1968-09-24

TABLING OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. members for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and with the leave of the house, I would like to table, in English and in French, copies of the press release of September 19, 1968, prepared following the wheat exporters meeting at Canberra, the Trade and Commerce press release of September 19, 1968 on guide lines concerning overseas investments of non-financial companies, the Department of Finance press release of May 3, 1968 concerning guide lines with respect to operations by chartered banks, and the press release of July 24, 1968 on guidelines for other financial institutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he say whether there is any basis in fact to the report that a public servant formerly employed in the directorate of intelligence and security of the armed forces was discovered by the R.C.M.P. eight months ago attempting to sell military secrets to a foreign power. Will the Prime Minister, who was minister of justice at that time, undertake to give a full report to the house?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister of Justice to look into that matter. Perhaps he has some answers.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition I might say that investigations into suspected unlawful activity are continuously being carried on by the R.C.M.P. and by other investigatory bodies, but in the absence of charges being preferred it would not be proper nor would it be in the public interest to make the results of such investigations a matter of public record. I believe that this is particularly applicable to investigations which may involve the national security.
Under the circumstances, and with the greatest respect, I must decline to enter into a discussion of the allegation referred to.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Justice say whether in fact the case was-to use the words of the public report-"hushed up" by the federal Department of Justice and the R.C.M.P.?


John Napier Turner: If my advice is correct, the case was thoroughly investigated by the R.C.M.P. It was referred to the law officers of the crown and the Department of Justice. It was the opinion of the law officers of the crown, concurred in by the senior officers of the R.C.M.P., that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Justice be prepared to tell the house the basis on which it was decided not to bring this man to trial?


John Napier Turner: No sir, I am not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question. Will the Minister of Justice say whether it is a fact that the individual in question continued in his job in the public service after the police report was made, and for how long he continued in the employ of the government after this report was made? Would the Minister of Justice also say whether the individual in question was allowed to resign quietly and waive his right to appeal?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, these questions are beyond the responsibility of my particular department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

September 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that the individual concerned has now disappeared and that the R.C.M.P. have no trace of his present whereabouts?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information on which to answer that question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister or his department carried on an investigation into this case in addition to the investigation carried out by the R.C.M.P.? Did this investigation disclose any other members in the department who might have been connected with this particular individual?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that this individual is not an employee of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. If no charges have been laid against this individual, on what basis was he either dismissed from the public service or asked to resign?


John Napier Turner: I have no direct information on that particular subject, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you like this minister to defend you?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this question, the obvious lack of information and the obscurity which has been created, will the Prime Minister make a statement to the house?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether this case is still under investigation, in spite of the fact that he seems to be operating in a vacuum of secrecy.


John Napier Turner: Following what I have just said, Mr. Speaker, let me state that after the review by R.C.M. police and law officers of the crown the matter was closed.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with this matter, realizing that security of the nation rests on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. Indeed this fact is essential to his office.

Without going into the question of whether this information should be revealed in the house, may I ask him if the course sometimes followed in the United Kingdom would be acceptable? I refer to a course whereby security would not be endangered, but at the same time would avoid any suggestion of secrecy or covering up. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to allow members of Her Majesty's privy council in the opposition to see the record?


Mr. Trudeau:: With the question stated in this way, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say that the government over a year ago appointed a commission to investigate the whole question of security. I said in the house the other day that this report would be in our hands very soon. I expect that that type of question will be dealt with and will give us some basis on which to act. When I have received and read that report I will be glad to make the house acquainted with any procedure of that kind which might be suggested by these gentlemen.


John George Diefenbaker: Without waiting for that report, Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister feel that in the interests of the public as a whole, regardless of the circumstances of this case, privy council members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition should not be denied this information? They are sworn to secrecy. Will the Prime Minister not allow them to look at this record in his presence, so that any suggestion of cover up will be denied if the circumstances so establish?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the suggestion would be valid, sir, if we had to wait for any length of time for the report. However, I spoke to a member of the commission yesterday and asked about the state of this report. It was indicated that it will be a matter of a very short time before the report will be in my hands. If this particular aspect of the situation is not covered-and that is something I do not know as yet-I will be glad to discuss this suggestion with the Leader of the Opposition.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the opposition of the last government to the bombing in North Viet Nam, and in view of the statement made by the Secretary General of the United Nations as
September 24, 1968

reported in this morning's press, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government considering taking the initiative in proposing to the General Assembly the kind of resolution the Secretary General has suggested?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have read, and so have the government, the statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations in favour of stopping the bombing in Viet Nam and also his opinion that there may well exist a majority in the assembly for this view.
We ourselves, as the government has expressed on a number of occasions, consider a halt to the bombing as one of the essential first steps which will have to be taken by both sides to the conflict. In our view, a balance would have to be kept in such appeal if it were to be made. A resolution calling only for a halt in the bombing without stressing the obligation on the other side to contribute significantly to military de-escalation would not seem to reflect what has to be done by both sides if peace is to be restored.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the position of the Secretary General, which has been repeated many times, and in view of the position taken by the former prime minister which he stated once or twice-I am speaking from memory but I am sure I am not misrepresenting him-is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now saying to the house that he is opposed to a resolution such as that suggested by U Thant, and that he will take no steps to deal with it at the general assembly?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government would, I think, depend on whether this sort of action would contribute to the end of the war in Viet Nam. The Secretary General has expressed his view and it is one that we would certainly look at seriously. We would want to be satisfied, however, that it would help to facilitate the peace negotiations that we hope are underway now.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would one be justified in thinking that because the ambassador of the United States at the United Nations has expressed opposition to the Secretary General's suggestion the Department of External Affairs in Canada is not willing to support it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is patently out of order.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence, I will put it to the Minister without Portfolio.
Can the minister tell us whether representatives of the Quebec government had recent discussions with him or members of his staff with a view to elaboration of federal legislation prohibiting road transportation for the railways, and does the minister intend to move the adoption of that legislation during this session?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Quebec government have not had discussions with me on that subject.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport assure us today that the town of Famham has been officially chosen by his department, in view of the fact that the provincial government has already made known its development project of a road system-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question which I will direct to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Can he tell us when we may expect the presence in this house of the Minister of Transport, and how many days he has been in the house since this session started?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in posing it I hope I pronounce the gentleman's

September 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry name correctly. In light of statements by Benjamin Adekunle, the Nigerian military commander, expressing hostility to relief activities from any source, statements which were brought to the attention of the house yesterday, would the minister explain how Canadian relief supplies have reached the war area which is under that officer's control?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this statement. I shall look it up now that the matter has been brought to my attention, but in any relations that we have had with the Nigerian government, they have welcomed relief.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which, in his absence, I shall direct to the acting minister who is, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg South. In view of the important role that other levels of government must play in any discussion of the housing problem, will the minister indicate whether provincial and municipal officials have been specifically contacted and invited by him to testify before the task force on housing?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take notice of that question.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister also ascertain why, in a non-partisan investigation such as the one being conducted, seven Liberal members of parliament were invited to take part actively in the conference.


An hon. Member:: What are the facts?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Acting Minister of Transport took notice of my first question I wonder whether he would take notice also of my supplementary question. In view of the complexity of the issue can the minister assure the house that those officials who are being asked to testify are being notified well in advance of the scheduled visit of the task force to their respective cities? I ask this question, Your Honour, because it is my information that the city of Toronto has objected to the short notice given for the presentation of briefs.
[Mr. Fairweather.l



TASK FORCE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SCHEDULE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I will see about that, Mr. Speaker.']
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to tell the house whether the finalized schedule of the task force hearings on housing is available so that ample notice may be given to the various interested municipalities and provincial governments and, if so, would the minister table the schedule of hearings?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the task force on housing and who is chairing the task force, is very anxious that his study proceed with all dispatch. I know too that he will be very pleased to table the schedule of hearings, if he has not already done so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recently the Secretary General of NATO visited Canada and, according to my understanding, paid a brief visit to our Minister of National Defence. In the light of these facts is it possible for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to advise this house of the purport of any discussions that he or his departmental officials had with the Secretary General on the subject of Canada's continuing role as a NATO member. If that is not possible at this time will the minister be able to advise us at an early date of the discussions that were held with the Secretary General of NATO on the subject of Canada's relations with the NATO alliance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make such a statement at this time. I should be happy to do so, perhaps, when the estimates of my department are called, which I hope will be at an early date.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The matter is of such importance, especially in the light of the visit by the Secretary General, that I submit it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State for
September 24, 1968

External Affairs to make an announcement about any discussions held with the NATO representative.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his conversations yesterday did the Secretary General strongly urge the Canadian government to leave its forces in Europe intact, at the present time? If so, what was the reply of our government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General made it quite clear in his press conference before he left yesterday that he was speaking personally when he expressed the view that any reduction in NATO forces at this time would be detrimental to the alliance. The Secretary General is aware that discussions are now going on in the NATO council on this important question.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Secretary General not ask for an assurance that Canada would keep her forces intact in Europe?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether any of our other NATO allies in addition to Britain have made representations to Canada concerning the postponement of any possible reduction in our contribution to NATO military strength under the present circumstances?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in reply to similar questions, Mr. Speaker, we have had representations from a number of countries, not directed specifically at Canada but at the NATO powers generally, to the effect that there should not be reductions. It was out of that sort of consideration in the council meeting that the communique issued. A number of countries are, of course, very concerned, including Germany, for example, which now sees the presence of Soviet troops on her border and is anxious that NATO should make a firm response, and has made representations to all NATO powers, including Canada.


John Angus MacLean: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether a place and a date have now been set for a meeting of the NATO ministers and whether this meeting will take place in New York early in October?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as has apparently been made known to the press by a spokesman fo rthe United States government, consideration has been given to arrangements for a meeting between some or all of the NATO ministers in New York at the time of the general assembly. There has also been consideration of the date of the meeting which was to be held in December. But no decision has been made definitely on either of these questions, although I think it is fairly clear that there will be an informal meeting in New York.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, will the secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether he will table or otherwise make public the contents of the notes received by Canada, as a member state of NATO, from the U.S.S.R. subsequent to the invasion of Czechoslovakia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. One reason I hesitate to answer his question is that I cannot recollect whether the statements were made to me orally by the Soviet ambassador, or whether he actually presented a note at that time. May I add this, that the communication was not addressed to a member state of NATO but simply to Canada.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event that the communique was in written form, will the minister consider making it public or tabling it in this house?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall give consideration to that.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some 10 days ago he informed the house of the appointment of Major General W. A. Milroy as Canadian observer attached to the Nigerian federal forces. As I understand it his task is to observe and report on the conduct of the federal Nigerian forces. What steps have been taken to provide General Milroy with the staff he will obviously need to carry out his task?

September 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on September 17 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me whether all aspects of an order in council which he later identified to me as P.C. 1968816 were checked by the Department of Justice before approval was given to it. A direct answer to that question, sir, is, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this order in council was a questionable use of delegated authority, may I ask the minister to discuss it when we are considering the motion later today to set up a committee on this very subject?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the lakehead grain handlers strike has been over for almost two weeks, can the minister inform the house whether or not grain is now moving from the lakehead ports at a satisfactory rate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, since the end of the strike, 23.5 million bushels of wheat were forwarded from the storage facilities at the lakehead during the first week, and right now 12 ships are waiting to be loaded. Of the 11,863 covered wagons immobilized by the strike, 3,362 have now been unloaded at the warehouses. It is probably a record for Canada, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Since we are dealing with the subject of wheat and wheat movement, will the minister also assure the house that satisfactory arrangements arose out of the Canberra meetings last week, and that we can now realize a satisfactory and stable price for our wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Satisfactory arrangements" is a relative concept, Mr. Speaker. We were very cheered, if I might put it that way, by the fact that all the exporters rallied round the price and the system established by the international grain arrangements.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the minister whether we shall be getting these reports weekly, or every second day from now on. What is the situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would be delighted to make them daily.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has had a chance to look at the question I directed to him, as recorded at page 267 of Hansard for Friday last, and the undertaking given by the Minister of Agriculture that his colleague would make a statement, in brief, on exports to date and future commitments of grain, together with a reference to the Canberra talks? I understood the minister was going to make a full statement on motions. Is it his intention to make that statement in the very near future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will see about that, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of one asked last Thursday by the hon. member for Perth of the Prime Minister concerning a speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the penalties for possession and use of marijuana. While the house may agree that it is useful for the minister to open this subject for discussion, will the Prime Minister state whether the particular point of view made by the minister in that speech does in fact represent government policy?
September 24, 1968


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I answered that the other day, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Has the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. given his views to the Solicitor General on the suggestions made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he inform the house whether the department of immigration is aware of any effort by a Committee for Revolution at the University of Montreal to bring Daniel Cohn-Bendit, better known as Danny the Red, to Canada?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence that this gentleman has come to Canada.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the consultations presently in progress across Canada with representatives of Indian bands respecting proposed changes in the Indian Act, and in view of the announced intention of consulting Indian people on major changes in government policy of concern to them, is the minister prepared to delay implementing the current major reorganization of his department until its purposes and implications are made clear to the Indian citizens it serves?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the reorganization referred to by the hon. member is not at all related to the consultations we are now having with Indians with regard to the revision of the Indian Act. However, I can assure the hon. member 29180-261
Inquiries of the Ministry that when major changes are made in my department, I will take the necessary steps to inform the main parties concerned, who are always people of Indian origin.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CARR COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the completed Carr commission study been received by his department, and, if so, will it be tabled in this house? Further, while the minister is answering that will he say when he will be tabling his white paper on governmental reform in the Yukon?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are two different questions. With regard to the Carr report, the department received it a few days ago and it is being studied at the present time. When the document has been translated into the two languages, we can table it in the house.

As concerns the white paper on the constitutional evolution of the Northwest Territories, I am now studying the problem. I shall soon hold consultations with the elected representative of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories before making a statement on the point of view of the government in this regard.



ARMSTRONG, ONT.-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE POVERTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the desperate social conditions and shocking poverty which exist among the Indian people of Armstrong, Ontario, a situation which has recently been brought to the attention of the nation and which has resulted in the exclusion of Indian children from public school education in Armstrong, what immediate action does the government intend to take in order to remedy or alleviate the problem?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this very important and urgent question might be debated by the hon. member at the time of adjournment.

September 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NORTHERN AFFAIRS QUEBEC-TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a supplementary question.
With regard to the transfer of jurisdiction between the federal government and the province of Quebec in the fields of education and health and in others, were the Indians and the Eskimos in that part of New Quebec consulted before that arrangement was agreed upon?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I could not reply to that question immediately, but I will inquire and give an answer to the hon. member tomorrow.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice regarding the theft of stocks and bonds in Montreal over the week end. Is there any indication of an inside job?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the awkward financial position of many Canadian shipyards, would the government consider subsidizing a boat suitable for racing for the America Cup.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

According to his statement recorded on page 23 of Hansard, has he met with the Minister of Tourism for Quebec in order to discuss the non-existence of national parks in the province of Quebec, and what agreement has been reached?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I met the Minister of Tourism of Quebec on Wednesday last, here in Ottawa. We had a very fruitful exchange of views. Our officials are studying this problem and I hope to be able to issue a statement on this subject in perhaps a month.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding the Adult Occupational Training Act. Has his department received any protests from the provinces regarding the omission of students who have left the school system but who have not yet been 12 months on the labour market?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in the proper form and has to be ruled out of order.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence will direct it to the acting minister. In view of the serious consequences to railway services and employees in Saskatchewan from the proposed changes in transportation of potash by I.M.C. of Esterhazy, is it the intention of the minister to call for an inquiry into the freight rate structure for the transportation of potash to the United States and overseas markets?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this question should be asked at this particular time. If the hon. member knows of urgency in connection with it that is not apparent to the Chair, it might be discussed at the time of adjournment.
September 24, 1968



STATEMENT ON JURISDICTION RESPECTING SAFETY OF RAILWAY WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, on September 19 the Minister of Transport took notice of a question directed to him by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The minister's reply, which he has asked me to make on his behalf, is that the railway transport committee has held hearings but has not yet made a decision on the matter raised in the hon. member's question. A judgment will be made shortly by the transport committee and will be announced.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
CORN-REPRESENTATIONS AS TO PRICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the corn harvest has already started, and yesterday there was a further six cents per bushel drop in the price, can the minister state whether the government has reached any decision regarding representations made on this matter last week by the O.F.U. and the C.F.A.?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these were two very useful meetings, with an exchange on the problems, both mechanical and physical, involved in the solutions suggested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Farmers Union. I think it was made fairly clear to both organizations what these problems were, but there were one or two other things that seemed to be somewhat easier of implementation that are under active consideration, and I hope we can have an answer to this within a day or two.
CHEESE-DUMPING OF EUROPEAN PRODUCT On the orders of the day:


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement in Vancouver yesterday by the president of the National Dairy Council to the effect that European cheese is being dumped in Canada, is the minister aware of this and, if so, what is the government doing or proposing to do to stop it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have that article here. I believe the one the hon. gentleman is referring to is the article which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette. It is rather brief and not
Inquiries of the Ministry too informative. Certainly if cheese is being dumped into Canada appropriate steps will be taken to prevent such action. An investigation is under way. However, certainly more information is needed than was contained in the press article.
In general, imports of cheese into Canada are limited to relatively high priced specialty types of cheese which are not produced in Canada. I would have to look into the matter further before accepting the suggestion that cheese is being dumped.


George Harris Hees: The Canadian Press dispatch states definitely that cheese is being dumped and that the president of the National Dairy Council is very worried about it. In view of this would the minister contact the president of that organization and find out what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a submission now which is noted by the minister.



APPLICATION OF P.F.A.A. FOLLOWING DETERIORATION OF CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the frozen and deteriorated state of crops in many parts of the west, will the minister be introducing an amendment to the P.F.A. administration?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No amendments to the P.F.A. administration are anticipated for this season's operations.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he given consideration to his government taking action against car manufacturers who have increased the price of their products to the Department of Defence Production, which will later become a department of services and supplies, in view of the fact that the second of the big three manufacturers has now announced a big price increase?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this with the minister concerned.

September 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY WILHEM SCHUT

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly allow me to point out the presence in the Speaker's gallery of His Excellency Wilhem Schut, Netherlands Minister of Housing and Land Development, head of a mission on housing which is visiting Canada in order to examine the advantages of wood in house building.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



EXPO '67 STATEMENT RESPECTING MONTREAL SHARE OF DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville on Friday asked what talks have taken place with the city of Montreal in respect of the city's share of the deficit arising out of the operation of the corporation for the 1967 world exhibition.
My predecessor on behalf of the government of Canada, as the major source of funding for the corporation, proposed terms to the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal for repayment of their respective shares of the cost of Expo' over four and eight year periods respectively, commencing on July 1, 1968. The government of the province of Quebec responded to this suggestion and repayment commenced in July as proposed. Montreal has not yet responded to the proposal.
The government is aiming at winding up Expo' by March 31, 1969. Final calculation of the total cost is, of course, not possible until all outstanding business of the corporation is completed.
It is anticipated that appropriate arrangements will be made among the participants for the final distribution of the corporation's assets and liabilities by that date.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, since following redistribution two

thirds of the south side of the inner harbour of Vancouver now is in my riding, I am sure you will understand the importance of my question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that the government's decisions on estimates are already in and must be contemplated for the fiscal year starting April 1 of next year, may I ask the minister, who is in charge of the dredging for the Harbours Board, if he is giving major consideration to completing the dredging of Vancouver harbour in these estimates in one year and not in the long term plan of the previous administration.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: All aspects of the harbour of Vancouver are taken into consideration by my department.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: When questions are felt to be important by hon. members perhaps I should allow them to ask their questions and permit the answer, even though the time for questions has expired. However, if we are to operate properly and effectively by the rules I think we should make an effort to have shorter questions and shorter answers, so that all hon. members will be given an opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER PROCEDURAL CHANGES

Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), seconded by Mr. Pelletier, moves-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suggest that a motion like this might be seconded by a member of the opposition. Why not the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)?


