1968-12-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the Honourable Mr. Justice H. G. Puddester and the Honourable Mr. Justice A. S. Mifflin, both of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the two judges appointed for the trial of a petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment in the matter of an election in the electoral district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed Bill No. C-131, an act to amend the Customs Tariff, as well as Bill No. S-18, an act respecting the Canadian Order of Foresters, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has been able to fix a new firm date for the federal-provincial constitutional conference which was originally scheduled for next week.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Since I answered the question yesterday I have had word from all except one of the provinces that they are accepting the idea of postponing the conference. There is fairly general agreement that the new date should be early in February. There is one province
which still does not see its way clear to having the conference then, but I hope within the next 24 hours to find some suitable arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance could indicate whether the federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers, which I think was scheduled to take place immediately following the constitutional conference, will continue as scheduled.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: have communicated with the various ministers of finance, and at present it appears that the conference of finance ministers will go on next week as scheduled.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister can inform the house whether the government plans to go ahead and publish the position papers that were to be produced tomorrow afternoon, in light of the importance of those documents and the chance of public discussion prior to the conference.


Mr. Trudeau:: The suggestion has been considered, Mr. Speaker. We were asking ourselves what the best arrangement would be in view of the fact we only had a commitment from the provinces that they would have no objection to our publishing a few days before the conference. The conclusion we are forced to reach is that we will not be able to publish the position papers as planned at the end of this week; the date will have to be postponed to some other time agreeable to the parties concerned, provided the provinces themselves do not publish theirs until there is some agreement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the decision of the government not to publish, would it give consideration, perhaps along with the provinces, to have these documents published at least in sufficient time before the rescheduled date of the conference so there can be some useful public consideration and discussion of them?
3846	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are considering this. When a date has been agreed upon for the conference proper we will then raise the question of publication, somewhat in advance if possible.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the postponement of the constitutional conference, does the government intend to delay the official languages bill until after the same has been discussed at the constitutional conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is another complex question, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to be in a position to play Santa Claus and bring this bill in before Christmas, but some provinces did ask that the bill not be adopted before the constitutional conference. The new arrangement as to date would mean postponing it by at least a month.
I think what might be acceptable to parliament and to the provinces would be to consider introducing the bill and passing it through some of its stages in this house, though perhaps not adopting it officially on third reading until the constitutional conference has been held. I will explore this possibility.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the minister's illness. In view of further emphasis on the need to make an organized beginning in the control of pollution, what progress has been made by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, as far as the minister knows, the department of health and welfare in getting pollution control legislation initiated?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the introduction of the Canada waters act. Last week I spent two days in Victoria meeting with the provincial ministers and our respective officials responsible for water. We made some progress at that time in the discussion of approaches. More specifically, the multi-jurisdictional approach to pollution problems is getting more and more accepted by the provinces. The regional approach is also becoming more and more

DEBATES	December 12, 1968
accepted. I told the ministers that when we introduce the water act we would bring them together for a full debate on that particular bill.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I may just briefly introduce my question, last May, I think it was, a suggestion was made to the house when the minister was minister of energy, mines and resources, to the effect that an advisory council on water and air pollution would be established. May I ask whether any progress has been made in this direction.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. This is still one of the subjects that we are discussing with the provinces. My hon. friend is quite aware that not all provinces agree with us or among themselves on these subjects. I agree it is a slow process, but we have been working for a number of months toward building a consensus on these matters, and I think we have made some progress. By the time we bring in the water act we will be much closer, I think, to a consensus on these questions than would have been the case had we introduced the act last year.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have another question arising out of the minister's answer. Would he be good enough to inform the house whether these discussions are being carried on intermittently between ministers, or is there a permanent committee of officials representing federal and provincial governments that is entering into a discussion of all these areas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, discussions have obviously been going on among ministers on these subjects. The federal interdepartmental committees have also been at work here. The co-ordination between federal and provincial governments in this matter is generally undertaken through the council of resource ministers.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since those negotiations have been going on for quite some time, does the minister feel that he will be in a position to introduce in the house in 1969 legislation on water pollution, because we feel that the matter is urgent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this measure is advocated in the speech from the throne.
December 12, 1968


