up the money if this company put its stock on the market, and they have done so as a U.S. owned company. Today there are 300 shareholders in Canada as compared to 75,000 in the United States. It is interesting to note that the company officials indicated when they set up this subsidiary company in Canada that no stock will be available for Canadians, and that the shares will be held totally by the holding company, which is the parent company. Though Canadians are allowed to buy into the holding company, they cannot buy into the insurance company which we are being asked to incorporate.
I suggest that what I have said is supported by a number of members of the house. We have had requests from several insurance companies recently to establish companies in Canada. I was very pleased to talk to one of the presidents of one of these insurance companies who indicated that for a long time he has been a dummy director of a U.S. subsidiary but that he, as an intelligent Canadian with a considerable amount of money, had no desire to be a dummy director of a U.S. corporation. He wanted to set up a company in Canada where he thought that company would make a lot more money.
An hen. Member: He is a capitalist.


William Arnold Peters: Certainly he is a capitalist. Obviously he did not become socialist as a dummy director of an American subsidiary company. However, he as a Canadian believed that he could do better for himself and for his company on the Canadian scene. He was not opposed to the implementation of regulations which would give him control of that company in time. It has amused me to note that everyone who has voted for the incorporation of these companies and who has spoken in favour of them, when we finally made a breakthrough in one of these companies, has spoken against them. I am sure hon. members are aware of the time about a year ago when a company was set up with a Canadian identity and was supported by everyone here. No one opposed it.

December 19, 1968
Private Bill
I do not see why we should be concerned if this company does not get its charter under the terms requested by it. If it wishes to operate in Canada, as it has been doing for a number of years, then I am prepared to let it do so. I am not suggesting that the Aetna Insurance Company is a particularly good or a particularly bad company. I am just saying that it should not be given the rights and advantages of a Canadian citizen in the corporate world, without any of the responsibilities.
We give Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance, a great deal of responsibility to carry out on our behalf. I am surprised to note how many of the Senators, who have a great interest in insurance companies because they are on the board of directors of many of them, look to Mr. Humphrys for advice on whether or not to underwrite other companies. Mr. Humphrys is bound by the regulations we make or by the lack of them.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
One of the things that really surprised me not long ago when dealing with an insurance company was that the company had agreed that within ten years they would have 51 per cent of the ownership of the company in the hands of Canadians. As a matter of fact, if they did not, they would be out of business. When they went to Mr. Humphrys they found that because of a regulation passed by this house, for reasons of which I am not aware, it was impossible for us to write a clause into this bill providing for 51 per cent control in the hands of Canadians. If the company were to get 51 per cent of their stock in the hands of Canadians, it would only be able to vote 10 per cent of its stock. I do not know how the officials arrive at this decision. There are only one or two people here today, and I suppose one would be the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who would know about this. The provision has some relationship to negotiations with the Mercantile Bank at the time the banking legislation was being considered. I do not know why 51 per cent of the shares in the hands of Canadians would leave the company in the position of being able to vote only 10 per cent of the stock. Mr. Humphrys advised that only 49 per cent of the controlling shares can be divested from the parent company, or the company will technically lose control and only be able to vote 10 per cent of the stock.
The company was not prepared to do that, and I don't blame them. I really do not understand why this type of restriction is

involved in this matter. As I say, I did not have the opportunity of being a member of the banking and commerce committee, so I am unfamiliar with the reasoning behind this legislation. I suggest that some members of our banking and commerce committee or some members who are here tonight who are interested in this matter should give some consideration to the reason for this regulation. It certainly surprised the corporation lawyer from the United States who looked into the matter. He could not understand why we would do this, and he was familiar with the regulations in many other countries. He pointed out to us that countries like Japan insisted on de facto ownership in the hands of nationals. This provision probably goes much further than the one we are suggesting.
Another thing which I do not understand is that Canadian Bell has divested all its stock, except perhaps 2 per cent, but is still controlled by the 2 per cent. Part of the reason lies in the system of distribution of stock, and the fact the 2 per cent is able to pick up a very large proxy vote. If only one person turns up at a scheduled meeting of stockholders, I suppose he is the majority and makes the decisions. In my opinion, the situation Is very confused and should be clarified.
This company has been coming before us for a number of years, and may come before us for a number of years beyond this date. The company has been in Canada for a period of years, knows the Canadian scene and should be prepared to inform the House of Commons whether or not they would consider setting up a Canadian company in which, over a period of time, the parent company would divest itself of majority control, thus turning over ownership of the company to Canadians. If they are not willing to do this, I suggest they are whistling in the dark. It may be that the proposed rule 16-A will protrude into this sanctimonious hour and may have a detrimental effect on the hour. It is difficult to predict the future.
It seems to me the company is aware of our position. I have known the sponsor of this bill for some time, and I am sure he knows our position. I do not believe I am being unfair when I say he would be more comfortable in sponsoring this bill if a clause were written into it to provide for an effective Canadian ownership of the company. If the company wants to do business in Canada and operate out of Hartford, Connecticut, they have a right to do so. I know I was covered by this insurance company for nearly 15 years, and I
December 19, 1968	COMMONS
did not find them an unusual company. I am now aware of the fact it is not a Canadian company, and perhaps I could have done better if I had been more selective.
If the company is going to operate in Canada and seek Canadian incorporation, then they should make an effort to ascertain from the committee at an early opportunity what steps they must take to be incorporated as a federal company. When they provide us with some guarantee that in a period of time, when they feel the company has become a viable economic unit-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member his time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. A message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill No. S-19, an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and Bill No. S-22, an act respecting Gillespie Mortgage Corporation, to which concurrence of this house is desired.

It being seven o'clock, the time reserved for the consideration of private members business has expired.
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, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 3762).
James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock I was saying how happy and pleased we all were with the speech of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and to learn that a new offer had been made to settle the dispute before us. As I understood it, if this proposed rule 16-A were temporarily set aside and the
DEBATES	4187
Motion for Concurrence in Report other proposed rules were adopted, then the government would take a new look at the rule with a view to settling the dispute, if possible to the satisfaction of all. I am sure that we are all very grateful that another effort will be made to settle the differences that have arisen in the house over the proposed new rules of procedure.
We were also pleased to learn that the government is keeping to the best possible traditions of the House of Commons of Canada in amending the proposed new rules of procedure in a way that should satisfy the great majority of the members of the house.
Having congratulated the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) for his excellent contribution to the debate this afternoon. However one thing he said was that all the newspapers were against the government and in support of the opposition in this dispute. I should like to remind both him and the house that the Brantford Expositor, which has been printed for the past 100 years in Brantford, Ontario, which is in my country supports the government in this debate. However, I am sure agreement will be reached.
I wish also to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his gracious and moderate speech in this debate. It was filled with gentle proddings to us all to endeavour to limit our speeches on issues before the house and to promote the business of the house more effectively than in times gone by. I believe the present government is trying to be a good successor to great Canadian governments of the past, as well as to make us the heirs of this great British tradition of parliamentary government that has existed for many generations and which has been furthered by men like Gladstone and others of historical importance, and perfected in recent times.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: And George Brown.


James Elisha Brown: And George Brown of this country. I am happy that he bears my name, and also that he had a summer residence in the city of Brantford, Ontario. During the week he went to Toronto to publish the Toronto "Globe" and every week end retired to the city of Brantford.
Calm, shortened deliberations tailored to fit the time available for the sittings of this house in each and every year are both essential and demanding. We cannot fail to meet the challenge. Any attempt to put off the
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report decision on a more efficient use of parliamentary time than has been the case in the past will not make us true to Canada, the land we all love so much. I am proud of our traditions, but I know-and I think we all know- that they should be improved, and improved greatly, in order to effect the proper dispatch of business before the House of Commons, and to make it more readily possible for parliament to meet the issues of the day and the challenges of our times. Failure to have a timetable for debate, and to tailor our debating time will set us all on a hopeless path, allowing for inadequate and second rate leadership for the Canadian people and for this country in the modern competitive world of today.
There are many in this house who fear that the government will misuse its power if this report is adopted. However, I want to say with great sincerity that in a democratic country there is just as much fear that an opposition composed of several parties will misuse its power as there is that the government will be guilty of a similar misuse. One way the government can misuse its power is by abdicating its responsibility to use the power that it has in order to carry out its legislative program in the interests of the Canadian people.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Speaking as one who has been a member of this house for a number of years I want us all to be able to say to the electorate, as William Ewart Gladstone did at the time of the second great reform bill of 1866, "You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side."