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -moves:
That a special committee of twelve members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report upon the advisability of making changes in the orders concerning
September 24, 1968

the business of supply, the business of ways and means, the stages of the legislative process, and the operation of the standing committees of this house; upon the advisability of making permanent, with or without amendment, any or all the several changes in the procedures of this house that were in effect prior to the dissolution of parliament on April 23, 1963; and upon the advisability of such other changes as the committee may deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the house; and
That this special committee is hereby instructed to make its reports to the house prior to December 1, 1968, and to include in its reports drafts of proposed standing orders drawn to give effect, if adopted by the house, to any change or changes that may be proposed by the committee.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in my first words may I express my thanks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his support in this regard. I should like to reiterate that I do not at this time intend to set before the house the detailed changes the government will be proposing. I wish to take the occasion of the introduction of this motion to give the house some idea of the underlying propositions which the government is considering in connection with the change in the standing orders of the house and give some indication of the various areas of the standing orders which we would like to be changed for the purpose of better facilitating the house business.
I believe it has become a truism that in recent years parliament, not only in Canada but in Great Britain, has been doing badly, it has been the subject of a great deal of criticism. When analysed, the reasons for that criticism appear to be threefold: First, the demeanour with which we carry on our parliamentary business; second, the delays created in turning legislative intention into law and, third, the failure on the part of members to examine in depth the proposals which come before us.
With regard to the first of these criticisms, the question of demeanour or the manner in which we carry out the functions of the house,
I do not believe that even the most Draconian of rules or the greatest martinet of a speaker could possibly bring about any change or improvement. It remains an individual responsibility of the members as to the manner in which they approach their conduct in the chamber. But with respect to the second and third of these criticisms, the fact that we take too much time and that we do not go deeply enough into the business of the house, these seem to me to be areas in which we can take

Consideration of Procedural Changes collective responsibility, and indeed those are the two areas in which as an underlying theme the government feels changes should be made to the rules of the house.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I think the first thing to be said about those two criticisms is that, at least to a degree they are contradictory. If we are to put more business through the house in a shorter period of time, obviously it will be impossible to go more deeply into each individual item. It was really to overcome this contradiction that the government proposed to put more work, and therefore more responsibility, into the standing committees system of the house.
If all business must at all times pass through a single pipe line-that is to say, this chamber-it is obvious that slowing down the flow in that pipe line by examining with greater scrutiny the individual details will impair the ability to get more tasks done. But if, as the government will propose to the special committee, we put the most detailed aspects of our work-for example, the detailed scrutiny of the estimates or the clause by clause examination of legislation- into the functional standing committees, then the flow will have been broken up into three, four or more pipe lines and a stoppage in one will not necessarily be a stoppage in all.
The dissatisfaction of the public with the manner in which we have conducted our business in the past was reflected in the past two parliaments in efforts made to bring about changes in our procedures. We in this parliament are the beneficiaries of the work of earlier parliamentary committees and also of the accumulated experience of this house in working with the provisonal rules which have been in effect in recent years and which have been carried on until the start of the session after Christmas.
By the committee which this resolution proposes, therefore, we have the opportunity and indeed the responsibility to bring to completion the changes which were proposed in those previous sessions and some of the changes which were carried out provisionally. From these general propositions I would like to move to a more specific consideration of the responsibilities of the house.
The fundamental duties of the house can be stated to be at least three. First, to authorize the imposition of taxation or, to put it in the jargon of parliamentary language, the business of ways and means.
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is this the order of
importance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that I do not know whether it is a principle his party would follow, but it is one that this party will follow, that on the whole we should not spend the money before we have it. Second, to authorize the expenditure of revenues so obtained by taxation-that is called the business of supply, the appropriation out of the public funds of moneys for government purposes-and third, to enact changes in our general public law, that is, those parts of our general public law other than those two financial aspects, which for the purposes of my remarks I would like to refer to as the ordinary legislative business.
The remarks with which I should like to begin in more detail relate to the business of supply, because essentially it is the question of supply which provides the anatomy of the parliamentary year. It is the bringing down of the estimates, dealing with the estimates and their subsequent voting, which to a very great degree determines the character the session will take. At the present time the items of expenditures proposed by the ministry- that is to say, the estimates-are examined by a committee of the whole house known as the committee of supply.
To provide those generally opposed to the ministry with opportunities to attack the ministry and to criticize its policies, the motion that the Speaker leave the chair to go into committee of supply has been made debatable on a fixed number of occasions. Each of these debates is limited to two days, always a Monday and the following Tuesday, and the provisional rules which hitherto were followed permitted a debate on four such occasions, making a total of eight days.
This meant that during each normal session the opposition could raise, by means of an amendment, four specific subjects on which it wanted a debate and a decision, entailling either an expression of confidence or nonconfidence by the house. Once a group of estimates has been given to the committee of supply they are gone over, item by item, by the entire membership of the house. Under the 1962 version of the standing orders there was no time limit stipulated for this item by item consideration. Under the provisional version the time limit of 30 days was prescribed for all the business of supply except the final supplementary estimates.

The importance of the business of supply is clear. First, it is one of the ways in which the house can assert the constitutional principle that a ministry is responsible to the house both in relation to its general conduct and the detail of its administrative work. Second, the business of supply, particularly the debates on supply motions, provides the opposition with an opportunity to bring before the house matters which may be of importance but which may not for the moment have been included in the government's program. Third, the business of supply provides members with an opportunity to examine, to comprehend and to influence the executive work of the various departments and agencies.
There has been criticism of the practices we have followed in dealing with supply. The criticism of the present practices seems to centre around three major points. First, it is said that the committee of supply is too cumbersome for the intensive study of the items in the estimates. Members are inclined to give speeches rather than to examine. Ministers often, rather than dealing with the questions as they are put, wait until the end and give a long reply which in itself becomes a long speech, which in turn may not be satisfactory to the questioners. Some items, not necessarily the most important or controversial, monopolize the time and energy of members, while others are marched through in the dying hours of a session.
The second criticism is that the four supply motion debates, based as they are on the needs of an era when the house met only three or four months each year during the winter and spring, do not meet modern requirements. Ordinarily these debates are bunched together into the spring, perhaps in successive weeks, so that the opposition must expend its ammunition whether or not it has at the moment a good target. No notice of the amendment is given, so that the real issue on the matter can only be joined on the Monday evening of the debate.
The third and final criticism is that it is said the serious study of the estimates is not promoted when as much as a half or three quarters of the total proposed expenditure already has been approved through votes by way of granting interim supply. It was probably these considerations which entered into the thinking of the special committee on procedure in 1967 and 1968 when it included the following in the report tabled in the house on March 13, 1968; the passage to
September 24, 1968

which I am referring may be found in Votes and Proceedings for that year, at page 764:
Your committee believes that we should scrutinize carefully the possibility of bringing together the best in the Canadian and British practice relating to the business of supply in order to decide if the result would be more satisfactory than the system which now prevails in either country. On the one hand, we are not prepared to abandon the examination of the estimates before the money is voted; indeed we believe that a major defect of present Canadian practice in this regard is that we deal with expenditure items ex post facto. If this practice is continued we probably should simply convert the consideration of the estimates into the examination of general and continuing programs. On the other hand we do not think that the use of weeks of supply days as presently carried on exerts much control over ministers and departments or is of any genuine value to the opposition. The British practice, while it avoids discussion of the estimates items, has the great value that it permits the opposition to explore whatever shortcomings, either small or great, it detects in the policies and conduct of the ministry before supply is voted.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The committee's observations, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, lead to two general conclusions: First, that the study of estimates should take place in the standing committees around April 1 of each year, that is to say, the date on which the fiscal year of the government commences; and second, that a specified number of days in each annual session should be made available to the opposition for debates on opposition motions, that is to say, on subject matters which are the specific choice of the opposition.
In its fifth report the committee proposed that the main estimates be referred to the standing committees as soon as they are tabled, that is to say, some time fairly early in February, if the house was not to find itself dealing with the estimates in the following autumn. It should therefore conclude its work on those estimates before the summer. Consequently, it seems reasonable to suggest that the standing committees should conclude their work before June 1.
In the United Kingdom, the days available to the opposition for its own motions are sometimes called supply days and they really parallel our supply motion days. Often, to avoid any suggestion that the supply days are confined either to the estimates as a whole or to specific items of expenditure, these days are referred to as allotted days or opposition days. Therefore, when I use that term that is the practice I will be referring to, namely, the days on which the opposition picks a subject matter, the subject matter not being confined to any specific item in the estimates.

Consideration of Procedural Changes
The special committee of this house which sat early this year and last year envisaged the annual sessions as beginning in the autumn. This would mean that some time before or after the Christmas recess, but not too soon after the votes on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne which we just concluded, there should be a number of supply or opposition days so that the opposition could have the opportunity of stating its views on public questions of its choice.
On the other hand, the ministry is in need of getting interim supply before the start of each fiscal year. Therefore the opposition should have an additional number of days before the end of March. The number should take into consideration the fact that the debate and votes on the budget normally come in April, and therefore in the spring period there would be other opportunities to make this type of general observation.
Since the supply sought in the main estimates should be granted or denied before too great a part of the fiscal year has passed, that is to say, before the summer break, another set of opposition days should be planned for the months of April, May and June, and especially for late May and June, because of the absence from that period of other opportunities, such as the debate on the address and the budget, for the opposition to take the initiative on this type of matter. Moreover, because the reports prepared by the standing committees on estimates would be ready by June, it is conceivable that the opposition would select one or more of its opposition days specifically for the purpose of debating a report from a special standing committee on estimates which may be of particular interest.
One of the critical questions is how many supply or opposition days should be allotted to this purpose, and this is a question which is not easy to answer. I would suggest there is no particular number of any magical significance. For example, under the provisional rules there were eight supply motion days, but there were also under those rules 30 additional days for the examination of the estimates in committee of supply. On the other hand, at Westminster there is a total of 29 days, but there the current year's estimates are not studied intensively, as would be possible here in Canada.
It may be contended, of course, that there should be no time limits whatsoever, that is to say, that the debate on supply should continue until each and every member has been fully and finally satisfied with regard to his
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes questions on the estimates. However, the constitutional requirement is that the House of Commons be satisfied, and the House of Commons makes its decisions by majority votes. In other words, the standing orders should give the majority of the house opportunities to decide whether or not it supports the ministry. Here again the special committee, this time in its fifth report which was tabled on March 29, 1968, made this general observation with respect to the question of supply:
-the house should decide whether or not to grant supply at regular intervals so that (a) the opposition's opportunities to criticize are not concentrated in any one part ot the year and (b) the ministry is not distracted by constant uncertainty about supply.
I would submit that the opposition should have as many supply days as it needs, but it should not have the embarrassment-and I am taking advice in this regard from certain distinguished members on the occasion of their visit to Westminster-of having to use more days than it feels justified in using. The problem in stipulating this number of days in the rules, as I had the opportunity of stating in the throne speech debate, is that the maximum inclines to become the minimum. For example, an extra five or ten days, perhaps running on into July, are not particularly crucial for the government. Finding the best number of days really matters more to the opposition. They should have as many supply days as they need, but they should not have the embarrassment of having to use more days than they would feel justified in using. If that proposition is questioned, I would refer to some of the observations of the group which visited Westminster.
Another difficult problem concerns the significance of supply day motions from the standpoint of revealing whether or not the ministry continues to have the confidence of the house. If the question of confidence were clearly entailed in every vote on a supply day, the opposition might be made to appear overly zealous to bring on an election, and this might be politically embarrassing. Moreover, if the question of confidence were clearly entailed in every vote on a supply day, a minority government probably would be far less able to survive than under the present arrangements.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Under Pearson's rules you would have no trouble.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will have no trouble anyway, my friend, because that unhappy condition no longer exists.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).1


Mr. Baldwin:: Wait until Mike hears about that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some government!


An hon. Member:: Now we are all in the dark.
Consideration of Procedural Changes
[And the lighting failure having been corrected:]


Gerald William Baldwin: It is because we have a good opposition that the lights are now on again.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have always regarded hon. members as having the faculty of carrying on in the dark, but 1 am glad to have not only the physical but the intellectual opportunity of enlightening hon. gentlemen.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am waiting for you to start.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In addition to questions of procedure, the committee is also being asked to review the operations of the standing committees of the house. There will be a number of additional matters to be considered, for example, the question of emergency motions filed by the government and by the opposition, the procedure to be followed in respect of statements on motions, and other matters in respect of which it would be useful to have the judgment of the committee on changes to our standing orders. I am sure that representatives of other groups in the house will in turn have proposals for changes in our procedures.
It might be appropriate at this time to indicate that in addition to changes to the standing orders of the house the government will put before the house from time to time certain additional changes in its own procedures which it believes will facilitate the public business. These would be changes which do not in themselves require changes in the standing orders. I had the opportunity last night to refer to one of these proposals, that is, in respect of establishing the practice of making periodic weekly statements, on my own part, with questions by opposition house leaders, as to the house business for a week.
It will also be the intention of the government to work out a roster of attendance in the house for ministers of departments during the question period so that it would not be necessary for all ministers at all times to be present in the house. It might then be predictable when certain questions should be asked. I should emphasize at this particular point it is not intended to follow the practice in the British house of giving advance written notice but rather to follow the practice in this house of having spontaneous topical questions asked. This practice would be preserved, although such questions might not necessarily elicit a response on that particular day. Hon. members may possibly say there is some unlikelihood of ever obtaining an answer.

September 24. 1968


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister to make it clear that in respect of the question period the decision would be made unilaterally by the government rather than being referred to the committee being established today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is correct in respect of the attendance of ministers. The proposal is that this would be decided within the framework of ministerial attendance at cabinet committees and the performance of other duties, so that on a periodic basis the attendance of ministers in the house would be assured. It is my understanding that this would require no change in the standing orders.
In the same way there will be certain proposals which the government will be putting forward by way of legislation as opposed to changes in standing orders. These will have an effect on the business of the house.
There has been some criticism in recent years about the manner in which we have handled private bills. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), will likely have the opportunity later this session, or perhaps at the next session, of bringing forward a measure to provide for the incorporation of certain of these private companies by letters patent as opposed to private acts as is now the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question at this stage? If the plan the minister has in mind is brought into being, certain ministers would be present in the house only on such days as they would apparently deign to come. Would there then be a minister acting on those occasions on behalf of those absent ministers to answer, using the expression of the minister, topical questions as they arise?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is a question to be considered. It seems to me a more logical organization of the time of the house, if a minister is not present one day but is very likely to be present the next, that the question might be answered the following day. As to the advisability of having acting ministers, that is another possibility to be considered.
On behalf of the government may I say that we welcome from all hon. members, apart altogether from the proposals that they will be making to the house regarding

September 24, 1968

changes in standing orders, further suggestions which would improve the manner in which the house goes about its business and with which the government can co-operate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we have inherited in our parliamentary system of government an exceptional institution. It is exceptional by that ultimate standard, that it has been successful in providing effective government, at the same time providing protection of the rights of individuals. But even a casual examination of the history of the British system of parliamentary government reveals that its essential genius lies, it seems to me, not in the fact that one final set of proposals have been set down and followed thereafter but in its adaptability. Because procedures could be varied and have been varied from time to time, the institution is able to change with changing circumstances.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, parliament may be likened to a living being, not a dead and ossified set of procedures established for all time but an evolving institution capable of growing and altering to meet the new demands of our changing society.
In this committee, therefore, we are establishing for this house and for our parliamentary institution another means of such growth, a source of adaptation of procedures that we have inherited to the demands of our new and increasingly complex age. It presents for us in the house both an opportunity and a challenge to make certain that we have tended carefully our great inheritance in our time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome this opportunity to discuss in this chamber as it should be discussed the question of the procedures under which this house carries on its business and maintains the great and noble character of the institution it has become and which I fervently pray it will continue to be. It is true, sir, that there is need for change, that there are, as the minister has said, certain obsolescences which have crept into our procedures. The characteristic of longevity is not to suggest that some of the principles, not so much the reflection of those principles but the principles themselves, should be eternal and with us forever. I might say that certain habits of the human race have continued. Adam and Eve started one which has continued quite acceptably up till the present time, so far as I am aware.
In connection with these proposals, Mr. Speaker, I am quite convinced from my discussions at various times in and out of the

Consideration of Procedural Changes house, both with members of my party and with members of other parties, that there are changes which will undoubtedly be acceptable to all. On the other hand, I am convinced from what I have seen and heard that there are changes that the government is going to propose which will not be acceptable. This is where we will part company from the government. This must necessarily be so, Mr. Speaker. The government and the opposition must, for the good of the country, approach the issue of the transaction of business in this house from a completely different viewpoint.
Take legislation, sir. Legislation is enacted on the advice and assent of the Senate and the House of Commons. Many governments, particularly this government, I feel, barely tolerate assent and are very unhappy about advice. This is one of the areas we must now approach in order to see to what extent the practices of this house can be enlarged to permit a greater measure of advice, change and adaptation by the house as a whole of government proposals.
Not for one minute would I ever suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the initiative must not at all times flow from the government. The purpose of government is to govern. In the kind of society in which we now live, and having in mind the responsibilities of members of this house on both sides-I speak now for those private members who sit behind the minister and on this side as well as for members of opposition parties-there is ample opportunity for members to participate to some extent in the legislative process once bills and other measures have been brought into the house. The proposals that we will make will have some connection with this idea.
When the government sees fit to introduce a measure and brings it to the stage of second reading, obviously it is a measure that has worked its way up from the bowels of the civil service, has received final approval so far as the government is concerned, and probably has political sex appeal. Once the bill comes to second reading it is a beloved child of the government. The government, as is the custom of all parents, will not tolerate any suggestion that there is any hint of imperfection or deformity in this child.
I think this has been one of the great difficulties in the legislative process. Too many times have too many statutes gone through this house without the government receiving those proposals that private members are well able to make and are probably
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes better qualified to submit than the civil service. Who better than the private member in close touch and communication with his constituents, the people of Canada, can consider and survey the impact of a legislative proposal, how that piece of legislation affects the people he represents, and how will it affect all the people of Canada? I think there is an opportunity in the legislative process, without to any extent at all impairing the initiative, prerogative and responsibility of the government, to permit this to be done.
During the last four years 210 statutes have been passed. Of these, if one excludes appropriation bills and new bills originally passed, 93 measures were in fact amending statutes. As I said the other day, no government, no group of people, can possibly cast their minds far enough ahead to prepare for all of the contingencies and eventualities which human life and its vicissitudes may bring about. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, not only as a member of the house but as one who, together with a great number of my colleagues, has spent years practising before the courts, that there are innumerable cases of statutes coming out of this parliament and out of provincial legislatures which are half-baked, ill-conceived, ill-prepared and which do not attain the object for which they are designed. This situation can be cured by giving the members of this house through various media which I hope will be suggested to this standing committee, an opportunity to put in a more concrete and eloquent way, a way which will receive some attention from the government, proposals which will better the legislation enacted by this parliament.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I suspect we all remember the story of the Procrustean bed and of the robber who placed his victims on it. If they were too long when he placed them on it he cut their feet off; if they were too short he had them stretched. That is often the type of legislation to come out of legislative bodies. It is much simpler to change the size of the bed. If we do that we shall obtain better legislation.
More consideration must be given to the views of individual members of this house. We must not permit the unique and difficult circumstances at present facing us to hasten our decision. I repeat and emphasize what I said earlier during the throne speech debate: we must not permit the government or any of its members to hasten us into a decision with regard to rule changes which will be designed 