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norlh):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While he is looking into some of the problems that have been raised would the minister also look into a statement that has been made alleging that the federal fisheries department is polluting 56 small lakes and 17 watersheds in northern Ontario?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to divide responsibilities in these matters. The federal government cannot be held responsible for the pollution of every creek in Canada.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, which stems from the government's decision to give up winter works.
Could the minister tell the house whether the government, in conjunction with the provinces, intends to grant subsidies to municipalities wishing to build sewage disposal plants?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is very simple. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation already grants loans to municipalities for that purpose.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Does the government intend to ask the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to increase the borrowing privileges of municipalities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of general government policy, and of government responsibility for distributing the resources as equitably as possible between the various departments and various interests.



ASSISTANCE IN MOVING OF DRYING EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the meetings which have been held since I last asked a question about the matter will the minister say what part the
Inquiries of the Ministry federal government is now prepared to play in moving grain drying equipment from Ontario to western Canada to help the situation there?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the departments of agriculture of each of the three prairie provinces have held meetings with the grain industry-that is, with the elevator companies, producer organizations and anyone else vitally and directly interested in this problem-and have ascertained that in each of the affected areas there appears to be sufficient grain drying equipment in place now. It is a matter of making the maximum use of this equipment by coordinating activities so that grain dryers are in fact used in those areas where there is the greatest amount of tough and damp grain. The members of the Board of Grain Commissioners have also been attending all these meetings and I expect a report very soon to see if there are any further steps we can take to be of help.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture indicate why members of the wheat board did not appear before the standing committee on agriculture during discussion of the estimates, as had originally been intended?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have no way, any more than the hon. member has, of knowing why the standing committee on agriculture did not call certain witnesses.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture any information with regard to the Board of Grain Commissioners allowing grain dryers to operate at country elevators, as of today?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this is another matter that has been considered during the committee meetings. As I have said, I expect a report on the last of these meetings very soon.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Would the minister advise the house whether the government has any intention of proceeding to expand grain drying facilities at government terminals, particularly inland terminals?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are one or two places, and perhaps Moose Jaw is one of them, where we could make use of more grain drying facilities at this time. However, there is a
December 12, 1S68

Inquiries of the Ministry question whether such equipment could be ordered and installed quickly enough to be useful this year. The other suggestion is that some smaller or portable drying facilities could be used at some of the terminals, and this is under consideration now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Could the minister advise the house whether the dryer at the Lethbridge terminal is in operation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The dryer at Lethbridge has not been used for a very long time. I am advised it is a very low volume dryer and so old that it would be very difficult to make it operational. The reason is that there is very little tough or damp grain in that area, and any which might be there would have to be shipped out of line, adding substantially to the cost.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: In view of the fact that there has been very little improvement in the supply of box cars to the areas of tough and damp grain in Manitoba, would the minister look into this situation to determine whether it can be corrected?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, although I would not like to agree with the preamble that there had been very little improvement, because there has been improvement in all areas.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Speaking in this house on November 21 the minister said:
I think the time has come for the Minister of Labour to convince his colleagues that legislation defining and emphasizing management's responsibilities to its employees in the area of technological change is long overdue.
He was referring to the Freedman report. My question is, has the hon. gentleman since been able to convince his colleagues that legislation based on the substance of the Freedman report is long overdue, and how soon can we expect to see legislation of this kind on the order paper?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: May I have a reply?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order. He


is referring to communications between cabinet ministers, and I do not think a question of that type can be accepted.


George Harris Hees: May I rephrase my question. The reason I gave the background information is that I find these ministers require a great deal more background information than is normal before they are able to give answers to questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask the question now?