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the words of the hon. member for Brant, one of the more serious and sincere members of this house, and in many ways I agree with the sentiments he expressed in his eulogistic closing remarks. When he says that time is on the side of the future may I point out that this institution has been here longer than any of us have been alive, and it will continue in some form long after we have departed.
This debate is not being continued for the sake of stirring up the polls. We are not trying to stir up the public merely because it is Christmastime, and because we think it ought to be interested in the procedural debate. Frankly I do not think that Canadians are terribly interested in this debate because I do not think they appreciate fully the significance of the main points being debated.
[Mr. Brown.1
This afternoon the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) entered the debate, and his contribution certainly was entertaining and energetically delivered, even if his remarks had partisan political overtones. But I was surprised to see him buy the package so soon. After all, the wrapping is not off it. This afternoon we heard from the government side a qualified proposal with regard to the point we are debating. As one who always believed in what is commonly referred to as participatory politics, I wondered what the proposal meant. I know that the house leaders discussed certain matters, such as the Christmas recess, and that we are to come back on January 14. Other than that, before the Minister of Manpower and Immigration had made his remarks this afternoon, I was under the impression that there had been no consultation, without prejudice, about any proposal.
I only hope my hon. friend from Brant does not have too many children. I have a few and I can tell him that my children like to look under the tinsel of the wrapping to see what gifts there are under the tree. They get excited and they like to remove the tinsel. It is true that television has great persuasive powers, and that advertising can sway the opinion of many. However, that does not detract from my suggestion that much of what we have seen represents tinsel, and we do not really know what the underlying package is. In many ways the government is treating us like children waiting for Santa Claus, only they will not take off the tinsel from the gifts under the tree. We want to see what is under the tinsel, what is in the package. No doubt the hon. member for Brant was speaking with the approval of the cabinet. He made many fine statements; all the same we don't know what sort of present the government has for us since all we have seen, basically, is tinsel. That is the problem.
Although the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was most entertaining, it seemed to me that his participation was somewhat artificial. Without doubt the government received a mandate on June 25 to govern this country. It has the right to govern, even though the opposition parties may not like it. The government has its responsibilities to fulfil, and it ought to know, as it no doubt does, that tonight it has the power to cut off any debate in this house, after giving 24 hours notice that it wishes to impose the guillotine.
There was no need for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to lecture the house
December 19, 1968

about the right of the government to govern; we accept that. Parties on both sides of the house have used the guillotine procedure. Governments of other, historical periods have used it. The question here is not whether the guillotine ought to be used, but the circumstances under which it may be used: That is the issue. There is no question here of the majority in the house being pitted against the minority. The basic question here is whether parliament shall be an effective instrument of the people, or merely efficient. I suggest respectfully that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in this debate have committed a form of parliamentary perjury in trying to build a man of straw. We know that on this side of the house we are in a minority, although I hasten to add that the opposition side obtained the votes of 54 per cent of the Canadian people.
I deplore the technique of the big lie and I suggest, seriously, that if politics is in disrepute tonight it is because men who ought to know better have perverted their principles for the sake of power. That is what I mean when I speak of parliamentary perjury.
I notice that an hon. member of the rump seems agitated. I suggest that if he wishes to participate in this debate, he should do so or he will discover that the government house leader has allocated his time. Unless an hon. member sits on the treasury benches he will have hardly any opportunity to speak.
Just consider that, Mr. Speaker. This debate began on Tuesday, December 10, and has continued for six days. Since the contribution of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), ten members from the government side have spoken. I think about 12 altogether have spoken from the government side, and I think I am the thirteenth speaker to talk on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Some hon. member says that is too many, but this is an issue which affects the fundamental framework of this chamber and a mere 12 members out of the 150, odd, opposite have participated. I think that some other intelligent members on that side would like to contribute to the debate. I would suggest that unless some of them come forward in the next day or two and speak, then there has already been an allocation of time in this debate so far as the government is concerned.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Being a backbencher, I think backbenchers should have a real interest in what this debate is all about. Yet only 12 members
Motion for Concurrence in Report from the government side have spoken on this fundamental issue which affects parliament not only for today but for the future. What is it going to be like for a backbencher when an issue arises that involves his constituency? What is it going to be like when we get the massive, omnibus Criminal Code bill? As yet the government house leader has not answered the question I asked him several nights ago. I asked, on his figuring of 80 days left in this session, how many days he was prepared to allot in advance for the debate on the Criminal Code bill.
This debate is not over the right of the government to govern and bring in closure when it feels there is obstruction. The whole purpose of this debate has not been as suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his opening remarks, that there is a time for debate and a time for decision. Of course there is a time for debate and a time for decision, but there is no time in our parliamentary procedures for dictation before debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That, Mr. Speaker, is the issue in this house.
This was an interesting afternoon, when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration spoke. We have not heard much from him lately, and he is one of the strong men on the government side.


An hon. Member:: Was.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Anyway we have not heard much from him lately. We were not sure if he had slipped or eroded, but his parliamentary contributions are always interesting in this chamber. I was surprised and amazed at his logic this afternoon and the rationale he used to support 16-A.
The paradox, the irony is that this government, which has been so instrumental in trying to cut off every traditional concept that we have had in this country for 100 odd years, is now trying to rationalize its position by relying holus-bolus on the British system. Britain is a country of one homogeneous people with a uniform form of government, where you can get in a train, choo choo for two hours and cover the whole country.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Someone says shame. He does not know what he is talking about. This country is so different from that. For the benefit of those who are afraid of republicanism in
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report this country and there are some who like our present monarchial form and who are against the republican system of government-I must say that tonight, after listening to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Queen of Canada can rest easy in her bed. She is certainly not going to be kicked out by any of the members on the treasury benches who rely so fundamentally on the British system to defend 16-A. Surely they are not going to kick that poor lady out of bed and reject her whole constitutional framework.
In like vein, so far as the Senate is concerned, it is secure forever and a day, because there is the House of Lords across the way, and they are pretty fundamental to the British form of government. I believe in a Canadian form of government and in a Canada taking the best from all worlds.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the next thing we are going to have is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in an amendment to the omnibus Criminal Code bill, standing up and saying that because they wear wigs in the courts in England we had better wear wigs in the courts in Canada.
After all the minister's rhetoric this afternoon, after an exhaustive research job done with all the staff at his disposal, he came up with three or four cases in the British system where an allocation of time had existed. He did not point out one case where there had been an allocation of time, other than on the committee and third stage of a bill, and the very example he used was after a bill had been in committee for ten days. Forgetting about the judicial principle that you cannot quote a case unless it is on all fours with the case at bar, the case the minister used was completely irrelevant to the issue in this debate. I have a photostatic transcript of the portion of the debate to which he referred, a portion he did not quote, and in it Aneurin Bevan, the hon. member for Ebbw Vale, made some pungent comments on the allocation of time motion.
The minister tried to justify 16-A by showing that four or five times there had been an allocation of time in the British system. This cannot be contradicted. If it can, I hope it will be corrected. Three or four times an allocation of time motion was used.


Mr. Whicher:: Did it pass?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It passed by 297 votes to 243; it was pretty close. It has never been used other than on the committee stage, or later, and has never been used on more than one

bill other than once, other than the example given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, when it was used on two bills that were related and had come through the whole process back to back. That is no precedent to cite in this chamber as justification for 16-A. That is why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and other members on this side can stand up and say that, so far as 16-A is concerned, it is completely unheard of in practical form and effect in any democratic parliament anywhere in the world.
It is an interesting commentary on this whole debate that, after all the dust of battle had settled, after the Minister of Manpower and Immigration had castigated some of the members in the opposition and supported the British system so completely, what does he come up with? He comes up with a proposal. I sincerely suggest that this should have been discussed beforehand with the house leaders, as are most proposals, but for the first time he advanced it on the floor of this chamber.
When a man from the treasury benches can stand up in this place, after six days of debate, and advance a proposal of change from a rigid, firm, inflexible position, that is the justification for our being against 16-A. That proposal did not come after a time limit had been imposed by hon. members opposite. It came after the free flow of debate, after some of the public got interested, after some of the papers became interested, and after a lot of hon. members became interested. I venture to say that when this debate started a majority of the government members did not understand the effect and implications of 16-A. By making that proposal this afternoon the minister justified this forum. The reason for this forum is to have suggestions and counter suggestions, proposals and counter proposals made on the floor of the house, open to the scrutiny of the public, so that a consensus can build.
We on this side want a consensus after debate. We don't want a computer before the debate even begins.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is 16-A which sticks in the throat of any parliamentarian. It must stick in the throat of any parliamentarian, if he is worth his salt, because no parliamentarian in the world has accepted it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: In Britain.
December 19. 1S68