primarily to fit the unusual circumstances existing at the present time.
Since last December, when the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, indicated his intention of resigning his position, we have had no effective government. Some measures were passed, there was some attention to business, but we have had no real government. Much of the legislative backlog and consideration of estimates which awaits us derives from this fact. Because of the action or lack of action of the government of that time we went from crisis to crisis up to the end of last March. Under normal circumstances we should have returned after the Easter recess prepared to deal with the estimates and other legislative proposals then on the order paper. That did not happen, for obvious reasons.
Today we recognize the difficulties of the government. Because of a political decision made by the present Prime Minister and his supporters we find that we are now faced with an overloaded legislative program, many parts of which we recognize as being essential for the people of this country. That being so, we shall continue to give, as we have given, our utmost measure of co-operation despite the fact that the entire fault for our present circumstances lies on the shoulders of those who are on the government side of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: A similar situation prevailed in the longest session this parliament has ever known, the session of 1966-67, during which the house sat for almost 250 days and passed, I believe, 83 bills. A survey of them can be a very interesting exercise. Seventy eight of those 83 measures were each passed in one day. It took one day each for those measures to pass all stages, and in parliamentary terms one day is roughly equivalent to between four and four and a half hours. Five bills of that session took 80 days to pass. Those five bills included the decennial revision of the Bank Act, then two or three years overdue, the unification of the armed forces bill, f the old age security legislation, medicare and the transportation bill, each being lengthy and extremely controversial. Their passage involved significant and substantial legislative changes. As I say, they were long, difficult and complex bills and, if I am not mistaken, three or possibly four of them were never sent to a committee. The transport bill went to a committee, and though it took many days to pass throuh the house it would have taken
Sepiember 24, 1968	COMMONS
much longer if it had not first gone to a committee where amendments were proposed and accepted. While in its final form that bill was not the best that could have been produced by the house, its consideration in committee cut down the time of passage through the house.
The estimates went through in the time then allotted under the provisional standing orders. I think the government of that day must take the responsibility for the length of the session and for the fact that five measures, which were of great complexity and difficulty, took the time they did to pass through the house.
The same remark might well apply to our present situation. We shall be asked to deal with measures such as the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code involving five isolated and difficult problems, any one of which ought to be the subject of a separate measure and every one of which involves the conscience and serious consideration of members of this house. Each of those amendments, as I say, ought to be included' in a separate measure.
The minister talks about the reform of the legislative process, and I agree with him. There is a lot of room for improvement. But,
I ask, in the name of heaven how can the minister and the government expect members of the house to consider briefly the second reading stage of a bill such as the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code involving five important, difficult and controversial subjects, to say nothing of the 200 or 300 sections, which in a substantive or procedural way may deeply affect, if adopted, the lives and liberties of the people of Canada. That is the position. I do not know what the government will do. I do not know what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will propose. Is the matter to go to a committee and will witnesses be called? That is the sort of thing the select committee on procedure will need to look at earnestly and seriously.
I repeat the proposition I made. It is not good enough for members of this house, when approaching a study of the reform of the rules and regulations which govern our conduct in this house, to consider reforms with minds oriented only toward a consideration of the difficulties which face us at present. I hope the minister and the government agree with me. We must take the long view.
What will be the situation two years from now or three years from now? The Prime Minister called an election and we are now
DEBATES	403
Consideration of Procedural Changes faced with a tremendous backlog of legislative and other parliamentary business. We cannot tailor our rules simply to expedite the passage of this business or to cover this situation. If we do, we shall be very sorry indeed.
Those are the general comments I wish to make. There are some particular areas I wish to cover. Other members of our party may have other comments to make. I wish to deal with the question of committees. I agree that there is a place for committees in this house. More use might be made of them, though not to the extent that use is made of them in the United States.
In my hand I have reports of two United States committees, the very prestigious foreign affairs committee of the Senate and the joint economic committee of Congress which has members from the House of Representatives and the Senate. The latter committee comes up with proposals which are issued in a statement similar to or the equivalent of a white paper tabled by the Minister of Finance in parliament. It is probably given even greater consideration than the report of the economic consultative committee established by the President. I do not think it is part of our parliamentary tradition that this should be done. However, I believe we could go a lot farther than we do today.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Committees must not be frustrated by a refusal on the part of chairmen to bring committee reports into the house. Committees must not be frustrated by the refusal of the government to call them together and set them in motion so as to carry out the terms of reference assigned to them. In this connection I need only refer to the public accounts committee which is faced with the formidable task of dealing with three annual reports by the Auditor General before the session is over.
Again, a committee having made a report and it having been brought before the house, there should be reasonable opportunity given for the report to be debated. The government is not obliged to accept it, of course, but if a committee has struggled with the problem placed before it and brought a report forward there should certainly be an opportunity, within reasonable limits, of debating it. These things, plus the establishment of reasonable budgets for committee activities, are essential if committees are to do part of the work of the house within the terms proposed by the minister.
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes
I agree we have now reached a stage where certain aspects of our legislative program are not dealt with most effectively and efficiently in the house. Committees can play a considerable role. The committee on estimates is an apt illustration. But not for one moment do I entertain the idea that this house should at any time or under any circumstances delegate to a committee of the house the decision-making power which can only reside here in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Similarly, when a committee has made its report it is the house which must decide. Again, responsibility cannot be abdicated. I agree that there is an inquisitorial and investigative process which can best be discharged through the medium of the committee system. I agree that by using the committee system hon. members can add to their knowledge, provided, of course, that other facilities are made available to them. A while ago the minister said we should not spend our money before we get it. I can assure him we shall not engage any research staffs until we have seen the estimates.
Hon. members undoubtedly have an opportunity to become more knowledgeable when they can sit across the table from a minister and direct questions to him, provided, of course, that the minister is a little more informative than he is in the house, and when they have the opportunity to examine expert witnesses. I am confident that in these circumstances members come back to this house better prepared for a crisper, more intelligent and, I would venture to suggest, shorter debate directed to the principles, and it is to the principles that this house should always be directing its attention. We ought surely to make use of the committee system but we must stop short of giving to committees rights which only this house can exercise.
I still entertain the utmost hope of achieving a measure of reform along the lines I have suggested. I must admit, though, that I am a lot more careful now in this regard than I was a year ago. The authoritarian trend which this government has indicated, its almost grotesque obsession with secrecy, must place a responsibility on all members of the opposition parties to be most careful when it comes to giving up rights which are essential for the preservation of this institution and for the protection of the rights of the Canadian people.
We talk about the question period. On that score I would say to the hon. gentleman: we

all accept the fact that ministers of the crown have multifarious duties and that it may be necessary for them on occasions to be elsewhere employed in the business of the country. The government has the right to say that certain ministers will not be present on certain occasions. But we would strongly oppose any suggestion that, unilaterally, the government should decide that certain ministers would be absent on certain days. This could mean that if a crisis occurred on one of those days when a minister was not here the house would be obliged to wait until he returned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member be agreeable to trying this out on an experimental basis to see whether the public interest would be served?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be agreeable to the matter being discussed in the committee, where the whole subject of the question hour and the approach to be taken toward it could be studied. I think we ought to accept that under the federal system there is greater need for questions which are possibly more regional in character than they would be under other systems. We have superimposed parliamentary government and the party system upon our federal structure and I think the discipline of the party system sometimes inhibits the airing of problems which have a regional background. Though I believe the question period could be improved upon, an opportunity does exist through this medium for members from all parts of Canada to ventilate their grievances and attempt to secure remedies. Earlier today we were dealing with the security problem. Here is a situation where, if the security of the nation is threatened, the person involved would obviously be the subject of prosecution. But if the security of the nation is not involved, then, equally plainly, parliament and the country are entitled to a greater measure of information than was given today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And every day.


Gerald William Baldwin: My leader says "every day". I bring this matter up specifically as an indication of the failure, in part, of the question period and as an example of the necessity for making improvements to it in order to permit members of this house to discharge their responsibility to their constituents and to the people of Canada to scrutinize and bring into the searching spotlight of publicity the actions of this or of any government.
September 24, 1968

We observe with concern that government grows ever stronger and stronger-and government is more and more coming to mean the office of the prime minister. Add to this the implications of the discovery by creators of television public affairs programs that politics and politicians can be subjected to treatment in such a way as to project an element of entertainment and there is yet another reason for our concern. The image which appears on the television screen can be so manipulated and distorted that it is sometimes more art than nature.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
More and more frequently this new toy will emphasize the emergence of personalities, the cult of the individual, and somehow we will have to learn to live with it. But it does violence to the basic principle of parliamentary democracy. We must then find ways and means to seek out and bring forward counterbalancing forces to check and control the startling expansion of the Prime Ministry, an institution occupied by an individual but rapidly becoming an office which no one person is capable of understanding or directing, no matter what his qualifications.
The United States wisely provided a system of checks and balances by keeping the executive separate from the legislative branch. We do not agree with their system but they have these checks and balances. They may have made too great a fetish of it, but certainly, Mr. Speaker, the checks and balances which the private members of the opposition parties must have, retain and expand in order to keep watch on this government must not be lost in the type of parliamentary reform which is considered in the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion that is now before the house and I did not mind the way in which Your Honour turned the tables on me and named me as the seconder of it.
I might say that not only do we agree with the motion but I agree with many things that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said during the course of his speech. In fact I feel I must say to him that it is a better speech than it would have been if he had made it before we had several consultations among the house leaders. It struck me that he paid attention to some of the counterproposals that were made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon.
Consideration of Procedural Changes member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), and myself. He did not accept all of our suggestions. There was one in particular, related to the question period, on which he did not accept our position, but generally speaking I think the minister's speech has demonstrated already the value of consultation in this field.
I welcome also the portions of the speech of the hon. member for Peace River in which he emphasized the problem that faces us with respect to time and the necessity of our including, in any changes in the rules that we make, full protection for the rights of all members of the House of Commons.
It is often said, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think we can repeat it too often, that the rules of this house are parliament's business, not the government's. The government is recognizing that fact by placing this motion before the house and by asking an all-party committee to deal with the rules of the house. We in turn as members of the opposition have an obligation not only to criticize the proposals that may be made by the government but to make proposals ourselves and to accept the responsibility of working out jointly rules and procedures that will make for the best operation of the House of Commons.
In that vein, Mr. Speaker, there are some specific suggestions that I want to make in a few minutes. Some of them may not be popular in all quarters but I think we do have to get down to the serious business of dealing with our rules. However, before I do so there are a few conceptions or misconceptions about parliament that I think ought to be cleared up.
In the first place, I think it should be emphasized that bringing in new rules, no matter how good or how far reaching they may be, is no substitute for good legislation, and I say to the government that I have a little bit of concern-perhaps more than a little bit-that it is a technocratic kind of government. It is going to foster changes in the rules. It is going to reorganize the departments of government. It is going to come along with different ways of doing things, but good legislation of substance is down at the bottom of the list. That is not good enough. It is not good enough to try to substitute changes in the rules for good legislation.
The other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, is equally valid. Making changes in the rules is no substitute for good performance on the part of members on both sides of the house. Just as we will not let the government use the rules as an excuse for not getting its
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes business through, so we should not use the rules as an excuse for not being good members, for not attending to our business, for not being in our places, for not making proposals worthy of the consideration of parliament. Rules are important, but more important than rules are the legislation the government brings in and the performance of members on both sides of the house.
A second point I would like to make is one that arises out of a criticism that we often read in the press. It is a criticism that a number of members made during the course of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It has to do with the question of talk, of speech-making in parliament. There are times when our critics on the outside, and some on the inside, speak as though talking is a crime, as though making speeches is something that should not happen in parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as too much talk. There is such a thing as burying important business in a flood of words. I said to one interested person a day or two ago, when some comments were made about the length of the throne speech debate and that eight days were maybe longer than it needed to be, that when I first came here the throne speech took a full month. That was back in the early and middle 1940's. My friend, who had been an observer of the scene in those days, replied that Mackenzie King liked it that way, that by talking and talking in the throne speech debate members did not bother him about the business of the country.
I agree that there is such a thing as too much talk, but let us not allow the press, or anyone in this house, to get away with the thought that the main purpose of changing the rules is to cut down on or eliminate the right of free speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank God for free speech. It is the heart and the essence of democracy. Much as I am used to the formalities that we go through when we go over to the Senate to open a session of parliament, I always enjoy hearing Mr. Speaker claim from the representative of the crown the right of free speech for all members of parliament. It is when people do not have free speech, when matters cannot be discussed, that you lose democracy, that you have authoritarianism, that you have dictatorship. Free speech is something that we should have, and in any attempt to reform the rules of parliament let us not think that 
we are doing something valuable just because we cut down on the length of time we spend in this house.
I want to say also that the notion that using time is a crime or mistake does not always hold up. It is important that we use our time wisely; it is important that we use it well. But the implication I get from some criticism of parliament is that we should so organize our rules that we can do the year's work in two or three months and then go home, go about our other business or what-have-you. I think that is wrong and is not in keeping with the whole purpose of parliament. As a matter of fact, authoritative writers on the problems of parliament, its rules and procedures, over the decades have said that the important thing we must do when we talk about time is not simply to aim at saving time but to aim at making the best use of the time we have.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is another misconception I would like to clear up, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I am demonstrating my impartiality in this field. Some of my hon. friends opposite may not believe it but I think it is no crime for the government to try to get its legislation through parliament. After all, that is what governments are elected for. They are elected because the people support their policies. The people expect them to come to parliament with legislation to implement those policies and to do their best to get that legislation through.
I think we who are members of the opposition should not completely prevent legislation getting through. On the other hand, it is no crime for an opposition to attempt to stop a government putting through something that it disagrees with or something which the opposition feels has been hastily conceived and is not really good for the country. In other words, I am perhaps spelling out in another way what I had in mind when I talked about the right of free speech, namely, that the essence, the genius, of this place is that it is a place where there is equality on both sides. It is a place where the cut and thrust of debate is the basic rule, because it is out of the cut and thrust of debate that the government tries to get its legislation through with the opposition having the right to check it as it goes through and to keep the government from doing things that are wrong for the country. That is the democratic process and through it we can achieve the best for our times.
September 24, 1968

I should like to go on to say a word about tradition in so far as it affects the rules of parliament. There are some respects in which the traditions that are behind us are extremely good and must be respected, I would go so far as to say, to the end of time. I have in mind traditions which have to do with the right of free speech, traditions which have to do with the equality of the members on the floor of the House of Commons, traditions which have to do with the right of opposition members to expect the cabinet ministers to be present to answer questions in respect of their policies and their administration.
I think of the traditions we have about debate which divide it into various stages of time. We know that a rule could be devised whereby a government proposal would be debated once and that would be it. But our tradition says no, that it is better to have a first look at it, that it is a good idea to decide on it in principle, that then it should be looked at in detail and that after all that there should be another look at it. I go along with the President of the Privy Council in respect of some of the changes he wishes to make in that regard, but I make the point that there are some traditions like those centred around the right of free speech and the general process for the passing of legislation which are mighty good.
I believe all of us in this chamber have the right to be very proud of being members of this kind of an institution. We do not need to enhance our own position by making comparisons with other types of legislative bodies. I think, however, that we have inherited from our political progenitors one of the best kinds of legislative bodies. I think the essence of it is sound. I believe we would be making a mistake if we tampered with that essence and that we would do well to retain the heart and core of it.
On the other hand, there are times when tradition can hamper us. I think there is one area in which this is the case. The President of the Privy Council alluded to it today. I refer in particular to the trappings we have built up around the voting of supply and around the question of ways and means. It is not necessary to indulge in a treatise on history to remind hon. members that the British parliamentary system originated in an era when the King was out to get all the money he could get out of the barons. The barons, who later had to delegate some of their authority, were trying to prevent the King getting the money he wanted. So parliament

Consideration of Procedural Changes became largely involved in a test over this one question. Hence we had secretive types of supply and ways and means committees to discuss this kind of thing without the monarch looking on.
The result is that we have encrusted around our supply and ways and means machinery traditions which I do not think fit the 1960's or the 1970's. Even the committees that bear these names may be absolete. The struggle today is not a struggle between subjects and a king who is trying to obtain money for purposes they do not know very much about. The struggle today has shifted considerably. It is a struggle between the executive and parliament as a whole. It is also a struggle between points of view; it is a struggle among parties. I believe our own machinery should be adjusted to meet this situation. I shall come to that in a little more detail when I get down to the suggestion I intend to make.
I think it is becoming obvious that one of the areas where we must make the greatest reform is the way in which we handle the voting of supply and the providing of money. I accept the proposition, stated today so effectively by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that we must keep control of the purse strings and that if we let go our control over the spending of money we let go our control over the government. But I shall still stand here and utter what to some people will appear to be heresy. I no longer think the voting of supply is the main business of parliament.
I have heard it uttered from this side of the house a good many times that supply is the main business of parliament, and I expect it will be uttered in the course of this debate. The business of supply is important just as the control of the purse strings is important, but today the whole field of legislation and policy, what we should do for our people from the cradle to the grave, what we should do about the problems, all the way from under the sea to outer space, which face us, calls for a consideration which surely anyone will admit is just as important as the voting of supply and I think even more important. I believe that the time has come when we must find a way by which the voting of supply, the voting of expenditures of which we must approve, can be handled a little more routinely so that we have more time to focus our attention on new policies for the new problems of our times.
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes
There is nothing new about the suggestions I am making under the general heading of the word "tradition". There are some things about our traditions which I think are so eternally good that I hope we have them to the end of time. But because we value our free speech and the cut and thrust of debate, as well as all the other things that are part of democracy, does not mean that we must retain forever a system of voting money which came out of a time in history that has long since been left behind.
Having spent a little time in clearing away what I think are some of the misconceptions which I believe surround this house and its procedures I should like to come now to the specific matters to which I think our committee should address itself.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I agree, incidentally, with the hon. member for Peace River that we must not try to fashion rules for all time on the basis of the problem of this particular fall. I also hope, despite the fact that I support this motion and the requirement that there be a report by December 1, that if we find in the next few weeks we cannot do a final job by then we will have enough sense and responsibility to say to the house: The provisional rules had better be continued for another couple of months while we work a little further on this matter.
There will be a great many details to go into, the length of time spent on speeches, the length of various debates, the question of broadcasting our proceedings by radio and television, attendance in the house, the quorum, and so on. If this debate goes on, all kinds of questions will be raised. But I would like the committee to address itself to the main problem, on which I am sure we all agree, and the hon. member for Peace River confirmed this. That main problem is time.
I would be the last one to argue that dollars and cents are a satisfactory yardstick in this area, but at least it is a suggestion. I remind hon. members that in the first years of confederation the federal government's budget was of the order of $20 million. The annual budgets are now $10 billion. That is a multiplication of 50 times. I do not think I would be far wrong if I were-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is 500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
friend the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) says it is 500. I said it was