George Harris Hees: With pleasure. May I ask the
minister whether in the near future, on motions, he will give a report as to the likelihood or otherwise of the government introducing such legislation?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: If the hon. member can persuade me that he is able to convince his colleagues as rapidly as I am able to convince mine, this desirable legislation will have a rapid passage through this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: If the minister does introduce such legislation I think he will find that members on this side of the house are very much in agreement with such a course.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, and since this is one of the many days on which he is not present I will direct it to his stand-in, the Minister without Portfolio from Winnipeg. Can the minister tell the house the current status of the St. Lawrence Seaway expansion plan, which the seaway authority presented to the cabinet some little time ago?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think what the hon. member is asking the minister to do now is to give the kind of general information which should normally be given by way of a statement on motions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Well, as a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the minister-
December 12, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There cannot be a supplementary-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Well-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat? There cannot be a supplementary to a question which has been ruled out of order. The hon. member may wish to ask a related question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, since Your Honour has been so kind to point out how the same thing can be accomplished, would the minister care to make a statement on motions the next day he is in the house, tomorrow or Wednesday next?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will convey that request to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with respect to the absence of the Minister of Transport. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that he will cause the minister to make up this time he has missed, dock his pay, keep him in after school, or do something?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That cannot be accepted as a supplementary question.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to confirm reports that the dispute between Air Canada and the air line employees' association has been settled?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I understand that some time during the middle of the night the representatives of Air Canada and the representatives of the particular union concerned reached an agreement that is now, of course, subject to ratification by the union members and by Air Canada. I am very appreciative of the hon. member's reference to this question, and I particularly hope both parties may very soon ratify what I think is a very fair agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	3849
Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CHURCHILL, MAN.-NEGOTIATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Some time ago he indicated to the house that he had been in communication with the premier of Manitoba about possible federal assistance to the town of Churchill. I wonder whether he has anything he will be able to tell us soon on this subject, as Christmas and the recess are coming up? Have there been any results from this communication?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that the information he is seeking now would normally be given by a statement on motions, but if there is urgency and the hon. member wants to give notice to the Chair the matter can be discussed at the time of adjournment.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forres tall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the case of the nine Polish seamen now in detention at Halifax who have been ordered deported back to Poland. Will the minister instruct the legal counsel representing him to recommend or agree to a retrial of this particular case?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the case has been heard by the immigration appeal board. As I understand it, the board itself can determine to hear the case again if there is a claim of additional facts to be brought out, and of course there is appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. But the minister, under the law, has no discretion whatever to intervene in this particular case.


Mr. Forresiall:: Mr. Speaker, may I pose a supplementary question, and perhaps it should be directed to the Prime Minister. Is it still the policy of the government, as stated in this house by the former prime minister on April 21, 1967, that the government will grant refuge to people from communist countries whose deportation there would certainly mean imprisonment and deprivation?
December 12. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is Canada is not supplying any arms in this the policy. In this case presumably the immi- conflict. Both the Prime Minister and I on a gration appeal board concluded there was no number of occasions have expressed our danger of persecution with respect to these desire that no arms should be shipped to Ni-seamen, but the board itself would hear evi- geria from any source. This continues to be dence on this point before reaching a the position of the Canadian government, conclusion.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration any evidence that no harm or hardship will be done these men if they are deported to their country of origin?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the decision was made by the immigration appeal board and presumably the board itself considered all the facts before reaching a decision.


George Harris Hees: In his answer the minister said that presumably the board considered all these matters. Will he check into the matter with the chairman of the board and report back to the house tomorrow?


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister ensure that the actions taken by counsel on his behalf do reflect the continuance of the policy of granting refuge in Canada to people.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. I am sure the policy is still being observed in the department.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my supplementary again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation to the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the urgent appeal by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Westminster to the government of the United Kingdom to join in establishing an international embargo on the shipment of arms to either side in the Nigerian-Biafran dispute, I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian government will make or renew-I am not sure which is appropriate-its representations to a like effect.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Fortunately, of course,


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house whether or not he has received an official request from the Canadian Mayors Association for financial aid to municipal works?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such request having reached my office, Mr. Speaker, but I shall certainly inquire.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Secretary of State.
Is he aware of the policy or attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation concerning the coverage of the mini-convention of a certain party which is to be held in Montreal during the week-end?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that the question as worded is out of order. If it is really urgent, the hon. member could discuss it at time of adjournment tonight.