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: So far as I am concerned, that is an unfortunate comment. The member from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid)-or whoever it is-missed some of the speeches, because it has never been used in the parliament of Britain other than in committee or in later stages. The very example the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEach-en) put to us this afternoon came ten days after committee. It is an unfortunate thing as we come close to the charitable season of good will on earth and peace to all men that we have this package of reform that will revolutionize the procedures of this house, because this will not resolve our problems. If we take the British system and look at all the procedure points, so called, which they have, we should ask whether they have more or less problems today; is their parliamentary status and the status of the parliamentarians there any higher than it is in this country. I venture to say it is not.
I could philosophize. They are supposed to have a very modern efficient system. I suggest the state of parliament, in Britain, let alone the state of the member of parliament, is no higher than some people think it is here, because they have problems which will not be resolved by some of the procedures here. This is a form of parliamentary perjury which puts many things under suspicion, when better men know better what they are talking about.
This is a package of reform which some people feel may deform parliament. We might not agree with it, but it is there; it is a package of reform. I do not know whether the government has been playing a game of Russian roulette in trying to advance to the extreme, so that they can retreat to a more constructive position. I do not know this, because we just heard the first retreat this afternoon.
We on this side of the house are as com-plately dedicated to reform as is any member of the opposition. But we are not for reaction. I suggest in all seriousness that 16A, coming from a Liberal government that calls itself liberal, is the most reactionary proposal advanced by any party in any country anywhere. It is pure reaction. We are for rules, but we are not for rulers. I am afraid, and my colleagues share my belief, that whether he likes it or not, 16A makes a ruler of the government house leader. It makes him a czar of the Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Members opposite clap about a czar of the Commons. They are not very
Motion for Concurrence in Report good students of history, because one of the most reactionary forms of government ever known kicked out their czar in 1917. I say that 16-A has a potential for abuse. I do not say that the government house leader will intentionally abuse it, but who does he think he is?


An hon. Member:: Hitler.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Has he ever been on a plane that went from Signal Hill in Newfoundland to Esquimalt; has he ever boarded a plane, travelled from coast to coast in a day and seen all the regions of the country; or has any government leader seen this country, the regions and its people? It is preposterous to think that any one man, before the debate on a bill even begins, should be authorized to stand in his place and say that the debate will be limited to two days or five days.
Rule 16-A is unnecessary with a majority government. The problems we have in this parliament could not all have arisen since June 25. There is a backlog of business because there have been elections and because we have had minority parliaments. In addition there have been many promises which have not been kept. But does any member of this house who has read the rule expect that 16-A will help a minority government? Is any government house leader going to stand in his place and tell us that in the twenty seventh parliament he would have moved an order restricting debate before it began? If so, I suggest that by doing so he would have committed parliamentary suicide for himself or his party.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is unnecessary with a majority government. It does not help a minority government. It is unnecessary with a majority government because with the closure procedure they can cut off any debate in 24 hours. I suggest that this rule is unjust and makes a mockery of the just society. What is the whole reason for the much proclaimed Bill of Rights? It is to protect the rights of minorities against majorities that sometimes might be off the beat.
I do not question the sincerity of the Prime Minister in his life-long interest in a bill of rights. But I do wish he would stop preaching the platitudes of the Bill of Rights, and at the same time practise the type of parliamentary reform we have here tonight.
With all respect to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I suggest, as I said earlier, that in practice 16-A is completely
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report unheard of in any parliamentary form of government in the British system. The unfortunate thing about this is that hon. members opposite do not seem to understand the scar tissue that is left by a debate which affects the rules of the house. There cannot be a debate, be it a pipe line debate, a defence production debate or any debate in which the combined opposition says no, without wounds being opened up.
Here we are in the 28th parliament with a government, which has a popular mandate, coming in at the first session and asking parliament for a rule which does not have the necessary experience behind it. I have only to look across at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and think back to a most interesting speech he gave in the House of Commons as recorded at page 1544 of Hansard in the year 1965. I know the minister remembers his speech better than I, because he gave it. I listened to the minister when he gave his speech in this debate on 16-A and the interesting thing is that he failed to point out what he said in respect of 15-A. Rule 15-A which has been in the rule books up until now, is not anywhere near as disastrous or as all-embracing as 16-A. What did he say about that? This is what he said as recorded at page 1544 of Hansard of that year:
I am also greatly disturbed by paragraph 5 of the proposed standing order 15-A which provides as follows-
He then reads 15-A and gives very cogent reasons why we should be on guard about 15-A. Now he has changed his place, but I do not honestly believe his knowledge or policy has changed just because he changed his seat.
I would hate to believe that. But perhaps he too is committed to parliamentary perjury; I do not know. The interesting thing is that after he reviews the fears and apprehensions he has about 15-A he ends up with this interesting paragraph as recorded at page 1548, wherein he says among other things that we have to change our rules. We all agree with that; but he adds this:
I suggest the Government should reconsider some of these proposals so that they may be made clear.
This is in respect of 15-A which is nowhere near as extreme as 16-A.
It should make some of the refinements that are necessary so that a ruthless government could not run roughshod over parliament, and generally make sure that all these changes are subject to review in the light of the experience that we gain after having made use of them for a few months.
[Mr. Nowlan.l

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Well, the former leader of the majority party, Mr. Pearson, never dared use 15-A and no experience has been gained. Yet in a new session, during which there has been no obstruction, no debate of undue length, the government is suggesting the use of 16-A. This rule is unnecessary, unjust and unfair. It will create scar tissue which will live with this parliament for a number of sessions. It will affect the good will and respect which hon. members have toward each other, and it will muddy the waters of the mutual confidence which is necessary for the passage of legislation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that if we oppose the new rules, and in particular 16-A, we shall be going against the mood of the nation. Well, the Prime Minister may talk about the mood of the nation, but I suggest he is wrong in his estimation of the mood of this house and of its members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Not the majority.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The members of this house are in favour of reform, but they are not in favour of regimentation. This proposal will result only in more speed. We have all seen the speed with which events are dealt with by the television cameras just outside. I personally think they should be placed inside the chamber so that our debates are not redundant. It is getting so bad that those who sit on the treasury benches are wearing blue shirts, so that every time they make a statement they can look good outside. Television in this chamber would make debates relevant, not redundant, as so many of them are today. There is a difference between stability in legislation and sterility of legislation; there is a difference between making effective use of the talents of new members and this new rule in the name of so-called efficiency.
There is one expert who has not yet been quoted, a former member of this house who has had a great deal of experience with the rules. I refer to a lady called Pauline Jewett who wrote much on the subject of our rules, and I would refer now to a statement she made about the reform of parliament in the Journal of Canadian Studies for November, 1966. This makes the quotations used by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault) seem somewhat archiac, no matter how interesting the statements by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
December 19. 1968

She admits that since the 27th parliament there has been a fundamental change. The limitation of time spent on estimates, the shortening of the question period, the abolition of the dinner period, the abolition from appeals from rulings by Mr. Speaker, the provision of one hour's notice to be given on certain questions of privilege, have all led to the more effective conduct of business. So, contrary to all one reads, the situation has changed a great deal in the last three or four years. We tend to forget this. Miss Jewett writes to the effect that there have been substantial changes in procedure, but that the government has failed to improve opportunities for new members to prepare for debates and take part in them. She says, on page 13:
At any rate, so rapidly was legislation processed in the first session of the 27th parliament that the cabinet was occasionally hard-pressed to keep the flow of bills, particularly of major bills like medicare, going forward. The most urgently needed reform now may well be the reorganization of departmental and cabinet machinery to secure greater efficiency in the preparation of government bills.
She goes on to suggest there should be someone in the Prime Minister's office whose job it would be to make sure that a regular flow of bills was being maintained. These are the view of a writer who is no friend of this side of the house but who is an acknowledged political scientist of considerable experience.
Looking across this chamber, I see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I have listened to the protests he has made so often about the right of collective bargaining. We have all heard him say that you cannot interfere with that process. Does he suggest that 16-A gives an opportunity for collective bargaining? Does he believe it gives adequate time for debate? Behind him on the benches opposite I see many hon. members who have been mayors of cities, chairmen of school boards, and so on. Do they believe that the introduction of 16-A to the proceedings of a city or town council, or of a school board, would improve the deliberations of such a council or board? I do not doubt that a good many mayors, a good many chairmen of school boards, might like to have such a rule, but before they agree to it I would be surprised if the members of the council or board did not slice their throats.
If the hon. member for Trois Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) wishes to make a speech, he can do so at any time.
During the election campaign hon. gentlemen opposite made a special pitch for the involvement of youth in our affairs. They are