50. Whichever it is and he may be right, it does not matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: What's a million, anyway?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it
is 500, Mr. Speaker, rather than 50, perhaps my next sentence has to be qualified a little. But at least I feel it is safe to say that today in the House of Commons we have 50 times as much work to do in a year as the members of the first and second parliaments did back in the 1860's and 1870's. It might even be closer to 500 times. But we cannot find 50 times as many days in a year to do 50 times as much work as they had back in those first years of confederation. As a matter of fact, the sittings of parliament in those days ran about 60 or 65 days. Indeed, for a long time there was a section in the Senate and House of Commons Act that members received their full indemnity only if the session lasted for 65 days, so most sessions did last for 65 days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
do not have to have that kind of rule today. You cannot multiply 65 sitting days by 50 in a 365-day year. So the problem is there, the problem of time, and we have simply got to do something about it.
Another way to look at the problem is to think of the various departments and consider the government as it is today. In 1860 there were questions of railways, canals and telegraph lines, agriculture and colonization, the Post Office and things like that, but today the federal government touches every area of life.
I mentioned Mackenzie King's name a few minutes ago. I am sure that if he were to come back, or if he is looking at things through the spiritual telescope he is reported to have, he would be flabbergasted by the amount of work we have to do today. He would probably say, "You should keep the throne speech going for 30 days and let the government run the business." That is the situation today, and the amount of work we have to do will become even greater in the future. If this is the case, if our problem is time and to get done in 12 months the amount of work that faces us, what are we going to do about it? There are a great many little details we can go over, but I want to consider two general things and then reject one and accept the other. One general way to deal with a lot more business in the course of the same amount of time, in other words, to deal
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
with 50 times as much business in the same 12 months, is to cut down the time spent on every item, to cut down speeches from 40 to 30 to 20 to 10 minutes, to cut down speeches in committee of the whole to 5 minutes. We could do all kinds of things. We could cut down the time spent dealing with bills to one or two days. We could cut down the question period. This is one way to do it, that is, cut down the amount of time spent on each item of business, each bill, each resolution, each matter parliament has to deal with. Obviously, I do not think that is the way to do it.
We have this explosion of business, and if we are aware of the fact that we have a great deal more to do now than members had 20 years ago, let alone 100 years ago, there are three other things we could do. I press these three things and, as is usual in my way of putting things, there may be some subheadings.
In the first place, I think we must learn to delegate a good deal of our work to committees of the house. We cannot go on forever dealing with 50 to 100 times as much work as we had and do it all on the floor of the house. I think we have to strengthen our committees in various ways which I want to suggest. We must delegate more work to our committees, and having given more work to them we must place some confidence, trust, and respect in them.
I know that one idea I have about committees has not yet commended itself to members generally, but I press it again. I believe that committees at certain times of the year should be given the centre of the stage and therefore parliament as a whole should adjourn for a week out of a month or for a couple of weeks every six weeks or so and let the committees meet and deal with the many problems referred to them. As I say, they should be given the centre of the stage. I think there are times when committees should be parliament.
I think also, Mr. Speaker, that when committees have dealt with matters, whether the estimates or detailed studies of bills, that work should not be duplicated on the floor of parliament. I accept the proposition of the hon. member for Peace River that in all cases the final decision should be made here, but as for this business of sending the estimates to committee, having them gone over in great detail and then having them come back to committee of supply and gone over again- well, we can do it if we want to, but I do not think it is a good use of time.
DEBATES	409
Consideration of Procedural Changes
I think the same thing about bills. If a complicated bill like the broadcasting legislation, the armed forces unification bill or the Canada Pension Plan has gone to a committee and had a good, thorough going over by that committee, we should not repeat the same process here.
I like this suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council-I forget whether it was originally his or whether we worked it out in our sessions-that we should bring back to life what was once known as the report stage. If a matter goes to committee, be it the estimates or a bill, when it comes back it should not go before committee of the whole but with Mr. Speaker in the chair there should be a motion to adopt the report. If that report includes a reference to some things that were contentious, to some changes that were made, let the debate in the house be limited. Let it zero in on those particular points. In most cases the report stage would be passed without debate. The point of the hon. member for Peace River would be followed in that the decision would be made here. I think we would be using our time a lot better and strengthening the hand of committees if we did it this way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this stage?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member has been here a number of years. Has it not been his experience-I refer to committees as they are set up at the moment-that the tendency is that the report of the committee is written and controlled somewhat by the majority of the committee members, who are controlled by the government? I am speaking of all governments, not just this government but all governments in the past. So the report may be coloured. In many ways, if certain facts come out of departments, all governments tend to cover their sins, or at least those people who are writing the report do. That has been my experience in some of the committees and it seems to me that is the danger in the hon. member's suggestion.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no doubt some committees have operated that way. I have had the privilege of working on some committees where this was not the case, such as the old age security committee of 1950 and the Canada pension committee of a few years ago. I think hon. members who are here now and
410	COMMONS DEBATES	September 24, 1968
Consideration of Procedural Changes who were here then will realize that we did have a say in the making of that report. 1 recognize that this kind of thing can happen, but I think it happened because we have left the committees in a downgraded position. No matter what they do, it is done all over again back here. I think we should put them in the centre of the stage. We should not duplicate their work. We should give the members of those committees the research assistance which is being talked about so that they can do a good job. I also think-the hon. member for Peace River said this and I agree with him-that it should be clearly understood that the reports of committees will all be dealt with back on the floor of the house.
When a committee deals with bills or with estimates they come back and certainly they have to be dealt with here, but if it deals with a problem it has been investigating, such as birth control or breathalizers, the report may come back and there may be no further discussion on it. You do not strengthen committees by making them smaller, giving them new names, giving them research assistance and so on, if you still leave them in an inferior position. For all intents and purposes I think they have to become parliament at that particular point.
I am always happy to express my respect for what they do at Westminster. I confess that last year when I was over there with the committee, although I thought I knew all that was going on over there I was amazed at the degree to which they have got legislation off the floor of the house and into their committees upstairs. Their committees meet in rooms which are set up like the House of Commons itself and they do things in the same formal way that we do here, but it is actually possible at Westminster for legislation to go through all the stages without ever being discussed on the floor of the house itself. This is also what happens to estimates.
Let me say that there is a safeguard. If a certain number of members-I think it is ten-insist that a bill come back to the floor, this is done. I am not advocating we go that far, but I am saying that if we have 50 times as much work to do as did the members of the first parliament of Canada we have to do something about the problem of time. As I say, one of the ways is to upgrade the work of the committees, taking into consideration the various suggestions I have made.
The second suggestion that I make involves the use o a phrase which was always anathema to my good friend, the hon. Gordon

Churchill, the former member for Winnipeg South Centre, namely, "allocation of time". I have a great deal of respect for the views about parliament of my former neighbour, and when one speaks of these things one feels he is still here. For all we know he may be in the gallery listening to the debate.
I support allocation of time, because I do not like closure. Closure is a bad word which we all dislike, but I know of no more effective form of closure than unlimited debate. When you spend all of the time or most of the time in a year on the question of a flag you cut off the possibility of discussing medicare in that session. That type of closure is just as effective as if the government brought in the use of the rule. I think it is not a denial of free speech, it is not a denial of the democratic process, for us to find a way whereby we can agree to the amount of time that will be given to one subject so we can go to another. There is just too much to do for us to spend all our time on one subject.
I am glad we left 15-A out of the provisional rules to which we have agreed for the balance of this year. In fact, perhaps I might be forgiven for telling the house that I proposed at a meeting of the house leaders that we leave out 15-A. I did so as a form of conciliation in which I was engaged at that time. I did so because I do not think it is a satisfactory rule for the allocation of time. I think it can be improved on. It has to be something that will be worked on in advance as an all-party proposition, in the context of a parliament which is going well because people feel they are getting their say in committees, are getting good legislation, and have a sufficient number of opportunities to speak on the floor. These are the kind of things, all wrapped together, which I think we have to do.
As I said, I had three things I wanted to give by way of suggestions about this time problem, but the time allocated to me is running out so I had better get on. I have already said I think we have to learn to delegate more of our work to committees. I want to add this postscript to what I said. If we do not delegate work to committees and if we do not allocate our time, what will happen is that we will in effect be delegating our work to the bureaucracy. We will delegate it right out of parliament. On another occasion I will quarrel over the answer which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) gave to me today about an order in council passed last April
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
which put into effect certain customs duties- and the order in council actually says this-at the level at which they would have been had parliament passed a resolution which was on the order paper. When parliament did not deal with the matter, we forced the bureaucracy to find some way to act without us. I think this was an improper order in council.
However, the point I am making at the moment is that if we do not find ways and means of dealing with our problems by improving the committee structure and by allocating our time for the debate of various issues we can be sure that the public service- it is a tremendous service of which we are very proud but it is not elected; we are the elected people-will take over and will run the business of the country.
The other suggestion I make is-and here I will use a word which may not be in the dictionary-that we have to "calendarize" our parliamentary year. The committee on procedure of the last parliament suggested this, and the President of the Privy Council has already referred to it today. We proposed that a session should begin in the autumn and wind up in June or July, with certain deadlines along the way. I think this is all tied in with the business of delegating work to committees and of allocating our time, but I think it has to be done.
The trouble with our way of doing things for the last quarter of a century that I have been around here is that the only real deadlines we seem to have are Christmas, Easter, or some hoped for prorogation date. This does not make good sense. What happens is that a lot of legislation piles up, and then we push billions of dollars worth of estimates and all sorts of legislation through simply because it has to be done so we can get home for Christmas, Easter or a summer vacation. This is not rational. I think that surely we have the capacity, the wit and the ability to plan a year, even if it has to be within limits. I know there are emergencies for which the program must be changed.
I would put a firm limit on the time when the estimates have to be passed. They have done it in Britain and they have not denied free speech over there. We have to "calendarize" our year and we have to have certain periods when we will deal with legislation or estimates if we are to deal with them after they come back from the committees. We also have to have certain periods in which to deal with budgets. It would be good for the country and good for parliament if we worked on
DEBATES	411
Consideration of Procedural Changes some kind of planned basis instead of these catch as catch can arrangements which we have at present.
As I said, I have avoided getting into a lot of details because I think the main problem is the question of time. I repeat, let us keep the traditions that we have and that are worth keeping. On the other hand, let us not be bogged down by traditions that have no relevance or meaning in our times. On this problem of time let there be other suggestions, but I challenge anyone to state the problem any more forcibly than I have, namely, that the problem is time. In fact, the other two speakers have agreed with me. If other people have other suggestions for coping with this main problem, that is fine, but if they do not have better suggestions I urge that we go in for a greater delegation of our work to committees, that we find a proper way to allocate our time so that all the business which needs to be done in a year is done, and that we arrange our year's calendar so that it makes some common sense.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I hope the committee will come back by December 1 with a report that has something of real value for this House of Commons. As I say, if we cannot complete the job by then I trust parliament will give us a little longer to deal with it. I also hope this will not be the last committee on rules and procedures. In fact, as I have said on previous occasions, the last rule of parliament will never be written. Democracy is not a dead thing, it is living, and it will go on being changed and improved as time goes on. Our job, however, is not to worry about the changes to be made in the year 2000. Let us address ourselves to the changes we can make during this session of parliament, that will make it a better one. Having made it better, I hope we will get and pass legislation worthy of this institution at its best.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as for us, we welcome with satisfaction the statement of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) about the discussions which have already taken place with the various house leaders with regard to the reform of the parliamentary procedure.
I think the time is ill-chosen to criticize our procedure because the committee will see to that. It will also have to make suggestions which will enable us, after December 1, to find out about the new procedure which will
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes make it possible for us to work more efficiently. The new procedure will have to strive-and that is what it must aim at-to increase the efficiency of the house, because often in the past the public and even the members of parliament have criticized the slowness, the inefficiency of the house or, often, the insufficient time available to deal with the business of the house.
At the same time-and that is the main point I want to raise today-this procedure should also enhance the prestige of members, in short emphasize their role as legislator and not as civil servant. I think that the former procedure considered the member mainly as a civil servant while he should normally be a legislator. I know it is difficult to develop and put forward a new procedure which will be faultless, but that is not a reason to attack the existing procedure, so as to enable parliament to do more in less time. That is why we are going to co-operate with the house leaders, to come to an agreement which will permit the development of a process enabling us to pass legislation faster and put forward more appropriate bills before the problems of our country get worse.
Thanks to our procedure, I noticed in the past-despite my little experience in this house-that parliament often found solutions to very serious problems, but because of the slowness of procedure, these solutions were so long delayed that the problems were getting worse and worse.
The President of the Privy Council mentioned that our present procedure took too much time. He also made another remark which seemed to contradict the first one, namely that the members did not have the time necessary to study the legislation in depth, that they took too long. That is true. He is right about those two points but, on the other hand, there are reasons for that. If the honourable members are unable to study the legislation in depth, there is an explanation.
First, the member has to perform his legislative duty and, unfortunately, to act as a civil servant. He has to make inquiries, study reports and look into all the royal commissions the government has set up. He must also, from time to time, participate to the various parliamentary associations and, therefore, he has to take different trips.
He also has to examine all the briefs submitted by various groups. Some of them originate from members of Chambers of Commerce or various groups in the country. He also has to meet people and ascertain the work which is done, at the provincial level,

in the legislative field. He also has to do part of his research himself. He must be well informed in order to keep abreast of Canadian policy, and even the international policy. He must sit in the house and attend the various committee meetings. We say that if the new procedure is passed, committees will expand in future, they will become more important, more powerful and they will automatically require greater preparation on the part of the members.
This is my complaint. If we lack the time and if we devote too much time to routine procedure, we will not have any time left for consideration in depth. I will point out now what is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne with regard to the official opposition:
-So that the Official Opposition, to which we, in Canada, give formal recognition as a vital part of our democratic process, as well as the other parties in opposition, may be in a position to cope more effectively with the heavy load of action and decision each session must face, you will be asked to make new provision for the Official Opposition and the other parties in their parliamentary role.
It is all well and good to talk about passing a new procedure-and we are all for it-in order to expedite the business of the house, but we cannot ask the members to do more just with the tools available to them at the present time.
For instance, 1 would point out that the United States, our neighbours to the south, have 435 members of Congress and 100 senators, that is a total of 535 elected representatives. Those elected representatives are assisted by 8,000 employees who represent an average of 15 officials appointed for research or committee work for each member of Congress or the Senate. This system is intended to facilitate the role of the elected representatives as legislators in order that they may devote their time to the welfare of the population. Mr. Speaker, this leads me to say that our present procedure is antiquated-and we all agree on that-because we have come to the point where we want it altered, improved and modernized. Besides, we have too many civil servants to enforce our legislation but we do not have assistants, the tools, the civil servants or the scientists to help us prepare our legislation.
A member of the house must do all his office work, do his part as a member of the house in his constituency, prepare and control legislation in its various stages and attend committee meetings. However, he does not have the tools permitting him to act as a true
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
legislator, and that is why speeches in the house are often too long. I agree with the president of the Privy Council that the speeches are often too long, because they are badly prepared. We lack the necessary research personnel and we cannot do the work in depth, because we cannot do everything and still discharge our duties properly.
If we want the members of this house to act as legislators and statesmen, we must give them the necessary means. We have put particular emphasis on the passage in the Speech from the Throne which shows the intention of putting such means at the disposal of the opposition in order to allow its members to help the government when it presents good legislation, to help it in its legislative work and, at the same time, make constructive criticisms and express their own views.
My main point today is that our parliamentary procedure and rules will have to be amended in that direction. We will increasingly have to act as legislators instead of civil servants. Therefore, the new procedure will have to give all the members of this house, whether they sit on the left or on the right of the Speaker, the tools to act in their true legislative capacity.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are a few matters to which I thought I might refer, some of which have not been dealt with. I crave the indulgence of the house to make observations regarding certain matters that I feel ought to be brought to its attention.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that no longer is supply of first importance for parliament. That view is not consistent, I submit, with the general acceptance of the principle that parliament must keep a firm hold on the pursestrings of the nation. All of us want to make parliament more effective; that has been my objective through the years. I spoke on this subject in 1965; on May 20 I stated that I believed in reform to meet changing conditions without in any way destroying the mission of this house.
There have been improvements, Mr. Speaker. The designation of yourself, sir, as the Speaker of the House for a second parliament was one of the most forward steps that has been made to bring about in this institution the assurance that in debate decorum shall be 29180-27
DEBATES	413
Consideration of Procedural Changes maintained and, above all, that the rights of members of parliament wherever they sit shall not be denied.
It cannot be emphasized too much, Mr. Speaker, that every member in this house, whether recently elected or not, whether a member of the privy council or not, must have the opportunity of placing before the house his views on behalf not only of his constituency but of his country as well. There is no more important debate that can take place in this house than the strengthening of this institution, without which freedom cannot survive. I do not say this by way of criticism, Mr. Speaker, but this afternoon the number of members present, 40 or 50, does not indicate that there is very general recognition of the necessity for maintaining the greatness and supremacy of this institution, for bringing about needed reforms while at the same time assuring that the great traditions of the past that preserved our freedom in two world wars shall be upheld. It was this institution, Mr. Speaker, that between 1914 and 1918 gave the lead. It was this institution that between 1939 and 1945 gave to the people of this nation that determination which brought about, in alliance with those who were associated with us, the freedom that is ours.
I am not here to say that members should be in the house, Mr. Speaker. But one of the major criticisms of this institution is that members are not in the house. No one is guiltless in this regard. People come into the gallery and when they come out exclaim: "What an institution this is! There was scarcely anyone in the chamber". And so they join that galaxy of criticism that has become so popular in this country and in other countries.
Criticism is not new, Mr. Speaker; it has been said over and over again over the years. Some there are who believe that they are actually the discoverers of the shortcomings of this parliament. Those who have that view do not read history. One has only to go back to 1661 when Samuel Pepys stated:
-how beastly things are carried on in parliament-they oppose all things that are moved by serious men. They are the most profane, swearing fellows that be heard in this life, which makes me think that they will spoil all and bring things ruinous about.
That was in the days of the Charleses. What about modern criticism, Mr. Speaker? I
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes think of Charles Dickens. He sat in the gallery of the House of Commons for years and he wrote of parliament:
This great dust heap of Westminster, laughing, coughing, oh-ing, groaning, a conglomeration of noise and confusion. No other place in existence is like it, excepting Smithfield on a market day, or a cockpit in all its glory!
The critics were about then, Mr. Speaker. I think of Robert Louis Stevenson, who said: "We all know about parliament and we are ashamed of it". We are now in the year 1968 and in Canada and in Great Britain the same criticisms are being made. Those who know not parliament feel the greater qualified to criticize the institution!
Major criticisms were mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and others who participated in tne debate. For example, it is alleged that we waste time. One would think that this institution was a meandering one in which legislation is not passed expeditiously. The critics contend that we talk too much. To use the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is what parliament is for. We are not here for the purpose of turning out masses of legislation. We are here for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the average Canadian and for seeing to it that no man, however humble, is denied equal rights with others.
I speak as one, Mr. Speaker, who has been here for many years. I have been greatly impressed by the high quality of the members who have come to this their first parliament. It is always a matter of interest to listen to them as they make their maiden speeches, an experience that all of us who have been here in other parliaments have gone through. Nothing is more trying.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Over the years all our prime ministers have listened to new members and asked themselves, "Which one of these will ultimately become prime minister of the country?". I remember the man Mr. King designated. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier listened to Mr. Arthur Meighen speaking in 1908 he made the remark, "There's a future prime minister," and he was right. In 1912 Sir Robert Borden designated R. B. Bennett as a future prime minister, and so it has been all through the years. As young men come to this institution-I cannot say the same about women; we have only one woman member who is most distinguished-they give to this great body of the people hope for the future. They bring
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
new ideas, new concepts and new determinations.
How is it that a few days after parliament begins its deliberations many members disappear after orders of the day and house attendance is eroded? In 1791-92, in the parliaments of Upper and Lower Canada, if one looks at the rule book then in effect, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has, one will find a rule saying that if a member is absent from the house and Mr. Speaker has noted the absence, the sheriff may be sent out to bring the delinquent before the bar of the house. When that was done once I am sure attendance thereafter was maintained.
This summer I was in the United Kingdom and visited the House of Commons at Westminster. I saw it first when I was on leave in November, 1916, when I heard the great Lloyd George make his first speech as prime minister of the United Kingdom. Then Britain was fearful and he raised up the nation. I saw that house during the days of Churchill. I saw Churchill in that chamber in November, 1916, following Gallipoli, when he was in disgrace. When I first met him I said to him, "I saw you first when you were in disgrace". His answer was, "Which time was that?". Later in 1940 he raised up the British people when they, and we, and other commonwealth countries were alone.
In the Canadian parliament I have heard since 1911 the greats throughout the years. Some will tell you that debating has disappeared in this chamber, that it is not what it was in the old days, and that is right. It is better. In my estimation the quality of debate, especially since the beginning years of the last war, has improved greatly in this house. I know that some say, "Let us cut down the time; let us pass our estimates and matters of controversy on to committees." I will go part way with that. The great danger of committees is this, sir. Many of those who give support to the principle in reality are comparing this institution with the congress of the United States, and it is different. There, in committee, all partisanship disappears. Their committees are all-powerful and you cannot get anywhere in those committees unless you have a great deal of seniority. Under that system a member who has been here for 28 years might head a committee. That seniority system is wrong because, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said, it would destroy the efficiency and effectiveness of parliament.
September 24, 1968