André-Gilles Fortin: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker?
Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will send at least 100 journalists to cover this mini-convention?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is even less acceptable.



INQUIRY AS TO STATUS OF DISPUTE WITH TECHNICIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
December 12, 1968	COMMONS
the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise the house whether he has any news in respect of progress in the labour dispute between the C.B.C. and NABET.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This morning I received the report of that particular conciliation board. I might point out that it was a unanimous report accepted by the representatives of the union, of the C.B.C. and the judge. I have released it by registered mail today. I shall release it to the press around 3.30, and hope it will be ratified very shortly by the interested parties.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether his department would consider initiating in this country an investigation similar to the one now being carried on in the United States by the United States Senate with regard to the alleged high prices and low quality of car repairs.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member we are aware of the inquiry which is going on in the United States Senate at the moment. We will obtain a copy of the evidence placed before that inquiry so we may judge its appropriateness to Canadian conditions. We are also aware that the legislative assembly in the province of Ontario may be starting the kind of an inquiry the hon. member suggests. Therefore, in the light of that we have to consider our own position here.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, arising from the proposed three months' notice of termination of employment given a number of permanent U.I.C. employees in Vancouver and other parts of the country. Could the minister advise whether it now is government policy to lay off permanent civil servants and replace them with casual help?
DEBATES	3851
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, you will realize that this is a loaded question. It is not and never was government policy. Anyone who is to be laid off by the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be given at least six months' notice as long as I am minister.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Will the minister advise whether a number of permanent civil servants are being laid off in the U.I.C. offices in Vancouver and in other areas of the country?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In order to get an honest answer from me the hon. member will have to be honest about the number he is talking about.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Answer the question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman opposite asked a question and I wish to answer it honestly. Over the next year there definitely will be a number of lay-offs in the Unemployment Insurance Commission. As all hon. members know, the Unemployment Insurance Commission has a degree of autonomy. The principle of the present commissioners, with which we cannot argue, is to render the best service with the least number of permanent employees. This is the policy; but the principal policy is service to the people. I understand that had they introduced these changes without prior consultation with the workers, 600 people would have been laid off. At the present time we have succeeded through negotiations with the unions to keep the projected number down to 75. Those 75 will be given official notice probably six months in advance so they can exert certain rights that are theirs under the Public Service Act.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio. Has the Minister of Transport to date received any communication from the government of Ontario with regard to the expansion of Toronto international airport, as an outcome of the recent meeting between the local municipal officials and the members of the government of Ontario?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the government of
December 12, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario has been closely in touch with the department and with the minister throughout recent days and weeks and the Minister of Transport today is in Toronto on this matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister give the house the position of the government of Canada with regard to the contention of the representatives of the municipalities concerned that the expropriation in question would violate the Ontario planning act? Is the position of the government of Canada that the expropriation actions are not subject to the provincial statute; is this the position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am suspicious that what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting now is that the minister be asked to give an interpretation of a legal position, although I may be wrong.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am merely asking the minister what is the position taken by the government of Canada with regard to this matter.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the representations of the municipalities have been borne in mind very carefully. I believe the final result will reflect the concern that has been expressed by some of the municipalities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government of Canada taken a position with regard to the effect of the Ontario legislation on the position of the government of Canada with regard to expropriation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is out of order.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister has just stated that the Minister of Transport is in Toronto. I would advise him that I saw the minister get on the elevator as I came into the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will take the question of privilege under advisement.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister taking into consideration the recommendation of the former assistant deputy minister of finance, Mr. Plumptre, for the introduction of a crawling-peg exchange rate to alleviate the problems

in respect of the international monetary system?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the question is very like one which was asked yesterday, about which I had some doubts. I have the same doubts today.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Plumptre's recommendations, which are mentioned in my question, were made since the matter was last raised in the house, I suggest this would be a relevant item and that it would be proper for the minister to comment on it at the present time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of changing its present policy in respect of exchange rates.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance consider referring the entire matter of Canadian international monetary policy to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs for further study?


Edgar John Benson: I will consider it, Mr. Speaker.