Motion for Concurrence in Report reading every day how youths are swarming over college campuses, breaking in on meetings of university senates, and otherwise registering protest. Is there any one of the younger members opposite who flocked to the banners of the flower people on June 25, who would take a seat in a university senate or on a board of governors and acquiesce when the president of the university or the chairman of the board of governors came in with an agenda which allowed for 20 minutes discussion of one subject, three minutes discussion of another and ten minutes discussion of a third? If they were to do so, I suggest the present disturbances would end in complete unrest.
I can suggest a place where the Prime Minister might take this rule 16-A. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) might show him how to use it. I am thinking of the federal-provincial conference. The premiers attend; there is a debate. But sometimes it is hard to find out what they have decided. If the new model of democracy is to be debate and then decision, let us have debate under rule 16-A at the next federal-provincial conference, and see how it will react on harmonious federal-provincial relations.
If this rule is not good enough for the federal-provincial conference, why is it good enough for the parliament of Canada? We have listened to a quotation from a speech by Lord Morrison of Lambeth. The hon. member quoted only one section of it. He failed to quote the passage which appears at page 224 and which I should now like to put on record:
Personally, I thoroughly dislike the guillotine. It is justified in conditions of real obstruction and national emergency. But unless there is genuine co-operation and fairness in its application, the guillotine can make a mockery of the legislative process.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
That is what Lord Morrison of Lambeth said about the guillotine. But more important than that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote for members of the opposition something that is called "An Appeal for Realism in Politics" written by the committee for political realism. This was a seven-man committee. Two of the authors of this paper were a man called Pierre-Elliott Trudeau and a man called Marc Lalonde. This is a report written for the "Canadian Forum" in the May issue of 1964. It was also reprinted in "Cite Libre". It is called the Canadian Manifesto and is most interesting. I quote these words on page 32 of
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report the "Canadian Forum"-as I say, these are not my words but this is the new politics-of only four years ago, and I wonder whether the Prime Minister and Mr. Lalonde will practise what they then preached:
The opposition parties must accept their share of the responsibility for keeping the public so little and so badly informed.
I agree with that. Then we find these words:
The opposition is supposed to force the government to define their policies and to furnish the public with all relevant information. The .opposition is supposed to proclaim the true problems of the people-
This is the important thing and the whole purpose of this debate.
-for it is the conscience of the government.
That is, the opposition is the conscience of the government. Let me read these words:
Whole sections of society could be completely ignored if the opposition prostitutes its function for the sake of short term political advantage.
At the same time, however, the present state of our parliamentary mechanism is such that the opposition, even when it is vigilant, is virtually helpless in the face of the resources available to the government. The system must be reformed to give the opposition at state expense the tools which are necessary for it to fulfil its important and true role.
I agree with that. I am coming to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The opposition, not the cabinet, is the conscience of the government. Can you put a cowl on a conscience? Can you put a time clock on a conscience? Can you put it through a computer? I suggest that is what hon. gentlemen opposite are suggesting.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. I wanted to read further from the Canadian Manifesto because it follows on about the question of conscience. At page 33-and we are talking about a democracy-it says:
Democratic rule must be maintained at all costs. It is a matter which we will not compromise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will wait until hon. members opposite stop, Mr. Speaker. The whole purpose of this debate is to try to point out that there is some right of a minority, within reason. The Prime Minister, I hope, would like to be reminded of what he wrote in 1964. He said this:
It is a matter which we will not compromise.
He is speaking about democratic rule. This passage continues:
The truly democratic traditions have few roots in Canada, where Indians, Metis, orientals, Douk-hobors, Hutterites and dissidents of all kinds have been victimized one after the other by the intolerance of the majority. Quebec itself is just emerging from past regimentation and authoritarianism. We will fight any action that tends to erode fundamental liberties and democratic institutions.
It is subject to these conditions that we wish to work for the good of the community.
I ask whether the Prime Minister wishes to reconsider what he wrote in 1964. He said that the opposition is the conscience of the government, that you cannot shrug it off, you cannot put a time clock on it and you cannot put it through a computer. In a democratic institution we must have the right of debate and the right to dissent. This makes us free, and in this forum it is the right to debate which defines the democratic institution about which Mr. Trudeau talked.
I suggest that we on this side of the house have to consider what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) said. We have to take the tinsel off; but we are not prepared to agree to give effect to rule 16-A as it presently sits in the committee report. I ask this government not to prostrate its good will of the majority of public opinion, that I think is still riding with it, for a power that the majority does not need and must not have.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the hon. member for Annapolis Valley would accept a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Surely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member will need the unanimous consent of the house, because the time of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley has expired.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief question going back to the earlier confrontation we had in this debate. The hon. member referred to the statement made earlier by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. December 19, 1968

MacEachen) about the British system of closure and guillotine. Would he be willing to accept here in Canada the same system that is in existence in the mother of parliaments?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of a party that does not take all the tablets from the mount. We have to discuss these matters. We are going to have a caucus tomorrow to decide what our position will be. The proposals of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may have put us on the horns of a dilemma. This is the whole purpose of debate. What would hon. members opposite gain by this proposal, if they had the guillotine? That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) back in the house. I was a little surprised to hear him say that the opposition-I think he was looking at the Conservatives but he probably included us as well- had little intellectual support or foundation for their arguments against proposed rule I6-A. The minister then proceeded to speak for at least 40 minutes, and it was probably closer to an hour, expounding what I regard as a rather illogical and anti-intellectual justification of his own position.
If I understood his arguments correctly, he was saying, "Look what has happened in the British Isles. Ergo: It should happen here." It seems to me that the most elementary class that one could take in the field of logic would teach you that this is a rather fallacious argument. If the principle under discussion is the practice of democracy, and you point to another parliamentary tradition and suggest that there has been a movement toward the centralization of authority and power in the system, it seems to me that you are not in a valid position to conclude from that that we should go on in the same way. One must argue, on independent grounds, for an authoritarian structure within a democratic society, if that is what you believe in-which of course, I do not. So I was not in the least bit persuaded by the arguments put forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It takes much more to be convinced of the desirability of a system than to have it demonstrated that this is done elsewhere and to be told "It is there, fellows; you must follow suit". If you want to have that kind of structure, it has to be argued for on quite independent grounds, and this I suggest the minister did not do.

Motion for Concurrence in Report [DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I should like now to pursue what I think is the central issue in this debate, and that is the problem of democratic decision making. It seems to me it is very useful to look at a purported democratic society in terms of two categories. Its governmental institutions and its private or non-governmental institutions should be assessed in terms of the degree of democracy by providing answers to the three following questions: First, does the majority have decision-making power directly, or indirectly by controlling those who do; second, are decisions reached on the basis of a method involving ample and open discussion about differing proposals or conflicting goals; third, are minorities allowed to exist on a continuing basis which will enable them to have the potential of converting their minority position into a majority one?
I suggest that a society and its institutions can be assessed to be more or less democratic according to how well they meet these three criteria. Therefore, in our debate on the desirability of the proposed new rules for this house we should keep this in mind. It is worth noting at this time that efficiency is not an essential characteristic of a democratic society. Such societies or institutions may or may not be efficient. Whatever the case may be, the degree of efficiency does not affect our judgment concerning the degree of democracy characterizing an organization, institution or society. It has been argued sometimes that democratic institutions are likely to be more efficient. The contrary, of course, has also been argued, and perhaps even more frequently. My point is that efficiency, although at times worthy of being desired and pursued, has no essential or even important connection with the practice of democracy.
Efficiency, or rather a person's commitment to it, can, however, affect a democratic institution. Generally speaking, the more deeply a person or institution becomes committed to efficient action, the less likely will that person or institution be committed to democracy, more particularly to the means of democratic decision making. Expressed in another way, the man or institution more deeply committed to efficiency is also likely to be more prone to favour the concentration of power. If that man or institution also regards himself as being democratic, he is likely to confuse democracy with efficiency and is likely to be unaware that it is power, not democracy, that he is pursuing. If he abandons democratic
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report practices, he is also likely to do so in the name of democracy.
I suggest that this is what the minister was indulging in this afternoon. I suggest that it is this confusion which lies behind what is involved in this debate. The government, particularly the house leader and the Prime Minister, have a faulty notion of democracy and a veritable lust for efficiency; and related to both-in what causal sequence I do not know-is the strong desire for concentrated power in this government.
The essential purpose of the rules of the House of Commons is to maximize in a delicate balance the claims of democracy and the requirements of efficiency. The legitimate desire of the government is to rule effectively, and we must have procedures by which they will meet with considerable success. Ruling effectively, however, ceases to be legitimate when the opposition loses its effective right to oppose.
Already much has been said in this debate about the fact that the vast majority of the proposed changes in the rules are accepted, and indeed were proposed, by members on both sides of the house. Although a number of these changes will aid the opposition in its important task as critic of the government, I think it is true to say, and this bears emphasizing, that the effect of the majority of acceptable changes will be to enable the government to operate more efficiently.
In supporting these measures, therefore, the opposition has revealed in unmistakable terms its commitment to the progressive reform of the rules of the House of Commons. We in the New Democratic party believe that the important test of a government, apart from the question of democratic procedures in decision making, is how well it meets the needs and requirements of the Canadian people, what it is doing about housing, about a just system of taxation, about income redistribution, about regional economical disparities and the redistribution of power, about unemployment and about aid to developing nations. These are the very important questions that any government must be concerned about; and if for no other reason than to relieve the government of excuses, we would certainly like to see this debate come to an end so that they could get on and deal with these very serious matters.
What we have opposed is what the Leader of the Opposition and others have appropriately described as closure in advance. It seems to me to be completely irrelevant
whether or not closure in advance is to be found in other parliamentary systems. We have opposed and will continue to oppose, even if it is brought back to the committee, any form of standing order 16-A. By giving the government house leader the unilateral authority to set time limits in advance on the duration of debate on matters to be brought before us, we would be abandoning a crucial part of our democratic heritage. Again I repeat that I care not one whit whether other parliamentary systems have also abandoned it.
I suggested earlier that one of the tests of democratic decision making is that policies must be reached in the context of ample and open discussion. In recent years students of parliamentary government, from Bassett and Durbin to Jennings, Dawson and Macintosh, have indicated that in modem parliaments the opportunity to criticize government proposals is of fundamental importance and that what is crucially important is to maintain the strength of the opposition.
There is little hope for the opposition to get the government to make changes of substance in its proposals, but there is the possibility, and this is the serious question I think, of presenting to the public via parliamentary debate alternative views about policies and about kinds of societies.
There are two very important effects of this process of debate. First, it forces the government to reveal its reasons for acting. In doing this it also makes it more likely that government laws will be defensible laws, and government rules defensible rules. In short, this process makes it more likely that a governed country will be governed well. The second important consequence of this democratic process of public debate is that it enables a party with minority support to build, over a period of months or years, that minority into a majority. Only by having the time to show its ability in discussion can the rational foundation for belief in an opposition party as a credible alternative be established. Only arbitrary or authoritarian governments should be interested in denying or inhibiting this process.
However, this is exactly what the government will be doing if it uses its majority to force the proposed standing order 16-A upon us. Even if it is referred back to the committee, if it is the understanding of the government that rule 16-A will be revived once again, we cannot accept it. for rule 16-A or any other alternative form of the same procedure would turn parliament into a merely