It has often been suggested that we should imitate the United States system of government. I can never accept the concept of the republicanism of the United States being made a principle or yardstick for a parliament in the British tradition. It cannot be done.
In "The Decline of Legislatures" Lord Bryce has written:
Every traveller who. curious In political affairs, enquires in the countries which he visits how their legislative bodies are working, receives from the elder men the same discouraging answer. They tell him, in much the same terms everywhere, that there is less brilliant speaking than in the days of their own youth, that the tone of manners has declined,-
Today the President of the Privy Council mentioned the need to maintain a high degree of cultured demeanour and I interpolate to say that when I was in the British house recently there was a clash of opinion. They have no eggshell sentimentalities in that institution. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition clash. Not long ago the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Heath, said in the British house, "I say to the Prime Minister, he cannot bully me," to which the Prime Minister replied, "the hon. member is in no danger, only a coward would do that," or words to that effect.
What would happen if those words were said in this institution? Why, I could just imagine the headlines all across this country.
Churchill's deputy prime minister of the war years, Attlee, formed a government which Churchill wanted to discredit. He said, looking at the front benches of the government, "It is a lousy government." Before the speaker could call him to order he went on to say, "I want to say that I was not using that term in an opprobrious way. It was purely a factual statement."
As I see it, with the exception of the prime minister, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition-that is the correct designation, not the leader of the official opposition-and ministers making official statements, members should speak without a manuscript before them. Why waste the time of the house? If a speech is to be read, why do we not follow the United States system? If any here want to imitate the United States system why do they not adopt the procedure of the House of Representatives? There, when a member has a written out speech he says, "I should like to place my speech on the Congressional Record", and it is placed on the record. That saves time. If some hon. members here want
29180-27J
Consideration of Procedural Changes this institution to be more efficient, there would be a move to consider. Nevertheless, adopting that system would deny the deliberative nature of this house.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I recall that in 1940 or 1941, when two members of Congress had the same ghost writer, one of them delivered his oration in the morning by filing it and the other, Fiorel-lo la Guardia, that tribune of the people, rose that afternoon and delivered his in person. The next day they were both amazed to find they had used the same speech. Let us try to elevate this institution by debating, by expressing our views without the necessity of having everything written out, because if it is all written out, and all to be read, a lot of time could be saved.
Then again, we would have a far better attendance in this house if the institution were cut in two. This place is too large. Everybody has a seat. One of my deep regrets is that I did not secure the consent of the house-and I think it could have been obtained at the time-to remove these desks and reduce the size of the chamber so that there would only be seating for 200. In those circumstances hon. members would all be here. Whenever there is a matter of importance to be debated in Westminster, everybody gets there early. I am referring to the membership of the house.
The next thing I want to deal with is that too many members and too many people have the idea that in this institution we make decisions, that we have real powers of government. We have not. I do not go as far as the Prime Minister went in February last when the rules of parliament were thrown out of the window after the defeat of the government in the house. He was minister of justice then. The prime minister and he indicated then that the government was the master of the house. That is a very bad concept indeed. It is true the government has the responsibility of legislation. It must assume that responsibility. We have the right to examine. The great danger of some of the ideas advanced by powerful governments is that in the interest of so-called efficiency private members of the house will apply to themselves the throttle of secrecy which was recently applied by the Prime Minister to members of the government. They have been strong, silent men ever since. At least, they have been silent.
416	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes
When the Prime Minister said he did not want "leaks," he was right. What takes place in cabinet should not become available to any of us outside that institution. But, sir, today ministers go around almost as though they had tape over their lips lest they speak. We had an example of this today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Every day.


John George Diefenbaker: A question was asked by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition regarding something which happened a few months ago, in January. According to the press, some individual in the civil service had been engaged in one of the most dangerous activities that anyone can engage in as far as his own country is concerned-bartering information to a potential enemy. Maybe today the days of espionage are over. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) brought off a good quip on the subject yesterday. As a matter of fact, the days of espionage are pretty well over because the air is full of marching battalions of those things that move overhead. Now, everybody knows everything about everybody else. But this man would have belonged to that group of people who desire to maintain their anonymity, had it not been for the press.
I realize, as I said today in the course of my question, that on the shoulders of the Prime Minister rests the security of the nation. But parliament has the right, within the limitations imposed by the need for security, to know who this person is. The answer to that question was apparently that he was not as guilty as he thought he was. However, he was kept on for several months and now he belongs to the great unwashed outside the civil service. Who was this person? Is there any reason Canadians should not be told? Whatever he did was detrimental to the state or he would not have been put into general circulation outside the civil service.
This is what is happening today whenever we raise such questions. Those strong, silent men of the government are declining to furnish answers to members of this house. When questions are asked from this side we are given answers one would expect from quiz kids-smart, evasive, diffuse. Let us have the facts. But people over there are apparently not satisfied with the rules as they are today. They want, apparently, to apply to parliament generally the throttle of silence which denies members of the cabinet the right to express themselves except with permission.
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
DEBATES	September 24, 1968
Change the rules with changing conditions? I accept that. But what happened last February when the rules and the constitutional rights of our country were thrown overboard induces me, usually unsuspecting, to examine very closely what the President of the Privy Council has in mind.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
They talk about examination of the estimates. I do not want to say that anything we do is a joke. The time was fixed for examination of estimates, so many days, 30 days. Liberal members spoke, as they had a right to do. Finally, in the last hours we passed over $1,300 million, just like that, because the time had been used up. Mr. Speaker, as the rules are today the government could put $40 million or $50 million in the estimates and get away with it by holding off discussion until the last hours of the last day. That is not conducive to the discharge of our responsibilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are putting an idea in their heads.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They have got the idea. You do not have to worry about that.


John George Diefenbaker: They need no ideas when it comes to that. They need no suggestions, but it surprises them that these things are revealed of what they had in mind.
I like to hear the President of the Privy Council, in towering majesty, as he stands and speaks of parliament. As I understood him today, and I am only too glad to be corrected, he is concerned over the fact that we take too long to discuss things. Let us clear away that canard as against this parliament and several parliaments.
I am not going to read the record. I sent out for it, and for benefit of the members generally I suggest they should look at Hansard for May 25, 1965, where Hon. Gordon Churchill, who was referred to today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, analysed this idea that we waste time.
I am not going to repeat the figures that he gave. They are to be found at page 1643. They have now been brought up to date and it is interesting to note the result for the session 1966-67, which commenced on January 18, 1966, and ended May 8, 1967, the longest session in Canadian history. Mention was made by the President of the Privy Council that the tendency today is to have long sessions. Well, until the session I have
September 24, 1968

just referred to, the longest as I recall it was 1904.
The greatest number of bills in a session was passed in 1966-67. That session lasted for 250 sitting days, or almost a year and a half. Some 83 bills were enacted. Of that number 16 were passed with less than 30 minutes debate for each bill. Ten other bills were passed with debate on each one not exceeding one hour. Nine more required less than one and a half hours for consideration. Three others took less than two hours. In other words, of the 83 bills 38 were passed with less than two hours debate for each bill.
Who is there here who will say that record indicates an attitude on the part of the opposition, that they have been engaged in delaying? Eight other bills required over two hours but less than three. Five bills required over three hours but less than four hours for all stages. A total of 51 bills, or 60 per cent of the entire legislative program, were completed in a total of 66 hours, or an average of one hour and 18 minutes per bill. They say we hold them up? Are we to have applied to us that throttle of silence which the members of the administration have today? I thought, Mr. Speaker, that this should go on the record.
The remaining 32 bills took longer. There were two or three that challenged the concepts of the opposition, and we stood and debated them.
Mention was made today that with regard to this omnibus bill that has everything from homosexuality to free love and firearms in it, amendments to the Criminal Code all thrown together in a hodgepodge, this institution would be holding up debate if we were to stand against it because we are opposed to homosexuality, legalized abortion, and a few others of those fancy offences under the law. Let the government divide this bill. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said only recently that he believed it should be divided. That was before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Since then he has become uncertain. Mr. Speaker, they say it is the opposition. Let me mention an example. If, as a member of the bar, Your Honour were going to set up a judge would you appoint anyone to try a case who had already expressed his view on the justice or the efficacy of action?
Now it is no longer parliament; it is task forces. I have a tremendous regard for the
Consideration of Procedural Changes hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), who has a great business record, a great record of public service. But he is on a task force appointed by the Prime Minister, he, a former director of the C.P.R., to bring in a recommendation as to whether or not Air Canada and C.P. Airlines are to be joined together in unholy matrimony. Sir, I admire his judicial temperament because on June 10, speaking in the city of Winnipeg he said this-I do not have the quote here but I know what he said. He said he was in favour of C.P. Airlines and Air Canada being joined together as a great corporation, with the Canadian people having the right to buy shares. Will he love them in October as he did in June?
Sir, to me it is ominous that out of the declarations of a task force, with a chairman who has already expressed what he thinks, there should come recommendations to parliament as to what it should do.
I do not want to speak beyond the dinner hour. I shall summarize. This house cannot be satisfied with the kind of dilly-dally answers that it is receiving from this governement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They are playing with us. The Prime Minister shrugs and smiles. The ministers look on with silent interest, and the opposition gets no information except that which is vouchsafed. More than that, and this is what I am coming to, what they will not say in the House of Commons they say outside while parliament sits.
They are reforming the information services. That is one of the promises, and in their reforms they are making declarations outside the house which should be made here in this chamber on motions, so that members of this house who wish to challenge them may have the opportunity to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: You are playing with parliament. It is not your puppet, it is not your plaything. When that course is followed we have a situation where ministers-I imagine they obtain permission first-rush out when they know something cannot be debated in the house and tell the country what they are thinking and what courses ought to be followed. From now on I hope there will be a declaration on the part of the minister-he has not been an offender yet; he has not had a chance-that this type of thing will end.
418	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes There are one or two other matters which I wish to mention. What about sittings? We could sit longer hours. I believe we sit for a matter of 25 J hours a week. I do not believe in sitting between the hours of six and eight o'clock in the evening. However, while we sit for 251 hours a week, in the British House of Commons they sit for 31 hours a week. There is no reason for our sittings not being extended.
Next, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we should have periodic adjournments. It is wonderful to get away from Ottawa, to get away from this vacuum and go out among the people to find out what they are thinking. Those members who are from Ontario and Quebec can do this from Thursday to Tuesday. We who come from other parts of Canada cannot do it.


Mr. Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the right hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has leave to proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you. I shall not transgress for very long.
I should like to refer to you, sir. I endeavoured to bring about for this institution a Speaker removed from the controversies of public life. I realize there are two sides to this question but I believe the idea that you should have a constituency in Ottawa, attractive as this area is, where you would sit is contrary to the position you occupy. You are the first commoner; you must be a member of the House of Commons. You would not be if you were chosen as a kind of factotum, having once become Speaker from a constituency.
This will take a long while, I believe, even with the constitutional experts getting together to bring about the making of your position permanent, but I have a suggestion to make. You are impartial and I feel one of the first steps the house should take-I hope I am not contravening in any way the rules of the house-is to provide an additional salary for Mr. Speaker over and above that of today which would be, as in the United Kingdom, free from all deductions and taxes. As well, I believe there should be an official residence for the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. In removing yourself from the forum of debate you make a tremendous sacrifice.

DEBATES	September 24, 1968
Therefore I hope this is one step that will appeal to hon. members.
Although I have changed my view in this regard over the years, I think we ought to let the people know what we are doing. To that end the press often condemns us for dilatoriness, inattention, lack of diligence and the like. I think of these young members who come to the house to make their maiden speeches. I try to be here to listen to them. When a new member has something to say and has worked on a speech it is most discouraging when he finds there is no reference to his speech in the press the next day. It is more; it is discomfiting. In the United Kingdom the practice is followed whereby the press reports that "A.B." spoke, with the inclusion of a line or two, and that "B.C." spoke, with the inclusion of a line or two. The importance of members who are trying to find their legislative feet in this institution would be materially increased if the press would give them mention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to see television in this chamber. As I have said, I have changed my mind in this regard over the years. I think much can be done to bring parliament to the people. I believe arrangements could be made between the house leaders whereby, as a beginning, half an hour a day would be made available for this purpose. Someone might say that the people will not watch, that they are more interested in all the horrors and other things that are shown on television. However, they would learn something of this wonderful institution.
In my last words I should like to say that we get so close together that we know each other and we know each other's weaknesses. We also learn to admire those who sit opposite who stand sincerely for principle. I have not yet had the opportunity to pay my tribute to Right Hon. L. B. Pearson. We are often pictured as two great opponents. One would almost think that we were covered with the lather of personal antagonism. As a matter of fact most people do not realize the close relationship that prevails.
These are my ideas of parliament. I hope that this committee when it meets will be sure that it does not diminish the power, the responsibility and the authority of the backbencher. Changes can be made, but those changes should not have the effect of doing what so many powerful governments, whatever their political party, have tried to do to
September 24, 1968

stifle the opposition. The rules must protect primarily the rights of the opposition and above all the rights of private members in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to rise on a point of order?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to adjourn the debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are the following: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian National Railways-request for increased pensions for retired employees; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson)-External Affairs-Nigeria-acceptance of invitation to send observer; the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner)-Indian Affairs-Armstrong, Ontario-request for action to relieve poverty.
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 and public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-101, respecting London and Midland General Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-101 is a bill to change the name of London and Midland General Insurance Company to Avco General Insurance Company. The sole purpose of this bill is to change the name of the company. There are two reasons for the company requiring a change of name. The company is part of the Avco group of companies; the Avco Corporation is the parent company. Last year there was in the United Kingdom a company that used "London and Midland" as the main words in its name. That company went into bankruptcy, and questions have been asked as a result. The company named in this bill received several inquiries as to whether they had any connection with the
Private Bill
United Kingdom, London and Midland company. There is no connection between them whatsoever. That, Mr. Speaker, is one reason for requesting a change of name to Avco General Insurance Company.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I should like to point out to hon. members that the parent company is Delta Acceptance Corporation, which is the wholly owned subsidiary of Avco Delta Corporation, Delaware, U.S.A. There is one other reason for this company requesting a change of name. I believe there are in Canada ten insurance companies which use the word "London" as part of their corporate name. In an effort to achieve some form of distinctiveness, the company wishes to change its name to Avco General Insurance Company.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions I should like to ask in connection with this bill. The first is, how did it become numbered 101? This is the first private members bill, and I would have thought it should have been numbered 1 rather than 101. This bill was before us on a previous occasion and there has been considerable discussion about the reasons for requesting the change of name. We are happy to have a report from the sponsor of the bill.
There has also been discussion as to whether Avco now owns this company, which was originally under other ownership, and whether the whole Avco complex is part of the Delta Corporation. For this reason I believe the bill should be sent to committee where members will have an opportunity to ask questions of representatives of the company to ascertain whether or not the bill should be passed.
This bill, with a number of others, raises the fairly fundamental proposition of whether we are interested in the proliferation of insurance companies, and second whether this proliferation is in the interest of the shareholders or in the national interest in so far as the expenditure of assets in the mortgage and other lending fields is concerned.
We find in this company, as in many insurance companies which have appeared before us, a similarity in that they are concerned in exactly the same field, but with a slightly different name. Companies owned by a parent company in another country do not fall under the same restrictions as those that are Canadian owned, in that there is in effect no possibility of those Canadians who invest in

September 24, 1968
Private Bill
the company having a say in how the corporation is run.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe an important question is whether it is to the advantage of Canada to incorporate companies such as this. The question of ownership in a foreign country, in a field as important as insurance in this country, will have to be examined. I also believe the superintendent of insurance should be questioned very carefully on his views respecting this matter.
It seems to me this is a matter in which the government should take some interest. I think it is time this whole question was decided. Bills in this form have been introduced in the past few years and we have dealt with 15 or 20 insurance companies that wished to become established, or 15 or 20 companies wanting a change of name or other changes through the parliamentary process. The government should study this question to see whether a proliferation of companies such as this is advantageous to, and in the interest of, the Canadian public.
The fact that these bills go before the private and miscellaneous bills committee does not in itself provide protection for the general public. I think the time has arrived when the government should consider this whole question. If the charges we have been making for the past four or five years with respect to the number of these companies are correct, something should be done about them. If they are incorrect, the committee will be able to ascertain the truth of the matter and arrive at a conclusion.
Many of the companies presenting bills to us in this form, requesting a simple change of name, are really seeking permission to transfer the assets of one corporation to those of another. In some cases these assets are transferred to a very large corporation that is a holding company. All this is outside the sphere of parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the length of the bill and the limited amount of information contained in it are not reasons for hon. members passing the bill at this time. I, therefore, hope that the committee to which the bill is referred will consider the propositions put forward by members in the last four or five years with regard to private members' bills. I hope the committee will look carefully into an alternative method of allowing such companies to be incorporated, to change their names or to make changes in their structure. Such changes have been made through private members' bills.