PRESENCE OF PERSONS IN GALLERY NOTING OPPOSITION ATTENDANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it is a very serious point of order. I have observed two strongmen sitting in the gallery taking the attendance of the official opposition for a number of days. They work in the house leader's office, and I was wondering why. This is something that should be taken into consideration by the protective staff. They are smiling now. The protective staff should make an examination to find out why they are there and what is their purpose. I know of no rule that the attendance in this house should be taken by two strongmen from the house leader's office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: The Gestapo.


Some hon. Members:: Out, out.


An hon. Member:: Send the Hitler group home.
December 12, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Out, out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your attention has been drawn to the presence of certain strangers in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder, therefore, whether Your Honour would consider your duty under standing order 13, which reads:
If any member takes notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker, or the chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the question that strangers be ordered to withdraw, without permitting any debate or amendment: provided that Mr. Speaker, or the chairman, may, whenever he thinks proper, order the withdrawal of strangers.
This has been brought to your attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will realize that this is not the motion or the point of order raised by the hon. member. The hon. member referred to the fact that notes were being taken. He assumes that a certain type of notes are being taken. Of course the Chair has no information as to what is being done.
I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that since last year, there having been an overflow of officials in the official gallery-and this has been the case for some time-following negotiations with the Chair by members of the press gallery, it was agreed that the press gallery would be kept exclusively for members of the press and that part of the diplomatic gallery, that is the part to the west, would be assigned to the overflow of members in the official gallery. This is why officials are using that particular gallery.
As hon. members know it has been the practice for officials in the official gallery to have the right to take notes. This point which was raised by the hon. member, as I understand it, is not a point of order. If the hon. member points to the strangers in the gallery then this is a different matter, and I have to give effect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Perhaps someone wants to make that proposal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much
for clearing up this matter, Mr. Speaker. I should have thought the house leader would
DEBATES	3853
Inquiries of the Ministry also clear it up. I have seen these two, and they are smiling again now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are sitting there by the translator and I know exactly-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can stand and wait for silence. I know exactly what they are doing. They are taking the attendance. I have seen them using the list of the House of Commons, looking down and marking off the names. Let them stand and deny that. I should like the protective staff now to examine these men and find what these documents contain. If they are doing exactly what I suggest in my point of order and taking the attendance, then this is against the rules of this house. This is another part of this dictatorship on the part of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The house leader is the dictator, and he is showing that now by using these strongarm men.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of ihe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am surprised that the hon. member is so sensitive about the question of attendance. I am sure all of us would greatly miss him if he were not in the house. It does not seem to me he has indicated any particular rule which is being violated. As Your Honour has indicated, it is the custom for officials to have the right to make notes. It seems to me it is of little relevance what the subject matter of those notes is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please? The President of the Privy Council I understand is speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think perhaps I should be given the opportunity to hear him out.	'-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; and it seems-


An hon. Member:: Didn't you have your shower this morning?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did indeed, and I suppose the hon. member is disappointed because I did not invite him. Perhaps I could make it clear to the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition that I do not
December 12, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry intend to invite him or his colleagues into my shower. They will have to find their own.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to speak on the point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to point out, with due respect, that when the guests of the members are in the galleries, they are not authorized to read or to make notes, as they are liable to be expelled from the house. In my opinion, the same rule should apply to all officials who are in fact intruders in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind to the hon. member that usage of long standing allows the officials to sit in the special gallery and to make notes.