December 19, 1968

consultative body before which the government would appear at intervals to seek formal ratification of its decisions. I suggest in all seriousness it would not in principle be unlike the supreme soviet in the Soviet Union. Debate would be of the most perfunctory kind. There would be pseudo discussion in a semi-democratic institution. We cannot permit this to happen, whether or not it has happened elsewhere. The only serious opposition in society would remain with the press, television and other outside organs of opinion. I repeat this is a very real possibility. Many serious students of government have suggested this has already happened to western democracy. It has been argued that the opposition no longer provides the serious criticism of government, but that it is provided by the press and other outside organs.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
On some matters the house leaders of all parties will be able to agree in advance that debate need not take long. But on many issues of public policy, the only rational way of deciding on the necessary time for discussion is in fact to let the debate proceed, to let the issue unfold itself, so to speak. Democrats from Pericles to John Stuart Mill have stressed the important fact that truth and significance can best be revealed in thorough and systematic discussion. Any issue may become a great issue during the process of debate. The voice of the people must be heard through their representatives on both sides of the house. The people, in turn, must be informed by means of the press, radio and television about what opponents of the government think is of significance.
On this point, Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed, for example, by the fact that no member of the Liberal party has risen to criticize the proposed standing order 16-A. Ever since the Labour party has been in power in Britain it has had one backbench revolt after another. When it formed the government the Conservative party in Great Britain had a number of backbench revolts on issues of concern to individual members. However, in this debate, not one Liberal member has stood up to criticize what his government is doing here. I find this very disturbing. Surely, it is not a unique ability of members of the opposition and the vast majority of newspaper writers in this country that enables them to see the dangers in 16-A. There must be a few Liberals around who also recognize these dangers. Perhaps the fact they do not voice their opinions further confirms the view that our government and
Motion for Concurrence in Report cabinet system have already become so centralized in the office of the Prime Minister that the backbench members on the government side unconsciously think it would be highly inappropriate for them to seriously oppose their government's policy.
I suggest that there is no essential connection between efficiency and democracy, but there is a relationship between efficiency and the concentration of power. I suggest that the man who is strongly tied to efficiency is also the man who is prone to concentrate power. The concentration of power is antithetical to democracy.
The proposed standing order 16-A is merely the most recent act of a government and Prime Minister assiduously pursuing technocratic efficiency. They are at the same time concentrating power. No serious person could possibly conclude otherwise.
If one talks to the majority of the academics across this country, most of whom supported the Liberals in the last election, he will ascertain how they feel. I suggest the Liberal backbenchers should conduct a survey of political science teachers across this country to see what they think of the Prime Minister these days.
Earlier in this session, the Prime Minister announced the cabinet roster system. By relieving cabinet ministers from the responsibility of being in the house each day to answer questions, two anti-democratic effects result. The first is that members of parliament have fewer opportunities to direct questions to all those responsible for governing. Second, the power of the Prime Minister is increased. Only the Prime Minister is here each day. This means that only he has the opportunity of keeping informed about all the interests and areas of concern of members of parliament, that is to say the interests of the Canadian people. This means, of course, that having day to day contact with the issues, and being the only member of cabinet acquainted with them, his position in cabinet must be immeasurably increased. He must have more power of persuasion, more influence over his fellow cabinet members. The roster system, then, is certainly a system that increases the power of the Prime Minister.
After the announcement of the roster system we learned that a series of regional desks was being established. Regional desks, a democrat might assume, would be set up so that the elected people most directly connected with the citizens of the country would

Motion for Concurrence in Report occupy those regional desks or have representation on them. But no, instead of those having the most direct access to the people being associated with the regional desks, we have the Prime Minister and only the Prime Minister having this direct contact. Once again, I would suggest that the power of the Prime Minister is thereby increased immeasurably, and will be in the future. We shall see that the power of members of parliament, those who are in most immediate contact with the people, will be further downgraded. Once again I suggest in all seriousness, in terms of our parliamentary system of government, that democracy has suffered a set-back in this country. If we had regional desks established on a proper basis, then members of parliament would occupy those regional desks, rather than the agents or representatives of the Prime Minister.
If there is a common factor linking the unrest in the western world amongst workers and students I suggest that common link, whether we are talking about students and workers in Czechoslovakia, whether we are talking about students and workers in France or students in North America, is a profound democratic movement in the world. This is true, whether our naive misguided government recognizes it or not. What is taking place is a very marked reaction to the concentration of power. This is true of the Czechs. It is true of young Frenchmen, it is true of young Canadians and young Americans in universities. I am sure this movement is going to affect us profoundly in the next two decades. It is something to which we should pay very close attention.
With the exception of the small elitist and non-liberal minority in its midst, it is something concerning which I think human beings in the mid-twentieth century should offer profound encouragement and profound praise. There is growing up a generation in all the industrial countries of the western world which has decided it is not going to accept irresponsible power, irresponsible authority, nor are its members even going to accept within a democratic society centres of highly concentrated power. They want it redistributed. This, I suggest, takes us back to the old, much more desirable form of democracy. I, for one, wish them every success.
It seems to me that it is within this particular social context of what is happening outside the House of Commons that we should be examining what is going on here. The pressures of the age are for a less rigid, more
[Mr. Broadbent.I
DEBATES	December 19, 1998
open, more democratic and decentralized society.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The pressures of the present government, however, are quite the opposite. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the name of efficiency and democracy is concentrating power in his own office and in the cabinet, but more particularly in the former. His frequently commented upon discussions with young people do not, in my opinion, represent a shift to more democracy at all. These are pseudo-democratic symbols. At best they deceive some of the young into thinking that they have a direct influence upon the Prime Minister, though certainly none of the intelligent young to whom I have talked were taken in. However, a number are. At worst these discussions enable the Prime Minister, whether consciously or not, to manipulate both the young and the public at large. This is not what democracy is about; it is utterly ridiculous to think that it is.
To increase democracy is to decentralize decision making and to maximize free discussion, especially in institutions that have power.
If the Prime Minister wishes to reverse the authoritarian trend of his government, then he could make a good beginning by withdrawing, not only at the present time but even from future consideration, the proposed standing order 16-A. If he does not do so, then our party, and I am sure members of the other opposition parties, will continue with this profoundly important debate.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member and after hearing my colleagues take part in this interesting debate, I wish to make my modest contribution.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed, first of all, to situate the riding of Laval which was previously represented by the present member for Ahuntsic (Mr. Rochon) who now occupies the chair and to whom I would like to pay a special tribute as well as to all my electors.
My riding is located in the city of Laval which is also represented in the house by the Postmaster General and member for Duvemay (Mr. Kierans) and your humble servant, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 19, 1968