Hon. members may be aware that a year or two ago the committee did discuss the subject in a general way, and as a result most of those matters concerned with changes of name are no longer dealt with in the house. These changes were put into officialdom by letters patent. If the house leader is really interested in making a useful change, he should look into the question and decide how we should deal with private members' bills such as these. In my opinion some abuse has taken place in the house in the past when general changes were requested instead of the specific changes required. A much better method could be devised than the one in operation at the moment.
We know that committees will soon be set up. I hope this bill will soon be sent to the committee in order that it may examine the whole procedure of private members' bills. These bills are sponsored by private members who often have no knowledge of and no control over the matter. Private members have only the information supplied to them. They are Joe'd to do the job and often suffer abuse for no good reason. In many cases, the bill he introduces does not affect him or his riding. I believe this procedure leaves us open to abuse and a better system should be devised for handling these bills. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I hope the committee will consider this whole question in the time it has before other, similar bills appear on our order paper.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). On the face of it, this bill appears to be a change in name only, and the hon. member who introduced the bill gave valid reasons for wanting the change. However, in his remarks he noted that this company is part of a group owned by Avco, which is ultimately owned by the Delta insurance company, and this brings up the fundamental problem of the proliferation of insurance companies. I would hope that when this bill comes before the standing committee of finance, trade and economic affairs the representatives of this company will reveal to the committee members the corporate structure of Avco, will indicate its ownership, and also will indicate the investment policies of these different companies. We realize these days that one of the main problems with regard to housing is the investment policies of the insurance companies. Here we have a U.S. company which is 98 per cent controlled by
September 24, 1968

U.S. residents. We would like to think they are good corporate citizens, but we would also like information from them with regard to their investment policies.
Therefore, when the bill comes before the committee, I hope that the representatives of this company will not only say they are asking for a change of name but will also reveal to us their corporate structure, their true ownership and their investment policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in normal circumstances the next item to be discussed would be public bills. However, my understanding is that a vast majority of these bills have not yet been received from the printing bureau and may not be for a day or two. I should like to recommend that we adjourn this debate for the rest of the allotted time, on the distinct understanding that this day would not count as one of the 40 private members hours allowed.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker. I suppose the house would assume this to be an order to that effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I assume the understanding is that this hour not be counted as one of the 40 hours allotted to private members bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is so. If it is
agreed, the sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.
At 6.15 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That a special committee of twelve members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report upon the advisability of making changes in the orders concerning the business of supply, the business of 29180-28
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of Procedural Changes ways and means, the stages of the legislative process, and the operation of the standing committees of this house; upon the advisability of making permanent, with or without amendment, any or all the several changes in the procedures of this house that were in effect prior to the dissolution of parliament on April 23, 1968; and upon the advisability of such other changes as the committee may deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the house; and
That this special committee is hereby instructed to make its reports to the house prior to December 1, 1968, and to include in its reports drafts of proposed standing orders drawn to give effect, if adopted by the house, to any change or changes that may be proposed by the committee.
Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the very great pleasure tonight of congratulating you on two counts. I congratulate you on your re-election to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons, which is a position you have earned as a result of your conduct during the last several sessions. I also congratulate you on the second count, one of which few may be aware, and certainly one that very few mention. It will be recalled that during the past six years I have made several comments about the situation in which the page boys find themselves. On occasion I have condemned this institution for assisting these young lads to become drop-outs from school. In the past I have made representations to at least three other Speakers, and finally to you, Mr. Speaker.
It is to your credit, sir, that you have taken cognizance of the situation, and I should like to point out to hon. members that there is a different arrangement now in respect of page boys. I understand they are over 16 years of age and are not drop-outs from school. It is to your credit, sir, that something has been done about this situation, and I should like to congratulate you on this action. It indicates a feeling on your part for even the smallest group, and I know that you will continue to show an interest in these young lads. This will result in their being able to go on to even greater things in the House of Commons.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has placed several propositions before this house and I should first like to comment on the reforms as set out by him. The right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), has reminded us that this house has no other purpose than to protect and preserve freedom. I agree that this is one of the main functions of this house. There is another function that the public expects us to perform, and that is to get things done.
September 24, 19G8

Consideration of Procedural Changes
The minister gave the members a brief history of parliament, but I suggest he did not go far enough. Parliament, in essence, originated as a group of commoners called together to express their grievances. Originally the Crown chose its ministers and its governors, and when taxes were required parliament was called. Each member came to express the grievances of the residents of particular parts of the United Kingdom. They would suggest that things were wrong in their constituencies or localities. One such gentleman probably suggested that the Sheriff of Nottingham was a very bad fellow.
After expressing their grievances these representatives voted the requested money and went home. To this day there has been little change, except the ministers are not appointed now by the Crown but by the Prime Minister. In fact, this house still has that main function of expressing grievances. There is little communication between the backbenchers on either side of the house with those who occupy the seats of the mighty. This is an acknowledged fact.
I have my doubts as to the mightiness of those who sit in these seats, except those who sit as politicians. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a recent speech felt it necessary to warn his ministers that he expects them to set policy from now on rather than the administrators. Anything we can do to bring more power to the backbenchers on both sides of this house will be of benefit to parliament.
The right hon. gentleman cannot argue that originally there were two parties in the House of Commons. Originally, all the members of the commons opposed the Crown. It was not until recently that the party system evolved. The right hon. gentlemen opposite and backbenchers come here and have a field day and, with the exception of the odd individual on this side, there seems to be very little purpose in their being here.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to leave and join us?


Steven Otto: It is not surprising that Canadians as a whole have lost a great deal of ropect for parliament and members of this house. We now have the opportunity of doing something about this. The parliamentary system is really not suited to an economy which changes as quickly as the Canadian economy has changed during the past 20 or 30 years. This is a wonderful institution which would probably work well in a static or agrarian

economy. It has worked in the United Kingdom, but it is not even working very well there today. When you have an economy such as ours, which changes from a static position to a very fast-moving position, messages from constituents have to be conveyed to the government immediately. One cannot afford to wait very long for the administrators to decide that an idea proposed on behalf of a constituent is a good one. The people expect us to do things, yet we have to inform them that we have no power.
On several occasions the minister mentioned Westminster. I hope he was not suggesting that we should follow or ape the actions of those at Westminster. Many of the reforms in the House of Commons in England have been good, and I think we should consider them, but this is not England. We are faced with areas with problems that are vastly different from those in existence there. We have a different economy and different requirements. Indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that Canada is much more suited to a republican system than a parliamentary system. I hold no brief for the republican system, but elements of republicanism could be worked into a parliamentary system.
I think there is an advantage in not having as much control over the money as we have under our system. That is the case in a republican system.
Let me explain what I hope will happen to our committees as a result of the proposed changes. Specifically, let me refer to what the minister has said about the referral of estimates to these committees. Before I do so let me suggest that there is a presumption that all new members come here to learn a new trade or new profession. This is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that we were sent to parliament by our constituents because we were the most able people in the riding. The backbenchers were not sent here to learn some new business for their own self-aggrandizement or promotion.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But if they pick up a little knowledge while they are here, no one will hold it against them.


Steven Otto: I would say that most backbenchers have quite a bit of knowledge. Indeed, some of us who have been here for six years, all fired up with new ideas when we came, have lost sight of the trees because of the branches. After a while you get confused. In fact, Mr. Speaker, new members are told to
September 24, 1968

settle down, that they will learn about parliament in five or six years. I say they are better members now than they will be six years from now.
Under the old committee system, Mr. Speaker, a member could work very hard. He could research and he could question. But by and large, committee reports came back to the house, were filed or tabled, and no one saw them again. After five or six years, sometimes sooner, members would wonder why they had done all that work. You might as well have been playing tic-tac-toe.
As the minister explained, the administration, through the minister, finds out how much money is needed for each department for the following year. These estimates then come to the house in the blue book, and during consideration of estimates you can argue about anything so long as it has some relationship to a particular item. I remember the former member for Port Arthur used to stand up and move the reduction of an item in the estimates from, say, $75 million or $100 million to $1, and this constituted a vote of confidence.
The administration in those days, Mr. Speaker, had an absolutely free hand. They were never questioned. Nobody ever wondered what item 7, say, was all about, or where some $47,000 was going, because he didn't have time. Besides, it did not matter because you either voted for $1 or for $75 million or $100 million.
If the minister said what I thought he said, Mr. Speaker, that from now on the estimates of each department will go to a parliamentary committee, then this means that we backbenchers will have a lot of time to examine and to question the administration. If backbenchers feel that something is not quite right with a certain department, then they can make things rather miserable for the administrator. Indeed, there will be nothing particularly wrong, if you feel sufficiently strongly about a matter, to move a reduction in the amount of the estimates.
This might be one of the recommendations in the report, and I am sure that the backbenchers who sit on my side of the house will find lots of help from hon. members opposite. If a member feels that his constituents want him to do so, in the report he can recommend a reduction in the amount of the estimates concerned and the minister will consequently be embarrassed. When the report is presented to the house the question can be raised again. There is at least some indication 29180-281
Consideration of Procedural Changes that there is objection to some aspect of the administration and that you have been able to voice that objection.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I feel that from now on the power of the backbencher and the power of this House of Commons is going to be greater, not less. I believe most members will act responsibly. I am sure there will come a time when members, even on the government side, will not agree with a particular item of the estimates of a department and they will have the right to make their objections known. This will not constitute a vote of confidence. Hon. members will not be expected to vote the government down, thereby throwing us into another election campaign.
What I have said, Mr. Speaker, may be regarded as what I call a caricature of government. I am sure the right hon. gentleman and other hon. members opposite, as well as those on this side who have been ministers will agree that it is a caricature. But by and large, Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly composite picture. Ideas and policy decisions do not necessarily stem from the ministers because they are busy politicians. However, as Professor Porter pointed out, we do have a very large establishment in Ottawa composed of people of great consequence, the elite with family histories going back two or three hundred years and who all belong to the right clubs.
Occasionally, these people get the message across that it would be a good idea if the government instituted a certain measure. The department and deputy minister concerned immediately think it is a wonderful idea. The next thing you know, a resolution appears, followed by a bill which is practically word for word what is wanted. The minister and cabinet go over it, but the first time we see the bill is when it appears on the order paper.
Then, consider the administrator or deputy minister who wants $600 million for his department. He says to himself that he may have an emergency during the coming year so had better put in for $670 million. However, treasury board will cut that by 15 per cent so he adds on 15 per cent, though I doubt whether in the end the money is reduced. If the department has not spent that money near the end of the fiscal year, then they had better spend it quickly or they will not get any more.
At what stage, Mr. Speaker, do we as parliamentarians enter the picture during the passage of a bill? I heartily endorse the
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes minister's stand because I think it will give backbenchers and all members of parliament an opportunity to question, argue with and talk to the administration. The administration will listen to all your complaints and do things for you, which I think is all to the good. I know, and I am sure the Prime Minister knows, that each minister will trust that all of us on this side will support the government, unless there is some matter of serious consequence. In that case, the minister will realize that something does displease certain constituents and there will be quick communication.
The Prime Minister has said that there must be communication from all Canadians. At the moment it is a one-way street; the government can communicate with the public, but it is very difficult to get any communication from the public to the government. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we have task forces. The president of the Liberal federation comes up with a very good idea in an attempt to involve the people. There is no better way to involve the people than through members of parliament; after all, that is what we are here for. But there is no sense in being involved and making representations if one knows one will not be listened to or that no one will care. However, if you control the purse then people will care.
I am heartily in favour of amendment of the rules. I hope this resolution is approved by everyone in the house. I do not think it will diminish the power of the opposition, the power of the backbencher or even the power of the front bench. It will enhance our prestige, our power and make us aware of our responsibilities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I had little difficulty in deciding to participate in this debate, because it is a well known fact that, besides being interested in the examination of the rules, I have followed their development very closely.
As I was, six years ago, discharging the duties that that you are now so honourably and brilliantly performing, and because of my experience as a member of several committees on house procedure, I would like at this time to record certain remarks in Hansard.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say I listened with some degree of amusement yesterday to two rather-if the hon. gentlemen will forgive me for using the term-intemperate


speeches wherein the house was castigated for having wasted time up to now. These members indicated that they thought the throne speech was irrelevant. Over the years, I have heard a few of those speeches and all I can say is that members who delivered that type of speech were distinguished by one characteristic; they were one timers who seemed to work their frustrations out to the point where they missed being elected the next time around. I think when some hon. members have a little more experience they will concede that some of their remarks were better left unsaid.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The question of the reform of parliament and the rules of parliament has been bothering people for some time. Their zeal for reform is like a spring cold that turns into year round sniffles. I suppose that when editorial writers are short of copy they can always write something about the reform of parliament. It seems to be a popular subject on the hustings during election campaigns. I heard some candidates who knew not where the front door of this place was say that parliament had to be reformed and that they would come down here, cut a wide swath through the thicket, and this house would soon be in order.
Well, it seems to me that the greatest noise about the reform of parliament and its procedures is made by those who have little or no knowledge of what happens here and how it happens. In any event, we have heard a great deal about the reform of parliament. Some changes have been made over the years. There has been an evolution.
May I point out to hon. members, and this has been pointed out by the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and others, that every time there has been a major change in the rules it has been at the expense of the membership of the house and in favour of the executive. This so called passion for efficiency has always been exercised at the expense of this institution. Parliament is not a board of directors. It is not an administrative body, nor is it merely a rubberstamp for the omniscience that has suddenly descended on 20 or 25 men who are aided by administrators.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) has indicated, regardless of the number of members
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
supporting the administration the backbencher on the government side has about "zot" to say about policy and the formulation of statutes. He sees what is contained in a bill after the bill has been printed. That is how he learns what is in a government bill.
There has been agitation, and we hope it will meet with success for private members to become involved in legislation at an earlier stage than the stage of, shall we say, getting into the brambles and clearing out the brambles in the clause by clause study in the committee stage after second reading.
There are some comments I wish to make about the general subject of legislation. This afternoon I heard the views of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I think, myself, that the provisional rule with regard to the resolution stage being limited to about a five hour debate is commendable. That rule has worked out reasonably well. It may need a somewhat longer trial, but I think it will work. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be better off during any debate on any resolution stage if those who prepare the speeches or statements of the minister adhered to the rule of relevancy. For instance, if we are to deal with some measure of social significance we do not need to hear the record of the past generation regarding the performance of the administration in the field of social welfare. If that is put on the record everybody else is entitled to comment; the debate becomes wide open, and that is quite wrong. Our first reform might be to prevent discussion on a bill from becoming irrelevant. Mind you, where that has happened it has not necessarily been through any fault of the Chair.
If hon. members turn to page 562 of Hansard for 1962, they will see that on that occasion I spoke at some length about the question period and the role of the Speaker in the enforcement of rules in the house. One can see that the responsibility for upholding the rules rests as much on the members of the house as on the Chair. We may compare our rules to the rules governing any football or hockey game. Not only must the officials overseeing the game know and observe the rules, but the players must also know and observe the rules; otherwise, the game becomes a shambles. Similarly, the proceedings in this house could become a shambles.
With regard to first reading, there is a suggestion to send a bill, after we have first seen it, to a committee, unless the house decides otherwise. There are many minor
DEBATES	425
Consideration of Procedural Changes bills which it would be nonsense to send to committee. In these instances, the house could agree not to send them to committee. We could then go from first reading or to second reading without sending the bill to committee.
It seems to me that in this matter we could adopt the practice, not of the British parliament, but of European parliaments where legislation after being printed goes to an appropriate committee. The committee could then work out any amendments it wished. Committee members are free to move amendments to legislation without being committed a fortiori by their vote. It is nonsense for government members to suggest a worthwhile amendment to a bill which is in some sense contrary to a proposal of the government if they are already committed by a vote on second reading in favour of the bill. In that case the government members would stand up and say, "Aye" all the way along.
I suggest, therefore, that it is of greater advantage to permit committee members to be free to make such amendments as they wish to make, with the proviso that when the bill is reported back the government has the right to accept or reject any amendments. If the bill has been thoroughly gutted in committee the government can say, "Vote on the report of the committee, and the vote shall be one of confidence." This is a point where I think the government ought to have an option of asking for confidence.
I put that suggestion forward for the consideration of hon. members. If it were adopted it seems to me that we should eliminate much repetitious debate on second reading, since the second reading debate would take place on the reporting back of the bill. The bill would be debated on principle of the acceptance of the report and the clauses to be considered in detail, and off it would go. It seems to me that that would give a much better chance for a working committee dealing with the legislative side to do its work.
I could not possibly cover all I want to say this evening. I could spend half an hour alone on the subject of the question period, which I will not leave entirely alone since I must say this: I have noticed that whenever a maximum time was fixed for any question period or period for debate in this house, that has immediately become a minimum time. In the past, with direction from the Chair and cooperation from members, the question period was often cut down to 10, 15 or 20 minutes. Perhaps with the shortening of questions and a greater use of the order paper the question period could again be shortened.
426	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes
Hon. members who have been here for some time know that when I was speaker there was a concerted drive to put questions on the order paper, and it was relatively successful under the circumstances. We finished up with a question period lasting less than half an hour.


William Arnold Peters: You became obnoxious as hell.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was a job to be done. If the hon. member feels he can review the procedures of the house and bring them more in line with the needs of his digestion, that is his privilege. I was satisfied with the rules.


William Arnold Peters: You made the rules.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: By agreement there has been a suspension of Standing Order 15A, one of the most pernicious rules we had. Thank goodness, it is in suspension. It actually was some sort of half-hearted borrowing of an idea from the business committee of the British parliament. If one wants to see the mess the British committee system is in and the sort of practice that became prevalent at Westminster, one need only read British Hansard for May 23, 1965, a celebrated occasion when Dame Irene Ward, a senior and delightful member of the British house, was suspended for five days because she protested so vehemently that Mr. Speaker had to eject her. Why? Because she objected to the finance bill which was the subject of an order by the business committee. The schedule set was a fantastic one. I can say from personal experience that back in 1948 when the House of Commons was considering the nationalization of steel, the nationalization of transport, the national health bill and a number of other major bills under the Labour government, scores and scores of important clauses were never touched under the rigid time-table set out by the business committee. This despite the fact that the government itself had amendments to introduce to a number of these clauses. Last May the same thing happened again in connection with the transport bill. The measures then have to go to the House of Lords; that body is overloaded with the amendments, some of which are accepted and others refused. Then the bill has to go back to the commons for consultation and the working out of an agreed version as between the two chambers. This is an unwieldy process, yet it is supposed to be the epitome of efficiency. Why? Because there is a time-table for the benefit of the cabinet. I have talked

DEBATES	September 24, 1968
with any number of members on both sides who are beside themselves with sheer frustration at being unable to speak at any time on such important bills.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
When, for instance, the British white paper on defence was up for discussion last year it was my recollection, subject to correction, that in the time allocated prior to the closing of the house at 10.30 fewer than 12 members out of 600 were able to speak on such an important subject as defence policy. Not only Conservative members but Labour members were indignant because they could not speak even for one minute. The minister of defence took an hour himself to open the discussion, and seized a good deal of time at the end to close the debate. I would therefore caution hon. members against the idea that our problems with the rules will be cured by the establishment of a business committee and the allocation of time through a cut and dried schedule. We are only heading for more trouble that way.
One of the things I might suggest is that speeches, apart from those made by a minister who is proposing legislation or by someone who is following a text closely for the purpose, say, of adducing statistics, should not be read. After all, members were elected to the House of Commons and they did not gain the backing of the voters by standing before them and reading a prepared text.