The point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary North is of interest, but the only way I could act would be if, under standing order 13, the hon. member asked that certain specific strangers be excluded.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't know their names.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume he does not want the entire gallery emptied.
If the hon. member wants me to put the question to the house and ask that the house be called upon to resolve the matter and decide whether one, two or three persons in the gallery be expelled, I will hear him and according to standing order 13, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I will have no hesitation at all in putting the question to the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the names of these two strangers, but I can describe them for you. I am sure you will recognize them and I believe they will now leave of their own accord. They are sitting beside the translation box. They are two men in dark suits, one with long sideburns-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The other fellow is in a dark suit. I think they should be removed, and according to the standing order to which you referred I ask you to direct that those two gentlemen leave the gallery and keep it pure for the guests.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the description given by the hon. member would make it possible for me to put the motion to the house, because I would be called upon to repeat the description. However, I wonder whether the house would agree that in view of the fact that the question period expired some minutes ago, and that whoever these gentlemen are their work would normally be finished by this time and they will leave the gallery of their own accord together with their other colleagues, we might, for this day in any event, abandon the matter. If the situation arises again and there is cause for complaint, then the matter may be reconsidered.
I believe there are four or five points of order which hon. members wish to raise.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask Your Honour to give consideration, on behalf of members of parliament, to the matter that was raised in the previous question of privilege in connection with the keeping of a record of attendance of members in the house. It seems to me that a record of attendance is being taken in a very informal way which can be detrimental to members of parliament on all sides of the house. If this is going to be allowed I strongly urge Your Honour to give consideration to keeping a formal attendance record so there can be no abuse, as there was in the matter of quorums and the attendance of members in committees last year. I believe that record was used dishonestly. So I suggest that Your Honour give consideration to publishing a formal attendance record so that unfair use cannot be made of the absence of certain members on certain days.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the best way for the Chair to deal with the hon. member's suggestion is to advise him that I shall be pleased to take official note of it and bring it to the attention of the committee on procedure if and when it meets again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
certainly will.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If what you suggested is done, would you also ask the members of the committee to consider as well the fact that the opposition draws attention to the absence of ministers on this side.
December 12, 1968


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, is the Prime Minister trying to suggest that he wishes to ask questions of the opposition every day?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on this question of privilege. I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that in the past there has always been pressure for the presence of government officials in the gallery. This was also the case when I occupied your position. However, after a count of the number of seats available in the official gallery, it was soon concluded that unless ministers wanted to be followed by a legion of officials there was ample room for every ministry to be represented by one or two officials, and there was no need to invade the gallery for distinguished persons by what we might call today the ministerial mafia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest there is no point in pursuing the point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Certainly there is some importance in the point he has raised. However, at the same time hon. members know it is not for the Speaker to change the rules of the house. I am sure notice has been taken of the suggestion by the hon. member for Timiskaming and by other hon. members who have spoken after he brought this point to the attention of the house. I can only repeat that I will consider it my duty to bring to the attention of the committee in due course the hon. member's view that an official record of attendance in the House of Commons be inaugurated.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wish to confess that I counted the number of Conservative members present on Tuesday night, during half an hour. There was not one in the house.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to raise an additional point on this question of privilege. While you have made it quite clear that it has been the custom for officials in the gallery to make notes necessary to properly fulfil their duties, in my view specific notes regarding the attendance or otherwise of any members of this house are quite contrary to their responsibility as employees of the public service. Further, I suggest that this would create a serious precedent in that it would constitute a 29180-244
Business of the House form of coercion. I think we have always held it to be one of the marks of this house that no form of coercion exists here whereby any member of the house is placed under undue pressure. I suggest, sir, that through your office it be ascertained that no public official attempts by his activities in the gallery to carry out such activities as might encroach on the full freedom that is possessed by the members of this house.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that there are a number of vacant seats in the official gallery, and perhaps this nullifies one remark made earlier. My second point refers to the right hon. Prime Minister's statement regarding the presence of ministers in the house. I want to make it clear that we have not been objecting to the presence of ministers in the house but rather to their absence, and I think he has misrepresented the point. Further, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the debate we are having now is not very constructive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I will resume my seat with the final remark that I think perhaps we should take cognizance of the point that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is possibly trying to ease the unemployment situation through the presence of these strongmen in the gallery.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the question period has expired, may I ask whether the house leader would be entitled to rise to his feet and tell us what will be the business for next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue the debate on the two motions to concur in the reports of the procedure committee until debate on them has been completed. The remaining item of business for this part of the session would be the ways and means resolution preceding the anti-dumping bill, and all stages of the anti-dumping bill itself.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the house leader in reference to a matter discussed last week. May I ask whether
December 12, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry arrangements have been made to have the annual report of the Post Office Department referred to the transport and communications committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question was much discussed and it was suggested that that subject matter, along with three others which I had proposed to hon. gentlemen opposite as being appropriate matters for reference, could be referred to the committee. I am still waiting to hear from hon. members opposite in this regard. I am not sure exactly what the situation of that reference would be in relation to the terms of reference of the privileges and elections committee, but I will be glad to discuss it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that just prior to the time we got into the hassle about strangers in the gallery, you recognized me. In view of the fact that I have an urgent question, I wonder whether you would allow me to put this question at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no objection whatsoever from the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Secretary of State. It is an urgent one, and I believe he has notice of it. I wish to ask him if an agreement has been reached between the negotiators for the C.B.C. and the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, thereby averting a nation-wide shutdown of television and radio services.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked and my colleague, the Minister of Labour, answered it a few minutes ago. I have nothing to add.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6,