Marcel-Claude Roy: I do not intend to approach this debate from a legal angle, because God knows that enough hon. members are concerned with that side of the question.
I would rather make a few remarks based,
I think, on common sense.
I listened to all members who spoke before me, and I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that their remarks were most appropriate. However, enough has been said on all the aspects of the problem and we should now reach a decision, because the opposition members are always repeating the same ideas.
Mr. Speaker, we must be realistic. I have high respect for all legislators who spoke before me in this house since confederation. They have surely safeguarded democracy and I do not think that the proposed amendments to parliamentary procedure would interfere with any aspect whatever of our democracy.
Democracy must be functional. To this diversity of form were added different ways of adapting the very concept of democracy to the political, economic and social evolution of the contemporary world.
We do not want to change basic principles. This democracy has established freedom in all its forms as the most complete expression of human rights, and we are aware of it.
Demagogy is a perversion of democracy and makes use of the most sordid interests and the most condemnable proceedings to lead a nation to ends which are contrary to its prosperity, its greatness and its honour.
We must adapt ourselves to the needs of our time and the exigencies imposed upon us by our world which is in constant evolution and very much influenced by a highly competitive economy.
We cannot continue to impose on the population an outdated procedure, an archaic system, which does not meet our aspirations any longer, that is, protect the interests of the people of Canada and assure the economic development of the country.
All business concerns, whatever their field of activity, have standards of productivity which are the result of efficiency. Can we allow 100-year old administrative services when we have to administer a budget of over $10 billion? Would present members of the house accept a system or a way of life which would be 50 years old?
For the last 12 years, I have worked in private enterprise and in co-operatives, and the efficiency standards were not different in either sectors.

Motion for Concurrence in Report
The co-operative movement belongs specifically to members who care for their principles and who make no exception to the rule of efficiency.
I heard my colleagues mention that parliament could not be compared with a business firm. I am of that opinion, in certain fields, but why should it be inefficient in the legislative field?
Politics, as mentioned by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. March-and), must be a tool to serve the nation and one cannot, under various excuses, use the nation for political interests.
Our commercial enterprises are expecting decisions of our legislators, to undertake the development of their industrial or farming business. We respect democratic principles, but we would not like to hide behind this so-called democratic philosophy the reality of economic problems which we have to face.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This afternoon, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) spoke to us of reforms to the parliamentary procedure. We agree with the idea. But I feel that, the members will be just as efficient in committees. The hon. member for Charlevoix was quite concerned about the publicity and the press. We agree with that also. We appreciate the fact that these things are done objectively, but the press is also invited to attend the sittings of the committees.
If we prolong our debates, we will only serve the interests of politicians thirsting for political capital or prestige; we will not achieve the objectives approved by the Canadian people in the last June 25 election.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to revive the parliamentary procedure. They want renewed Canadian economic expansion. They are aware of the future awaiting our young country under the leadership of a dynamic Liberal government in which they have put their trust.
Mr. Speaker, we have at the head of our country an extraordinary man, a man who was given an unquestionable mandate on June 25 last, a man who stirred the interest of our young people in administrative political action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Who is that?
December 19, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada decided on "one nation". It rejected the various parties that did not represent the idea of amalgamation.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Who are they?


Marcel-Claude Roy: That was the policy of our Progressive Conservative friends, including Mr. Camp, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, (Mr. Diefenbaker) and Mr. Faribault who, in addition to being defeated by the present member for Gamelin (Mr. Porte-lance), lost his deposit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, there must be a reason why the people of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I should like to remind the hon. members that according to usage in this house when a member makes his maiden speech he must not be interrupted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


@Acting Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member for Shefford rising on a point of order?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Until such time as the parliamentary procedure is amended, a member may not read his speech in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Papineau on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that if he studied the standing orders of the house a little bit more, he would realize that a member may read his maiden speech in the house.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, when I studied psychology in school, I learned that when you cannot rise to the same level as your opponent or the man with whom you are conversing, you try to bring him down.

Mr. Speaker, we are privileged in having, at the head of this government, a man and a cabinet of which all Canada can be proud. All countries in the world now have their eyes on Canada, the country with a future, and we are proud to be Canadians.
I heard, this afternoon, my hon. colleague for Charlevoix insinuate all sorts of things. However, I have in hand the report of the last Gallup poll of November 20, and I quote:

Just before the opening of Parliament, a September 1968 study by the Gallup poll showed that the Liberals had increased their popular support from 45.5 per cent actually obtained in the June election to 49 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is out of order.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The poll concluded by saying that the figure now stands at 52 per cent.
That mandate, Mr. Speaker, we must discharge with all the expected flexibility within a more expeditious democratic system of committees.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the members of the opposition who have done their work so well. We have noticed their determination so far, and again tonight, and we noted all their remarks.
However, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell them that, last Friday, I attended a meeting of the Liberal federation of the riding of Laval and that the report of the special committee on changes to the parliamentary procedure was discussed. They obtained unanimous approval. It may be said: Granted, they are supporters. But Saturday, I met some members of the opposition party who told me that they fully approved that initiative.
If my dear colleagues on the left allow me to give them a single bit of advice, I shall tell them that if they continue to filibuster, the rump is going to invade all this side of the house.
Last Monday, I was listening to the honourable member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), and as he spoke I could see faces getting red. I do not know why, but if I were to ask my colleague for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), he would tell me perhaps quite
December 19, 1968

candidly, that one turns blue before passing away.
Therefore, I can come to the conclusion that by getting red in the face our colleague, the member for Burnaby-Seymour, definitely put on the right track this good medicine which he served to our very good members of the opposition because they seem to be even more aggressive.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform you of my reaction when I listened to the right hon. member for Prince Albert for whom I have always had a certain admiration. He did not seem perfectly at ease last Friday because he served us a main dish which we certainly could not call a "piece de resistance" but rather a salad sprinkled with gall and vinegar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Marcel-Claude Roy: He repeated that if the Prime Minister were among his audience he would have made other remarks. I concluded therefore that he still considered himself Leader of the Opposition. I even noticed that his charming wife, who was in the gallery, left the house before the end of his speech. At all events, I give the runner a chance, especially if he is winded.
Mr. Speaker, I think the report presented by the special committee on procedure, after having held 26 meetings, should be agreed to.
My colleagues in the opposition have quoted some remarkable excerpts from various conferences. We duly appreciated these glimpses of yesteryear, but we wish now to turn to the future and to establish a workable democratic system geared to the economic requirements created by our century of efficiency.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and the members of the committee who have held 26 meetings in less than 3 months to draw up these new rules.
Adoption of the report presented by the special committee on the procedure of the house will allow us to plan our work more efficiently and to serve better the interests of the people.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege I would like to congratulate the hon. member for making such an excellent speech this evening and, if I might just take half a

Motion for Concurrence in Report second, to say that this is all the more reason why backbenchers should never be restricted from this great activity in the parliamentary procedures of this house.