Gerald William Baldwin: There was a fair amount of kissing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, they may have gained election by other means, I grant you, but as far as proceedings in this house are concerned I suggest that speeches would be shorter and certainly not quite as boring if they were not presented from the top of a pile of Hansards.
As far as committees are concerned, I do not think we ought to advocate a great proliferation of them. I am an ardent supporter of the idea that more work should be done by committees, but a word of caution has to be uttered. First, we must recognize that the work load imposed on the membership of committees is a very real one and, second, we must keep in mind the limitation of staff. Committees require trained staff on the stenographic side and the translation side, and until we recruit these people in greater numbers there is nothing we can do.
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
May I draw attention to an item which appeared in the Times of London in connection with the expulsion of Dame Irene Ward? This is an extract taken from the Canadian Bar Journal of August, 1968. I read as follows:
When Dame Irene Ward clashed with the Speaker and was suspended from the House, she dramatically brought to public attention the plight of members which had been expressed by the parliamentary correspondent of The Times thus:
"The Palace of Westminster was seething with unrest today, with M.P.'s chasing around like angry ants that have suddenly had their comfortable hill broken open and scattered. Anguish and frustration knew no bounds as 15 committees considering bills and other matters competed with the debate on the floor of the House on the transport bill, which began the second day of its three day marathon at 10 a.m.
Every time there was a division on the transport bill, proceedings in committees had to be halted so that members could rush to the division lobbies. M.P.'s ancient and modern were being hauled up and down stairs like a regiment of protesting yo-yos. Committee after committee fumed and fussed under the pressure.'*
Lord Dalkeith, (Conservative M.P., North Edinburgh) was caught on the timing of events when he discovered he could not cover 2 committees and his duties in the House and as a result missed a division on the Social Work (Scotland) bill. He had banged and thumped on the door to the committee room but it was locked for the discussion. His entry, after the vote was counted, was greeted by laughter and cheers but he was furious in his protests.
The whole House runs the risk of being worked to a breakdown as the machine tries to digest the number of bills being considered. One day there were three committees in the morning and five in the afternoon and the House in session. Dame Irene Ward (Conservative M.P., Tynemouth) wrote to The Times and warned that the sending of important legislation to committee and the chaotic conditions caused by so many committees was starting Britain "on the road to a Social dictatorship". She said in the letter: "The British public should examine with great care the parliamentary happenings of today".
Mr. Speaker, this, in essence, is the justification for the warning I give with regard to thinking that mere reform of rules in whatever fashion hon. members in their wisdom may see fit will necessarily be the cure-all for all that happens here.
There is another sector to which I wish to advert, and that is the private members' hour. I think this house owes a responsibility to proposers of this legislation, and somehow or other we must find a way by which legitimate debate can take place on the bills put forward. These bills should not be used as footballs. They should not be subjected to stalling tactics. This house collectively should not treat petitioners for very worthwhile
DEBATES	427
Consideration of Procedural Changes incorporations rather contemptuously, as though what they were doing mattered naught to the house and that we could put them aside. Responsibility also lies on the government which all too often comes to this house and says, "Could we postpone private members' hour so that we can get on with government business?" If within our statutes and rules we provide for these private bills, then to my mind there is a responsibility for us to deal with them. I hope the committee will be able to come up with an answer that will meet a little better the objectives of both sides.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there are other hon. members who want to make observations on this matter. I endorse a good deal of what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said in reply to the address by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I hope that with some good will, and I trust patient understanding by those observers who seem to know the prescriptions for the ills of this house but who seldom face up to the responsibility of trying to become members of it, or essay out into the trials and tribulations of a political career, we will be able to get on with the business rather than spend all our time introspectively contemplating our navels.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution, but since this is my first opportunity to speak on the floor of this house I would like at the outset to say a few words of tribute to my very distinguished predecessor. I have the honour to represent the new riding of Windsor-Walkerville, which is the successor riding of the old constituency of Essex East. That electoral district will be linked for all time with the name of the member who represented it from 1935 until April of this year. He was successively Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour, Secretary of State, Minister of Health and Welfare and, after a period in vigorous opposition, Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is now Government Leader in the other chamber. By common acknowledgement, he is one of the great parliamentarians in Canada's political history, and it is fitting that the name of the riding which he so magnificently represented for 33 years should be retired from this house with him. It is both a privilege and a challenge to succeed so great a Canadian, and it is a source of special satisfaction that he has
428	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes assumed the designation in the other chamber of the Senator from Windsor-Walkerville.
On another occasion, Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak about my riding and its concerns, unemployment, insufficient housing, poverty and pollution. However, tonight I must confine myself to the resolution at hand. Legislatures, as institutions of representative government, are today confronted with the most serious intellectual challenge they have ever faced. The seriousness of the challenge results from the fact that it arises from within democratic theory rather than as previously from outside, from totalitarian or absolutist dogmas which of their very nature were challenges of force, not intellect. The internal challenge is that raised by the proponents of what is called participatory democracy.
There are many aspects of the movement of participatory democracy that we all applaud. To the extent that it means the active interest of all citizens in matters political and a very full participation by them in political parties and movements, with a corresponding openness of the political process to popular participation, it is only the perfection of the present system of representative government.
This may indeed be all that it means to many of its adherents. But to its theoreticians it means the abolition of representative government as insufficiently responsive to the needs of the people, especially to those of the dispossessed, and its replacement by a system of direct democracy in which every decision is made collectively by the whole population. Perhaps in a technologically more advanced age in which information and opinion on every issue could be conveyed directly and instantaneously to each citizen, with an equally direct and instantaneous return by the citizen to a central source, a nonrepresentational democracy would be feasible. But in the meantime it would be tantamount either to mob rule or to an oligarchy.
Often, however, an evil is merely the exaggeration of a good, and the development of a fallacious theory may serve the purpose of calling our attention to inadequacies in our present practice. Hopefully, the movement toward participatory democracy will direct our minds towards the achievement of more democratic representational government, characterized by greater openness and by more opportunities for meaningful participation in decision making. In my opinion, such democratization is needed in our governmental operations and, I might add, in all our political parties.
[Mr. MacGuigan.l
DEBATES	September 24, 1968
I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the primary principle of parliamentary reform should be the principle of democracy, by which I mean in this context an opportunity for more meaningful and more widespread participation in law making. I believe that this principle would have as its consequence more adequate law making; I do not mean more efficient since efficiency could be taken to mean merely the quantity of achievement in a given time whereas what I have in mind is a more qualitative test of effective operation. More adequate law making means the creation of legislation which is more attuned to the social problems of the day, which will be better received by the public, and which will be of more lasting benefit to the country.
From this starting point, it would appear that the thrust of parliamentary reform should be directed in considerable part toward the creation of a system of permanent standing committees, with greatly expanded powers, as the most effective means of increasing participation in law making. At first glance the referring of legislation from the whole house to a committee of, say, 20 members may not appear to increase participation, at least quantitatively. But in truth it would not only expand participation qualitatively, by allowing for a much fuller participation in law making by the committee members than would be possible for any members of parliament in the committee of the whole, but it would achieve this gain without diminishing the rights of any other members of this house to participate in plenary session. Moreover, while the principal benefit with respect to the operation of any particular committee would be qualitative, the total picture of the operation of the committee system would show an immense overall quantitative gain by the collectivity of members in real law making.
I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, express the following hopes with respect to the committee's recommendations:
1.	That it would recommend a system of permanent standing committees which would operate for the complete life of a parliament. Normally, the same members would be members of these committees from session to session, and the committees would have power to sit while parliament was not in session and, indeed, might use that time extensively.
2.	That each standing committee would have a permanent jurisdiction over a particular class of legislation. All bills and resolutions would be referred to the standing
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
committee having jurisdiction over the predominant subject matter. If the jurisdiction of the various committees were defined sufficiently precisely, the decision on allocation would normally be a routine one, although occasionally a jurisdictional decision might have to be made by the house.
3.	That while a standing committee would remain a creature of the house and would be bound to deal with matters referred to it by the house, it would also have independent power to investigate matters falling within its jurisdiction, subject of course to approval by the house of its operating budget. I would be inclined to the view that every standing committee should have a minimum annual budget, with supplementary appropriations made at the house's discretion for special assignments.
4.	That a permanent staff of experts, translators and secretaries would be assigned to each standing committee. On the premise of a stable division of legislative responsibility among committees, the staff could usefully operate on a year round basis.
5.	That bills should be referred to standing committees after first reading in the house. This procedure would give the committees the maximum opportunity to participate collectively in law making, and at the same time would provide the government, which up to that time would have had the advice of only a small circle of experts, with the maximum advantages of committee scrutiny.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It will be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that what I am recommending for the consideration of the special committee is in large measure the structure of the United States congressional committee system. I would hasten to add, however, that we should avoid the great disadvantages of the United States system- the seniority rule for the selection of committee chairmen and members and the power of chairmen or committees to bottle up legislation which they do not like for indefinite periods of time. But I see no danger of such an undue emphasis on committee autonomy in our system. The danger I see is rather that insufficient use might be made of the great talents of the members of all parties in this house, talents which caused them to be selected by the voters of Canada to serve in this august assembly. To the exent that our Canadian democracy is inadequate, let us begin the process of perfecting it with
DEBATES	429
Consideration of Procedural Changes parliamentary reform based on the principle of democracy.
A further advantage of the committee s ystem I have recommended is that it could perform much of the work assigned in recent years to royal commissions, departmental committees and government task forces. Of course, a place will always remain for such ad hoc bodies to study highly technical matters or perhaps occasionally for matters of considerable political sensitivity. But much of the work that has been done by commissions could have been done just as well by legislative committees. Such a change would eliminate much of the action gap that has occurred between recommendation and legislation, both because the legislative proposals that would be forthcoming would be more politically realistic and because being already under parliamentary consideration they would be somewhat closer to realization. The result would be more adequate law making.
Perhaps as a newly elected member I ought not to have aired my views on parliamentary reform until I had acquired more seasoning in this house. But the times are urgent, and the necessity for parliamentary reform is more urgent still. I, therefore, have presumed to tread disrespectfully upon the hallowed ground of precedent in the cause of reform. I dare to hope that my impetuosity may be regarded in a spirit of charity, even though my proposals must be weighed on the scales of justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, because these are my first words of debate in this parliament I should like to incorporate all the nice words that have been said about you into my comments tonight. I know that in the future you will be just as fair and impartial as you have been in the past.
I shall not take very long tonight. However, I should like to speak in a practical vein. Through the medium of communications, newspapers, T.V. and radio, there has been a growing demand that parliament must be reformed. I do not think that any one of us would deny that there is some need for reform. We must remember, however, that the rules of parliament, the same as the rules in any other institution, are the tools with which we work. They are simple tools and I believe we must be careful that we do not allow ourselves to be worried too much when we are engaging in this kind of reform by the demands for reform by the press.
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes
At the outset, I wish to say to the minister who moved the resolution that at least he has spelled out some of his thoughts. Politics today has generally caught the imagination. It has become the Madison Avenue instrument today. Men and parties are sold like packaged breakfast food and stainless steel blue blades. So, when we consider reform of the tools of this house we must analyse them very carefully to be sure that we are not brainwashed by the demand for reform in certain places. Otherwise, we might end up curing the evil with worse.
We must remember at the outset that the committee will be like all standing committees of the House of Commons. The committee will be controlled by a majority of government members. I should like to mention my experience so far as committee work of this parliament is concerned. Whether it is a Conservative government or a Liberal government, all committees are controlled by the government. With the exception of the public accounts committee the chairmen of committees generally are appointed from the government side. No doubt we will have the same situation in respect of this committee. The chairmen of the committees know full well what the government wants, and in this case the chairman will know the reforms for which the government is looking.
As one speaker said this afternoon, so far as these instruments and tools are concerned, although they may be of great advantage to the government majority they may be a disadvantage to the opposition. A committee is controlled by the government. The chairman is a member of the government. The government has a majority of the members on a committee. My experience is that witnesses appear before committees, are examined and then a report is prepared. Perhaps I am a little harsh in this regard, but my experience again is that because of the weight of the hon. members on the committee who are controlled by the government, whether it be a Conservative or a Liberal government, that report generally is shaped by the committee chairman and the majority on the committee according to government thinking. Therefore, I do not think we should attend this committee, where we will be outnumbered, in the belief that we will get our ideas across when we point out some of the disadvantages of the suggestions. It might well be that this committee will be operating somewhat in a vacuum.
I should like to use as an illustration the problems in respect of the national parks of

Canada. Leases and lands were being expropriated from the citizens of Jasper and Banff without notice or compensation. So, after pressure from the opposition the government decided to send a committee to that area. I mention this in order to show the weakness of the committee system. If the minister in question or the government can show me how we can reform the committee system, then I will have more faith in it and will have more faith in the ability of the standing committees of the house to examine carefully and properly the estimates of the government. In respect of Banff and Jasper, the committee members went to these parks where briefs were presented. I was told by one of the officials when a certain question came up, that we should be careful of what we say because the government did not like this idea.
In short, the committee was a sham. I do not think any other committees are much better. The committees are no better than some of the administrative boards before which lawyers appear with clients, only to find that a decision has been made before the board is called to order. I want an impartial committee. I want an impartial chairman of the committee. Then, I will have faith that we can go to the committee meetings and come out with a reasonable report which, to some extent, will represent the opinion of the members of the House of Commons rather than merely the opinion of those on the government side of the house. This particular committee to which I refer which visited the national parks was just a kangaroo court, and it came up with a kangaroo decision. It did not solve the problem because the same problem exists today. The people are no more satisfied than they were before.
I think this is where we must start. There are two points. We must place the matter before a committee. Then, we must know whether that committee will be a responsible committee or whether the ideas of the government will be thrust upon it. If that is the case, then it is really going to be just a sham committee. If the estimates are to be more carefully considered by the various standing committees, I suggest that the committees themselves should be so constituted that they will express the viewpoint of the members of the House of Commons and not the viewpoint of one party which constitutes the majority on that committee.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
That has been my experience in respect of committees, whether it was the committee on
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
resources, the committee on national parks, the committee on legal affairs, or justice, or whatever committee it was. If we take away the right to debate the estimates, and set a time limit, let us put the estimates before an independent committee which can do the job as well as we would do it in this chamber.
There is a dangerous aspect to this proposal which I think the committee should consider. I believe everyone wants a time limit on debate and a time limit on our discussion of the estimates, but will this work when we have 29 departments and only 30 days in which to discuss the estimates? I would also point out that the government is very sensitive with regard to certain things. For example, last year our negotiating team in respect of the international wheat agreement failed to reach Geneva on time so they could set a floor price on wheat and guarantee markets to Canada, which markets had been lost because there was a surplus in the United States. We lost some of our traditional markets. We could not debate the question because the government held the matter over to the last hour of our sitting. They can do this so easily. All they have to do is call upon the backbenchers to do the talking on estimates which are not in issue, delay a matter until the last hour and then billions of dollars worth of estimates go through with no debate. This is what happens when the government finds itself in difficulty.
If this is the kind of reform the committee we are setting up tonight has in mind, and if that is the kind of reform the minister has in mind-


An hon. Member:: He has.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -then I say to him, "You are curing the evil with something worse." This kind of reform will not improve the situation that exists today. It will feather the minister's bed for the moment, but tomorrow he may be in opposition and the rules and guillotine he is creating will be the things by which he has to live. When the executive are allowed to go around this country without being constructively criticized, you have a one-party state and you get dictatorship. That is the result of such a situation. That is why the committee must study this question very carefully. I am referring to the functioning of our standing committees and the time limitation on the discussion of estimates. These things may sound wonderful and idealistic, but in practice they may have the effect of gagging the opposition so they cannot perform
DEBATES	431
Consideration of Procedural Changes the functions and responsibilities which this institution demands.
I believe this is the most important question facing our committees today. If the rule changes have the effect that I have described, there will be a fenestration of the wall of freedom. It is just like building a wall and then building a window so you can get through the wall. I would point out that this is all to be done under the guise of reform. It is to be done because this concept is popular today. As I have said, Madison Avenue sells the packaged foods; Madison Avenue sells the man, Madison Avenue sells the political image for parties and governments. Then, of course, Madison Avenue, through the advertisers, commentators and news media builds up public opinion, and public opinion in Canada says that parliament must be reformed. But if the public realizes and appreciates that the reform may in fact amount to gagging the opposition because of a limitation on the discussion of estimates, I say again that the minister will be trying to cure the evil with something worse.
As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said today, there seems to be growing in this new government a vacuum of secrecy. We asked two questions today with reference to the security of the state. We were told we could not be given the answers. But most of us have these facts. We know that when someone is fired from the civil service that person must be at least under a cloud of suspicion. If there is not a cloud of suspicion, he should get his job back. What would have been wrong in the government naming that person today? Why hide the facts?
I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) whether he and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would make a statement with regard to the export of grain and future commitments in this respect. We asked that such a statement be made in order to give confidence to the grain trade and the country in general, because the grain trade is important to the whole economy of Canada. The other day the Minister of Agriculture said, "That is going to be done."
When I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the question today, he said, "I do not know whether we can do that." There are two contradictions. If we are to have a proper parliament, the opposition must have the facts. Another illustration of this situation is the fact that the Minister of
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes Justice (Mr. Turner) has received briefs from the attorneys general of the provinces with reference to the amendments to the Criminal Code. Surely, there is nothing wrong with tabling those briefs if you receive the consent of the attorneys general. They will certainly give that consent. This information is necessary so that the opposition is armed with the same facts and knowledge as the government. Only in this way can the opposition intelligently and responsibly debate this subject when it comes before the house. Provided these safeguards are made, and provided the committee is independent, I am all for reform.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place today. The discussion appears not to be a continuation of what was said last year and perhaps even the year before, when we had a minority government and there was a great need for co-operation on both sides of the house. Rather, there has been a return to firm positions that were held somewhere around 1962 when the provisional rules were introduced and which have been in operation off and on ever since.
When the government house leader made his presentation today it was quite obvious that he had the details all worked out and was ready to put them into effect. The debate was a necessity, as many debates are, only because under today's rules we have this type of debate. But the details were already spelled out, and ready to be put into effect.
I have always been very impressed with the house leader of the official opposition, but today I found him not to be progressive in any way, shape or form in his approach to the rules. He has gone back to an ultra-Conservative view that he has not held for a considerable length of time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the exercise is really all about.
It is true that in the last election the general public had something to say about this matter. I was very interested in three of the statements the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made during the election campaign. All of them concerned problems that apparently could be solved almost with a sweep of the hand. One was that we recognize Red China; second that we get out of NATO; and, third that we reform parliament. I think most of the country agreed with these three proposals. I am sure the Prime Minister himself agreed with them and was not just talking 
through his hat. These were very sensible things to do, until he was in a position where he was able to do them. Then, it did not become so simple; other factors entered into the problem.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
With regard to the recognition of Red China, I am sure there were people in other parts of the country who were not so sure this was a good idea. I think probably even Red China may not want to be recognized. When it came to withdrawing from NATO, a situation arose which was obviously not considered at the time the statement was made. However, it is difficult to foresee all the implications. I am sure that the same is true of the proposal to change the rules. It sounded a very easy thing to do during the election. I am sure that all the backbenchers in every part of the house agree with the Prime Minister that we should change the rules to make this a much better place in which to operate and in which to serve the needs of the people of Canada. The difficulty arises when it comes to actually getting down to changing these rules. It is not that we do not want to do something about changing them, but the difficulty is how to change them.
Obviously the rules of parliament were developed over many years by trial and error. This goes back further than my own knowledge of history. However, the development of procedures has taken place under the democratic system which has provided great freedom for the individual and at the same time provided some form of protection to society. I was intrigued by the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he said that Mackenzie King, our former prime minister, had decided to allow the throne speech debate to run for 30 days or more during which time he could get on with the business of parliament. I am not sure that I would be opposed to that. I think that a certain number of points would be made by the backbenchers concerning their own constituencies which would give to everyone a better understanding of some of the problems of the day. The issues which were raised by the press could be repeated in the house, and this would be similar to a continuation of the question period conducted throughout the whole day.
However, if an emergency arose, the democratic process could take over and the machinery would still be available to take care of the emergency. I am dubious when we refer
September 24, 1968

to the committee system in the United States which is often mentioned in the house by hon. members whose constituencies lie close to the United States border. There may be some arguments in favour of the system there, but it seems to me we must be very careful in following a system which would prevent us from dealing with emergencies as they arise. Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were mentioned today as statesmen whose contributions were not recognized until the need for them arose. The democratic process has allowed this, and in time of wars or calamities has provided the nation with leadership while preserving the rights of the individual.
I am not suggesting that the rules should not be changed, but I am still a backbencher at heart and will always remain one. Fundamentally, I believe that the rights of the individual are more important than some of our other collective rights. So, I think that if we eliminate the rules which allow the backbencher to have his say when he feels strongly enough on a subject, parliament will become poorer. This is what may happen if we structure the committee system in accordance with that followed by the United States congress. I do not believe this can happen in our parliamentary system. We would have to change to a republican form of government before being able to follow the congressional system. Perhaps there are some who might be prepared to support such a change, but at the moment the house is not faced with this proposition.
There are a number of things which the government should do if they really wish to reform parliament and about which they should inform the house, particularly the new members who are not really aware of what these changes may entail. I am sure many of us will be here for some time without really understanding all the rules. However, if the government is to be fair, it should not present parliament with a fait accompli and then say the majority would accomplish this anyway following a long debate. The government should be prepared to outline how far it intends to go in the changes which it proposes.
One of the things which has to be done I think is for the committee to consider the possibility of a four year term for the government. I have been here 11 years during which time we fought six elections. At least three of these elections were called because the Prime Minister decided it was to his personal advantage to call an election. In my opinion, in