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


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Fish.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for ignorance, and there is an example of it. In rising to take part in the debate on the motion before the house I would like first to associate myself with other hon. members on this side of the house, all of whom have stressed the obvious need for reform, and indeed our party's willingness to support and see adopted the vast majority of the reforms proposed. Again, Mr. Speaker, not unlike my colleagues I feel that there are certain proposed changes that, if adopted, will have the effects of destroying the essential functions of parliament, of destroying the effectiveness of our parliament especially the opposition's role which is an integral and important part of the constitutional organization of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, people across the country are shocked by what the government is trying to do in this motion. Newspaper comment has been unanimously critical. The government has made no case whatever for the necessity of measures that by their very nature are arbitrary, extreme and restrictive on parliament's freedom. This measure is designed for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who sits in his seat, and when we raise questions that are of extreme importance to the province of Newfoundland, shrugs his shoulders and says "ditto." We cannot forget the fact that a few months ago in this house the Prime Minister said, "We are the masters." Now he wants to prove it, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, sir, if parliament is to be preserved as a living institution Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition must be able fearlessly to perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured.
History, Mr. Speaker, has taught us that freedom always dies when criticism ends. I say now, sir, to the Prime Minister, to the members of the government and to all other Liberal members that you cannot, I repeat cannot, hold a stop watch on free speech. This, sir, I contend is what the government is aiming to do. It is aiming to hold a stop
December 19. 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report watch on free speech, and I am telling them now it will not work.
According to the Prime Minister's own statements and the statements of other government spokesmen, what we are confronted with is an attempt by the government to control the procedures of parliament. Sir, I am sure it is a well known fact and established as one of the oldest traditions and the foundation of our freedom, that parliament controls its own procedures. I say to you, sir that a controlled parliament is not a free parliament. A controlled parliament is a mechanical toy for the government to play with. Sir, speaking as one member of this assembly, of this parliament, I say now that I was not, and indeed we were not elected to exercise that role. I will say this, sir, that if any hon. member of this house, on this side or on the government side, is prepared to accept that role he does not deserve the confidence and the trust that has been placed in him by the people. I say, Mr. Speaker, that he is not worthy of the honour to sit in this house and to be part of this great institution, the preservation of which has cost the lives of so many of our fellow Canadians.
Let me tell hon. members opposite, sir, that something more is at stake here than a mere question of procedure. What is at stake is the very essence and meaning of parliament. I ask you, are we to have an opposition that opposes, that is able to oppose a government, or are we to have an opposition whose hands are tied, an opposition gagged by the government? I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that this will work. In all fairness, sir, I don't think an opposition can function properly when it is gagged and its hands tied, unable to oppose because of rules imposed on this house.
I ask you, sir, are we to have a parliament that is free to talk or a parliament that is stifled before debate begins? I say to you, sir, that the government is attempting to produce a monster by a shotgun wedding between the American and the British systems. We must speak as men, Mr. Speaker, and we know that shotgun weddings do not usually work.
I suggest to you that the government, the Prime Minister and the house leader are proposing, as I have said, a shotgun wedding between the American and the British systems and, sir, it will not work. Our system has been developed over 100 years and has native attributes which cannot be compared with either of the other systems. In any case it should be neither one nor the other, and it certainly cannot be both.

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Every time there has been an erosion of freedom or thought, the excuse has been that this has been necessary to improve efficiency. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and the Prime Minister simply are the most recent editions in a long line of freedom eroders who use efficiency as an excuse for their actions. I say, sir, that what the government is proposing should be done by agreement and compromise. This is the only basis upon which a free parliament can function. If it is to be done by the government majority, used as an instrument to crush the opposition, then I feel there should be a full day's debate. I contend that the two hour limit is an insult to parliament. Parliament is not something that can be turned off and on like a tap. This house labours under sufficient handicaps now, when the Prime Minister and his ministers, after tying the hands of the house, run out and tell their stories before the television cameras. Even under our existing rules the Prime Minister today manages to do much of parliament's business outside the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: I am sure hon. members will agree that hardly a night goes by when either the Prime Minister or some other ministers do not appear on national television to say unchallenged things they do not dare say in parliament where they would be challenged. It seems very strange to me that ministers who do not have to come in here and face questioning, because they are permitted to be away from the house on so many days in the week, are able to find the time to give their answers before the television cameras. I say that we now have a videotape government. It is a government that hides in isolation, with-the ministers appearing only when they are assured of preferential treatment. Is it any wonder that we cannot get any action on behalf of the Newfoundland fishing industry or in respect of the abandonment by the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland?
A new principle has been written into the rules of parliament, and that new principle is one of government arrogance. Both the house leader and the Prime Minister are using the suggested need to put through a massive and beneficial program as a reason for butchering the rights of parliament. I ask the house leader, where is this program? It is not on the order paper. Does it exist only in the mind of the Prime Minister or in the mind of the
December 19, 1968	COMMONS
house leader? Why do they not list these measures in detail; why are they so secretive? I ask the Prime Minister, where is the promise of his just society? I have been told by people that there never has been such barren legislation on the order paper. I ask whether the house leader is reluctant to disclose the government's proposed legislation because he wants to change the rules first, paralyze parliament, and then bring in this rather mysterious legislation which they say they want but do not reveal?
As I have already stated, one of the oldest traditions and a foundation of our freedom is the assumption that parliament controls its own procedure. The second oldest principle is parliament's right to have grievances redressed prior to voting supply. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, who obviously has addressed himself to the task with a dedication worthy of a better cause, suggested that he would restore vigour to the supply procedures of this house. I ask him how this is possible, if supply is taken out of the house. The hon. member must know that grievances cannot be redressed in committees which are of an investigative nature, and not deliberative. These procedures remove from parliament the right to have grievances redressed. The purpose of supply and ways and means is, first, to examine and criticize the spending and taxing policies of the government. Second, and equally important, is the fact that it presents an opportunity to criticize the administration of government departments. One does not criticize in standing committees; one asks questions. We have lost the right to criticize as well as the right to voice opinions.
The government is asking the opposition to limit its own power to oppose. It is asking the government to gag parliament. If this bill is allowed to pass I contend that members of parliament will become dumb driven cattle, and parliament will be as obsolete as the pyramids. Parliament, sir, will be the tomb and not the defender of Canadian freedom.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
DEBATES	4203
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PUBLIC SERVICE-SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, December 16, as recorded in Hansard at page 3976, I put this 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?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It took a little prodding to get the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to his feet. He said he was not all that anxious to answer my question, but he told me the subject was one which was dealt with in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), I did not get much out of that question.
The next day, Tuesday, December 17, I repeated the question to the Minister of Finance. As reported in Hansard at page 4039, I used these words:
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister if he would like to make it clear before Christmas that some time early in 1969 something would be done about the pensions of superannuated civil servants. The Prime Minister told me it was the Minister of Finance who answers for the govem-ent on this particular matter. Would the Minister of Finance like to answer my question now?
The Minister of Finance told me he wanted to read what the Prime Minister has said the day before. That would not take him very long. I then said:
May I ask a supplementary question? Surely the minister knows the answer to this. Are the recommendations which were made to this house on May 8,	1967, still under consideration by the
government?
I got an answer to that question. As recorded in Hansard, the Minister of Finance said: "Yes, Mr. Speaker".
I suppose I should be pleased to get that answer. The trouble is I have been getting the same answer ever since May 8, 1967. The recommendations made on that May 8 by a special joint committee of both houses of this parliament, recommendations which were unanimous, were in the main to the effect that the pensions of federal superannuates- retired civil servants, retired members of the armed forces, retired R.C.M.P. personnel- should be increased forthwith. These recommendations have been placed on the record a
December 19, 1988

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion good many times. I submit they are responsible and reasonable. They were made with the support of all parties in both houses and in my view there is no reason, no excuse, for the long delay in dealing with this matter.


Mr. Anderson:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: welcome the support of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) and I see a friendly look from the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). In fact, it is just about unanimous. Looking over to the more than usually full government benches I notice one or two more, for example, the hon. member from Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault). In fact it is just about unanimous in the house tonight.
Yesterday, I finally got an answer to my question No. 4 which has been on the order paper since September 12. Hon. members are probably well aware of the fact that I had put this question down, because it had been there for such a long time. I was glad to get an answer at long last, and when I did get it, it became clear why I had been obliged to wait for so long. It appears the government had gone out of its way to give more information than I had asked for. All I had asked was the number of retired civil servants drawing pensions in each of a number of different brackets-information of a kind which I have sought and obtained over a great many years. Apparently the government decided to enlarge its computer program in some way or other and to break the figures down to show how many people in these categories had served for a certain number of years-some for a short period, some for a longer period, and so on. It was obvious that an attempt had been made to produce figures which would justify some of the low pensions about which we had complained so bitterly.
I submit that the table gives rise to more questions than it answers. I wonder why the government set it out in this way. For example how can any government explain that there are two people who were in government service for 35 years or more and whose pensions are lower than $20 a month? Why did the government take two or three extra months to give me that information, or to tell me there are five people who have served between 30 and 34 years and whose pensions are less than $20 a month? The more one goes into this, the more shameful the whole picture becomes and the more we should regret that nothing has been done to alleviate the difficulties which these people face. I contend

it is time some action was taken to solve this problem.
Looking over to hon. members sitting on the government benches tonight I try to figure out who is going to answer my question. I imagine it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray). I do not know what answer he has got ready but I plead with him to tell the retired civil servants of Canada, what the government's Christmas message to them is to be. Is it to be the old story to the effect there are just as many members on the other side who are as concerned with this question as I am? Is it to be the story about the old age security pension or the guaranteed income supplement, or the Canada Assistance Plan-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The time of the hon. member has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, Mr. Speaker. All I want is the government's Christmas message to the retired civil servants of Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) drew attention to the answer to his question No. 4, which made clear that most of those who are drawing low superannuation pensions have very short periods of service in the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirty five years!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The cases he has mentioned specifically are explained by the footnotes to the table, which the hon. member did not bother to mention. I will read them:
The cases shown in this table, where there is a combination of long service and small pension, can arise from two sources:	(1) Newfoundland
government employees who transferred to the federal service in 1949 at the time of union who retired soon after transfer and before their higher federal government salaries had been received long enough to raise the pension level, and (2) revenue and assistant revenue postmasters in low revenue offices who were brought under the Civil Service Superannuation Act in the late '40's.
All cases which have been identified are of the former category.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), when he answered the hon. member's question of December 17, confirmed that this very important matter remains under active consideration. Unless my memory fails me, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) when speaking on his estimates indicated that
December 19. 1963

he would be willing to take the matter back to cabinet to ensure that it continues under needed active consideration.
One thing is certain: the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could be raised with equal eloquence by members of parties on all sides of this house. I conclude, while personally regretting that I cannot add anything further to what has already been said on behalf of the government, by saying that with respect to the hon. member's request for a Christmas message, I feel that one of the great messages of Christmas is hope.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
they have lost faith and there is no charity.



CRIMINAL CODE-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 9, I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) as follows:
Does the government intend to include in the omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code a measure abolishing corporal punishment?
The reason I asked that question was that I know from experience, more especially in criminal law, about the use of the broad strap and the cat-o'nine tails with regard to the treatment of men who have been sentenced and have had added to their sentence punishment by either the whip or the lash. I also learned that under the Penitentiary Act there is what is known as what the warden's court for discipline within the institution. In an article in the Toronto Daily Star of November 16, the writer, Mr. Earl McRae, set forth the concern of the executive director of the John Howard Society, Archibald Kirkpatrick, who has been interested in this problem for many years and had an interview with the reporter and set forth his views. His views are worthy of comment. He asked: What is the philosophy behind corporal punishment? The article then says:
"I think there's a strange Idea that the seat of emotions is in the seat of the pants," he says.
Most of the offences for which whipping can be included in the sentence are of a sexual nature, reflective, he says, of a disordered mind.
"Corporal punishment would not be considered appropriate in the treatment of mentally disturbed persons and therefore should not be considered in sex offences which are manifestly psychological in derivation," says Kirkpatrick.
"We have to change people's minds about corporal punishment. They say it is similar to chastising a child. But, when you chastise a child it is done out of love in a home of love. It is
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion accepted in this context. When you whip or strap a grown man you are depriving him of a great deal of his dignity and humanity. We are negating all evidence of humanistic behaviour in modern society. If a man commits an offence, we should be finding out what makes him do these things. We should be trying to rehabilitate him. Corporal punishment, in my mind, is simply vengeance."
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In this article he goes on to set forth the views of an assistant warden of Kingston penitentiary who said:
-last year, about a dozen inmates received the whip or strap.
"And, I don't like it at all", he said. "None of us do, believe me."
"I have an aversion to it, every officer in here has. We try to preserve as much human dignity as possible. We don't want to look like a bunch of brutes."
The warden said "It seems to have an effect" for short periods on a few inmates "but morally, I am against it."
Then we have the report of one of the staff doctors, Dr. W. T. Amodeo who said with regard to the effects of corporal punishment:
"No, I don't think it effects any kind of reformation," he told The Star. "I don't think it is of any value at all.
As a result of that article I directed some remarks to the commissioner of penitentiaries when he appeared before the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. The parliamentary secretary nods his head to show that he remembers that occasion. I said to the commissioner, A. J. MacLeod:
Mr. Commissioner, I would like to direct other questions to you with regard to corporal punishment. Under the Code you have the whipping section, section 641, with which you are probably familiar, and I understand there are two types of whipping, the lash and the broad strap. Could you tell me how many inmates received corporal punishment in the last three years?
He set forth the two types, the type that is imposed by the judge and the type that is imposed under the warden's court. Then he said:
I have that information somewhere here. Corporal punishment as a sentence of an institutional board of discipline in our institutions was handed down once this year between January 1 and the middle of October; 19 times in 1967; 32 times in 1966; 7 times in 1965; 26 times in 1964.
So you can see that in this last year only one person has been administered corporal punishment as a result of the warden's court decision. Then he gave the figures with regard to sentences by judges and he said:
-8 times so far this year, from January to the middle of October; 5 in 1967; 3 in 1966; 3 in 1965; 22 in 1964 ; 9 in 1963.
December 19, 1968
4206	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Following that and alter other remarks which he made, I said:
In other words, you would not have any objection if I brought forth an amendment to repeal that particular section?
In answer the commissioner said:
I would not, no. As a judicial punishment, it is remarkable that it is reserved under the Criminal Code for offences that involve the use of violence or the threat of violence by the offender. Our people seem to think that it may have a useful short-term benefit if it is imposed on an offender, but ultimately society reaps more violence from him than it inflicted upon him.
As a result of that I brought forth a bill in this house to abolish corporal punishment. The sequence of this is that we now have the omnibus bill with amendments to the Criminal Code which will be tabled tomorrow morning. This is the reason that I asked the Minister of Justice whether he would include this measure in this very important bill. His answer was disappointing. This is the reason that I brought this matter to the attention of the house, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary will give us hope that he will be able to persuade the Minister of Justice to include this matter in the bill.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree with my hon. friend; this provision should be struck out of the Criminal Code. Fortunately, it is falling into disuse, according to the evidence given to the committee on justice and legal affairs by the Director general of Penitentiaries. In a certain way, I am sorry it has not been included in the amendments to the Criminal Code tabled this day in the house.
It should be mentioned that the proposed amendments affect 119 sections; there are 126 pages of them. I know all the work it took to draw up those amendments and I think that the request of the hon. member unfortunately came a bit too late to be included in those amendments to the Criminal Code.
However we must hope-and I do hope so -that the bill which he tabled himself in the house will be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs for consideration and that a report will be presented to the house so that very soon we may abandon this practice which I think is barbaric.
I can assure the honourable member-and I am speaking strictly for myself-that I shall do everything I possibly can to help him convince not only the Minister of Justice but 

also the Solicitor General who is answerable for the penitentiaries, in order to try and bring about the necessary changes.



OLD AGE SECURITY-REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES BEFORE CHRISTMAS

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I think it was about a week and a half ago that a number of members in this house, including myself, raised the question with the government about whether, particularly having in mind the Christmas season, the old age security pension cheques could not be mailed out a little bit early to their recipients. My question was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the opportunity of restating it tonight. I think the reasoning of members in this connection was that it would cost the taxpayers and the government no more money to do this, and it would help the old age pensioners, particularly those on small fixed incomes such as the old age pension itself, to have a little better Christmas than otherwise. I felt therefore this was a reasonable request, and I still think so.
I was pleased myself today to receive my cheque from the government approximately a week and a half ahead of time in the amount of approximately $2,200. This of course includes our quarterly expenses. I was glad to get this, particularly at this time of year, and it does not cost the government any more money to give us this ahead of time. If I was glad to have $2,000 today a little ahead of time, I would think the old age pensioners of this country, numbering about half a million and who receive from this government only about $75 or $80 per month, would be even more pleased to get their cheques ahead of time.
I am not saying this in any demogogic way; I think it is a matter of common sense. It is reasonable that if members of parliament receive their cheques ahead of time, then the old age pensioners, even although it is late in the month, should receive theirs ahead of time. I hope the government, even now, will consider speeding up the delivery of old age pensioners' monthly cheques. I sincerely hope that the government will not give the same old answer, that the senior citizens of this country-who are 75 or 85 years of age-are so inexperienced that as soon as they get the money a week ahead of time they will be throwing it around and
December 19. 1968

living it up. On $18 to $19 a week surely that is ridiculous.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
As I say, this step would not cost the public any more money. I am glad to see the Liberal members here tonight, thus indicating some support for this question. Therefore I again ask why the government will not take this action and mail out the cheques, even at this date, so as to give the old age pensioners and senior citizens a little bit of a break.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do think that the minister would not like anything better than to share in the Christmas spirit and to compete with Santa Claus if he could take a more arbitrary and discretionary approach towards the allocation of old age pensions.
We must remember however that when we refer to the holiday season, we also refer

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to gifts. With regard to the payment of old age pensions, we must admit that the right to a pension is recognized by the legislation and that the regular payment of those pensions, at the end of each month, has become for the payees an important element of their budget.
Like the hon. member, I know that we welcome cheques when we get them a week in advance, but the money we get allows us to have perhaps a more flexible budget than that of old age pensioners.
Therefore, if the government were to change the date on which monthly cheques are sent out, if it complied with this request, there would be an interval of 40 to 45 days between the reception of the December and the January cheques. It is not a question of giving in to finer feelings at Christmas time, but of recognizing the right of old people to receive their pension cheque regularly.

Friday, December 20, 1968