Consideration of Procedural Changes three of these instances he did not consider the interests of the country nor did he consider the members of his party or the opposition. He certainly did not consider the good of the country. I found during the last election that the people in the country were fed up with elections; they have had too many of them. They would like to see members get busy and at least do three years of work before contemplating another election. So, I believe that one of the changes will have to be a four year term for parliament. I suggest that this be done by statute and that the Prime Minister lose the prerogative of calling an election when it suits his fancy. At the same time, I believe we should consider the problems which this would entail in the case of a minority government. I say to the backbenchers on the government side that they should consider the possibility of a minority government being in office in the days to come. The rules should not only apply to the type of government which we have today, but should also be applicable in other cases.
I have a suggestion, therefore, which is contained in a bill, namely that when 15 members approach Mr. Speaker with a resolution to move the dissolution of parliament that motion should be put on the order paper and debated. When a majority of 75 per cent of the members approve this motion, an election be called. It is generally agreed that when members unanimously vote against the government and for a dissolution, the government has really reached the end of the road in any case. Parliament should have the right to make the decision on its dissolution. In any case, I believe this action should not be the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Such a change in the rules would create greater stability in parliament because, as hon. members who have been here in the last two or three parliaments will know, there has been a continuous election campaign during those periods of instability during which an election could have been called at any time, and very little work was done.
The government should also give some consideration to the cost of elections. If they are sincerely interested in reform, they will have to consider the provision of funds which they themselves will designate for the running of elections. In my opinion, this move would eliminate a great deal of competition and the scramble for money which goes on at that time. This will have quite an influence on the man who decides to run.
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Our Speaker has made a change possible by removing himself from political considerations and coming to this house as an independent. This may not be the answer to all our problems but I commend him for his initiative in this regard. He has come here without any obligation to any political party. Therefore, he may act in an impartial manner. This has been perhaps impossible for some of his predecessors.
The government house leader must give some consideration to this matter of attendance. I remember a former prime minister suggesting in the house that there were three legitimate roles of a member of parliament; his attendance here in Ottawa, his performance of government business and his performance of constituency business. That prime minister suggested that a member was legitimately in attendance when he was engaged in one of those three branches of his activities. It is very difficult to perform your role as a member of parliament here in Ottawa when you are participating in some function in your constituency.
I am actually ashamed and appalled by the requirement to sign that piece of paper covering our attendance in the house. Surely, a Philadelphia lawyer could not tell you what those ten or 15 words on that paper actually mean. They certainly do not convey what is intended. One would be lying if one answered yes or no. The question is similar to that well-known question; have you stopped beating your wife? I think this system is a farce and should be replaced by something which will require members of parliament to make a decision as to whether or not they were in attendance. This may involve the honour system, or a system similar to that used in the Senate. It may be all right to go to college during the four years you are a member, and that might be even better than staying away for other reasons, but I think the public expects members should be in attendance. If they are not in attendance, the public deserves to know why they are not.
The house leader did not mention today the role the government plays in getting things done. I have always been intrigued by the number of government orders which appear on the order paper and the manner in which the house leader changes the order of importance. Perhaps item number 5 will be of importance one day, followed by item number 7. Often, the house leader lists four or

five items to be considered the next sitting day, to be followed by other items if the house sees fit to pass the items listed. There must be some reason for putting off important items, other than the absence of a particular minister. Surely, the government has a responsibility to bring forward important legislation. If the house is seized with unimportant matters, those are the only matters to be passed. The government cannot suggest that legislation is being held up if it is not being brought before the house, and the government alone can bring forward that business.
Reference has already been made to the question period. Let me tell the young members here that a former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) got up in this house and chastised a young member who had asked what that right hon. gentleman thought was a foolish question. He said at the time that the question only embarrassed the individual who asked it. He informed the young member that in his opinion only questions that embarrassed the government should be asked in this house. I have always considered this to be a fairly good rule of thumb. Many of the questions we have heard in the last few days seemed to be more embarrassing to the individuals who asked them than to the government.
In theory, the question period could last indefinitely. The Speaker has a role to play in this regard. He should play that role in a different manner than it has been played by at least one previous speaker. That gentleman said he had been able to curtail the question period. If any young member would like to know how the Speaker should not involve himself in curtailing the question period, he should read some of the lectures given by that speaker. Surely, the Speaker must be above giving lectures in the House of Commons. I hasten to add that our present Speaker has never placed himself in that position.
It is my belief that those responsible in various parties should exercise some control in the handling of the question period. The question asked today concerning security was an important question and should not have been dodged. If such questions are put off by the ministers, there is really no point in asking them. There must be responsibility on both sides. If an important question is asked, an attempt should be made to answer it. When an insignificant question is asked, the minister does not help the situation very much by making an effort to answer it. There must be some equality during the question
September 24, 1968

period, and the Speaker has a responsibility in this regard.
When the house leader asked for unanimous consent to reinstate the provisional rules, I considered the matter very seriously and was finally persuaded by some of my colleagues, after some coercion, to refrain from objecting. I wanted to refuse unanimous consent for several reasons. I do not think the new rules are any better than the old ones. I wanted the young members to realize that at one time we were civilized in this house and worked regular hours which permitted us to partake of the food in the dining room. After all, we did not always have to eat sandwiches behind the curtain. I wanted the young members to appreciate this so they would not think we were all on a continuous shift and had to bring our lunches.
I was also opposed to the provisional rule in respect of Speaker's rulings. As a member who challenged the Speaker's rulings more often than anyone else, I thought we had a good arrangement. I am sure the Speaker never considered that we were attacking him personally. He knew that we were using a gimmick to force a vote on something which had nothing to do with him. He was not offended, and I do not understand why anyone should think that such an appeal should be a calamity. This was a piece of parliamentary machinery that served my needs. I was not really opposed to this change, but I think some discretion could have been used.
In any event, the point I am trying to make is that the new rules are not much better than the old ones. They do take away some of the rights of members. Under certain circumstances, use is made of the guillotine provisions. I am opposed to them, and I think I always shall be. I do admit that certain circumstances are similar to those encountered by negotiators in strike settlements. The time finally arrives when a decision has to be made to settle a strike, but it is often very difficult to get the two sides together. There must be some ultimate method of ending a debate.
We face a danger in adopting changes of the type to which I have referred in that very often there is no balancing protection. I lay no blame at the door of the government house leader, because he has a job to do. He must work toward a position where the business of the government can be handled as quickly as possible and with as little debate as possible. In the extreme case there would be no debate, and I am sure the house leader would
Consideration of Procedural Changes not want that. In that event, there would be no semblance of an opposition, without which democracy cannot work. His job is to see that we work in this direction, though his own backbenchers may object if they feel he goes too far. The official opposition would have to oppose it as much as possible, but in the matter of commitments I do think we are reaching common ground.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
What is wrong with the committee structure is something very simple, I suggest. An hon. member can attend a committee for months and discuss detail as impartially as political animals can. The committee will make recommendations. These will be brought to the house and tabled, but that will be the end of them.
The committee system can be used, and I think it is safe to say was used in the last parliament, to such an extend that members find themselves running back and forth from one committee to another. I remember that I was never as tired as I was at the commencement of the last election. My colleagues tell me that this is a rat race, but let them wait until they have to attend four or five committees and find themselves running like rabbits from one warren to another.
I remember some hon. members used to carry their notes around in a large satchel. They would drop into a committee, get their name on the attendance roll, and then in a loud voice ask another member of the committee what was being discussed. They would attend one or two hearings of that committee in this way and accomplish little else than getting their name down. I suggest that the work itself is not important; it is whether some action is taken as a result of that work.
Under the present parliamentary structure committees can, without taking anything away from parliament, go into matters of detail and then report to the house. This report then becomes the subject of debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated that the government house leader had suggested we could use the report stage for debate rather than the committee stage, which I think is a sensible position to take. I have always wondered what the point was in getting involved in committees. If I want to louse up some matter when it comes back to the house, I can stand up and louse it up. I do not need to go to committee to do that, so why should I go?
September 24, 1968
436	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes
Let me give an example, Mr. Speaker. Twice during the course of 10 years I was a member of a farm machinery inquiry committee. Both committees in my opinion did an excellent job. Let us say that they made 10 concrete proposals to the government. Out of these 10 the government agreed with four. However, I felt that having spent all that effort and time listening to farm machinery companies and everybody else concerned, the government damn well should have taken action on those four recommendations.
Let me give another example for the farmers present. We found that fittings that connected the hydraulic system of a machine to the tractor required five or six different types of connectors. This meant that when a farmer bought a new tractor he had to buy a whole new set of adaptors. The committee suggested that there should be a uniform type of connector which would allow easy interchange hydraulically between farm implements and tractors. We suggested that there should be standardization of nuts and bolts. This was not very revolutionary, Mr. Speaker. Everybody thought it was a good idea, but you would have to go to the library to read about it because the government took no action on it. I expect someone will come along to the agriculture committee and suggest they study farm machinery prices. Why? If the house leader is really serious about the use of committees, then he must give the backbenchers that he sends to these committees some assurance that something will be done when their report is made. It can be accepted or rejected, but I will be damned if the government has the right to ignore it. This is what has happened to every committee report that has been tabled in this house.
The committees will have to have a permanent secretariat. I get tired of listening to civil servants telling committees that they cannot do this or they cannot do that; that they cannot tell them how to run their administrations. I think training has to be provided. A permanent secretariat will have to supply translation facilities and legal and research facilities for committee members. When this is done, then I believe that the committee system under our parliamentary structure will perform a legitimate function and not take away anything from anybody. When a committee reports to the house, in my opinion, only the committee report should be discussed. If this is the case, some provision must be made for a minority report because there are two sides to some questions. Most


committees I have attended have hammered out their report, rewritten and modified it to the point where it is acceptable to all, yet a majority report would have been very hard to come by. In some cases, there is a majority report. If these reports are decided upon in the house, then the committee will have served some function.
I think that having members spending eight or 10 hours a week in a committee is a good idea only if there is some end result. If committees are merely a vehicle for keeping backbenchers busy, then I am not going to attend any more committees. If members see no advantage in going to committees, we will never shorten debate in this house. Any time limit set by the government will prove to be a minimum time for debate and the parliamentary timetable will become very full.
Many times, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of lousing up the government house leader on such questions as an Easter or Christmas recess and on July 1. I have done this not to be obnoxious but with a view to establishing permanent periods for getting things done. I have always felt that the government was being unfair to the opposition in holding a gun at our head and telling us that if we pass certain pieces of legislation we can have an Easter recess, but if we do not we are going to sit here. I remember one year when we even sat on Good Friday because I would not let the house adjourn. This has not happened since; we have always had an Easter recess and I presume that the present house leader wants to carry on that practice. However, Mr. Speaker, we should decide whether we are going to have a summer recess and when that recess should be. We should take into account the school year and other holidays, set the recesses forth in our four-year term, and we should be prepared to work within these periods.
I want now, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two about estimates before leaving the committee structure. I have been impressed with the reports from the British House of Commons and from the Interparliamentary Union, which have defined the problem of estimates as one that exists in every parliamentary government in the world, including Russia. All have the same problem, a larger volume of business, a bigger gross national product. Every parliamentary government is unable to handle its estimates adequately. It appears the situation will not change and there is not a hope in Hades of examining estimates thoroughly. I am not sure whether we ought to
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
bother with examination of estimates. In England they no longer bother. Sometimes, in this country, we examine estimates after nine tenths of the money has been spent, the idea being under our rules that we must see where the money has gone before we vote the other one tenth. I do not see that we should be any the worse off if we did not discuss all estimates. In England, they discuss the policy behind estimates and government policy surrounding the administration of estimates. They do not discuss the pounds, shillings and pence aspect of each department. Every so often they take one or two departments and examine them in detail, just as we examine some items of expenditure in the public accounts committee. Each department receives close scrutiny probably every seven or eight years.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In this country we want to make certain that when the public accounts committee reports something to the government, the government acts on the report. When a similar committee reports to the English government, that government must report on what it did with the committee's recommendation. The report must be given within one year. Here we often take no action on any suggestion in the auditor general's report. Sometimes the government acts, and sometimes it does not. The matter often has to be decided by the house.
We must face many problems. It is safe to say that the government may expect co-operation in the changing of our committee structure. Perhaps the government house leader would indicate what his intentions are in this regard. He might say a word on the subjects of committee reports and the role of committees in our scheme of things. He has been chairman of several committees and I have always found him to be fair and reasonable. The fact he is government house leader may change that, so far as the attitude of the opposition is concerned. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has only recently been elevated, and I am sure that he has not forgotten the frustrations he experienced as chairman of any committee. He must remember that some committee reports evoked no comment from the government. That was not a satisfactory state of affairs.
DEBATES	437
Consideration of Procedural Changes
The government must look at the entire picture, but it must be careful not to emasculate the role of the opposition, because if it does attempt to do so it will gain very little co-operation. Ultimately, the government will gain more by having the co-operation of all members than by trying to force its own way. More is to be gained by agreement between the house leaders of all parties than through the operation of the internal business committee, which really has not been used so far.
Most Canadians welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement that he would attempt to reform parliament. He will find, I think, that the public is not looking for picayune changes. It is looking for major changes, and in this case, as the lawyers say, it is important not only that justice be done, but that it appear to be done.
I wish to say a few words about the subject of televising the procedures of this house. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will give consideration to the installation of permanent television cameras in this house. I hope that neither the C.B.C. nor any other network has control of those television cameras. They should be operated as the cameras in the United Nations are operated, and the film ought to be made available to the media at large. I submit that Mr. Speaker ought to be responsible for the administration of this televising in the same way that he is responsible for the verbatim reporting of the debates in this chamber. I suggest this because I have seen occasions in the past when crews of the various news media competed for space, not only in this chamber but in this building. I think newspapermen will agree with me that the television coverage of debates in this house may well modify their reports of those debates printed in newspapers, reports which so far have been exclusively furnished by newspapermen.
I hope you will give consideration to controlling this medium sir, and I hope that we may have an answer on this question from the appropriate authorities soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.
September 24, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes HOUSE OF COMMONS



SPECIAL COMMITTEE-PROCEDURES RESPECTING INSTRUMENTS IN VIRTUE OF STATUTES

Donald Stovel Macdonald: That a Special Committee of twelve Members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report on procedures for the review by this House of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the Parliament of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take the few minutes remaining this evening to explain the background of the resolution, for the benefit of hon. members who did not participate in the throne speech debate or who were not present last week.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has been a student of this question for some years, as have a number of other hon. members in the house including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). One of the arrangements made to deal procedurally with the problems coming before the house this coming autumn, and in any subsequent period, is the establishment of a committee for the purpose of studying procedures for the better review of statutory instruments, to use the technical term which they are given.
We spend a good deal of time in this house, and, quite properly, in examining details of legislation that is brought before the house, in debating the actual terms of the legislation and in amending legislation from time to time to bring it more closely in line with the aims which the government has in putting it forward or with any purpose which the house, generally, might find acceptable.
A great deal of the legislation which we have seen during our time in the house has contained a provision worded, one way or another, to the effect that for the further and better carrying out of the provisions of the legislation the governor in council is to be entitled to make regulations or orders, or is otherwise given authority to enact what is called delegated legislation, for the better carrying out of the statute.
We find ourselves in the position, therefore, that while a bill may receive intense scrutiny, the application of the bill is left to an administrative body. In fact, measures which may encroach most on the personal privacy, property and rights of the individual may actually be enacted by the administration without any opportunity being given for the elected representatives of the people to give
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
them any direct review. This resolution does not propose to set up a standing committee on delegated legislation itself. What it does propose is that a special committee should be established for the purpose of examining our practice in Canada in this field of statutory instruments or delegated legislation to ascertain whether it would be advisable to set up some kind of procedure so that this house, more particularly through a committee, could make a better scrutiny of these subsidiary instruments by which rights are so much affected. I think there will probably be agreement in all parts of the house as to the acceptability of this motion. I confess that in putting the motion forward at this time we are scarcely engaging in a daring or pioneering step. I note that in 1932 the Senate of Australia set up a committee to review statutory instruments to see how they worked in that country and to study what the procedures were. In 1944, the House of Commons in Westminster set up a select committee on statutory rules and orders and since 1946 that committee, a standing committee known by the nickname of the scrutiny committee, has been charged with scrutinizing this kind of delegated legislation produced by the administration.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The increased use of orders and regulations has been a necessary consequence of the rapid extension not only in Canada but in all other western countries of government influence in broader areas of the economy and other areas of hitherto private endeavour, in line with the change in public philosophy to a more interventionist attitude. At the same time the standing procedures of the parliamentary system have not been extended to carry forward parliamentary control and our purpose in engaging in this proposed study is to see what might be done to provide continuing supervision of this kind of activity.
Perhaps I might refer to some related questions to make it clear that they are not being dealt with by this particular resolution. One of the means of controlling administrative action to prevent interference with the rights of the individual is of course by providing legal rights of recourse, either by appeal to the regular court system or by means of prerogative writs, where it is felt there has been a denial of what is described as natural law, or, to put it in non-technical terms, where there has been a violation of the ordinary rights of people.
September 24, 1968	COMMONS
This resolution and the committee to be set up will not deal with that subject matter. One of my responsibilities, as President of the Privy Council, will be to suggest further procedures which might be followed for the purpose of reviewing our system of administrative law and the system of appeals we have established. This is a responsibility I share with my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). If thought desirable, further means of enabling legal scrutiny of the administrative process will be suggested.
Another institution often discussed in this context is the Scandinavian system of ombudsman. Here again, this resolution does not directly at least involve the recommendation that we set up such an institution in Canada. I think it is fair to observe, however, that the British parliament has decided that a necessary corollary to its select committee on statutory instruments is the appointment of an ombudsman, or parliamentary commissioner as they call him, and they have recently established such a post.
The history of parliamentary consideration of this type of committee has been a long one in Canada. In 1943, the late Mr. Brooke Claxton, then a private member for St. Law-rence-St. George, commented-and I quote from Hansard for that year at page 296:
The practice oi tabling orders in council is, for ail practical purposes, an empty form. I suggest that orders in council be referred to a committee for consideration-not all orders, but orders having the effect of legislation of a general nature.
Another notable Canadian who has shown an interest in this subject is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who in 1945 advocated a Senate committee on orders in council to ascertain whether they impinge and infringe upon private rights. Again, in 1949 the right hon. member for Prince Albert advocated the appointment of a committee on ministerial powers to function in the same way as the scrutiny committee at Westminster. In short, what we want the committee to do, is to review what is done under delegated legislation and to recommend to the house the best means of carrying out the will of the people in such a way, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has just said, as to make sure that justice is not only done, but appears to be done.
Perhaps I could call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	439
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: While we are to have the new era beginning next Thursday, perhaps I might be permitted to ask the leader of the house what we shall be doing tomorrow and the following day? Perhaps he could take us beyond the farm finance bills this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Tomorrow we hope to continue and perhaps dispose of the resolution which I have been introducing. Thereafter, we would call the resolution stage of the three farm financing bills Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on today's order paper. On Thursday, it is anticipated there will be an application for interim supply and if that is dealt with on Thursday or on Friday, we would return to the farm bills if they have not been completed.
On Monday next, or perhaps on Tuesday, depending on the action taken in the other place, it is anticipated that the bill to amend the Publication of Statutes Act will be reported to this house and it is the intention of the government to call that bill. It will be desirable to do so because we feel the house should determine whether or not the form of the acts should be changed before further legislation is passed. I hope that when the milennium arrives on Thursday I will be able to say what we will be going on with next week.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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