1968, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 3762).
Mr. Sleven Otlo (York East):: At five o'clock yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the new orders as they relate to the work load of committees. I pointed out, and I point out again, that no one can deny that under the present rules estimates have never been given serious scrutiny. In the consideration of estimates members could refer to anything under the sun, and they did. The estimates were passed, and the only objection a member on the government side could take was by voting against an estimate, which would amount to a vote of confidence.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that the purpose of the new rules is to have the estimates scrutinized in committees so that this can be done without a vote of confidence being involved. It is true that party pressure will be brought to bear and discipline will be applied in order to make sure that hon. members on this side will pass the estimates in accordance with the wishes of the ministers. However, if a matter is sufficiently serious and if enough members in a committee decide to oppose it, under the new rules they can, with the co-operation of the opposition, reduce an estimate and thereby embarrass the ministers. In this way members can make their power felt. In this respect I should like to bring to the attention of the house the new standing order 65 (4) (b) which reads as follows:
Changes in the membership of any standing, joint or special committee may be effected by a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the chief government whip, being filed with the Clerk of the house who shall cause the same to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the house of that sitting, or of the next sitting thereafter, as the case may be.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have now introduced into the rules not only the idea that there is an opposition side but that there is a government side. Formerly, we were all hon. gentlemen. I think it is about time we did this. In addition, we have introduced into the rules certain rights for the opposition to bring up certain estimates or reports as they see fit. This particular rule introduces something else, and that is party discipline. In effect, what it does is this: it says to the government whip, do not worry about members who may cause you some annoyance in a committee because all you have to do is file a notice of change, take him off that committee and put on somebody else who is more co-operative. This applies to the
December 12, 1968

whips on both sides, government and opposition. They now have the right under the rules to effect party discipline, which was always the right of the leader of the party in caucus.
I have said before that the backbenchers have no power at all, but at least wrhen a bill was being considered clause by clause in committee of the whole a member on this side could take issue with any of the clauses and thereby express disappointment or antagonism with regard to certain matters in the bill, in accordance with the feelings of his constituents. The member might not vote against the bill; very few members on this side have ever voted against a government bill, but at least the member had the right to express his opposition to any clause in committee of the whole. Now he does not have that right because the minute he opposes any part of a bill the whip will take him off that committee and put on somebody else. The member will have no recourse at all. He cannot have recourse to you, Mr. Speaker, so he cannot appeal. In other words, this is an arbitrary action affecting party discipline in the House of Commons and I wonder whether this house will accept a rule that goes that far.
What I have to say does not apply to the present leader of the house. I say this in all seriousness. The house leader and I have had many disagreements on these various items. We have argued this out and he knows where I stand. He has been fair at all times. Indeed, he knew exactly what I was going to say today but he made no attempt whatever to keep me off the list. Therefore, these remarks do not apply to the present house leader. I do not believe they apply to any other minister. However, the time will come when, in order to satisfy officials who are being examined in committee, a minister may speak to the whip or house leader, indicating he would like a certain member removed from a committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr.   Olio@: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: I note the hon. member's speech with approval. At this point could he say whether he approves a statement made in an article written by the Prime Minister in 1963 in Cite Libre, when he was expressing his views about party discipline and particularly in the party opposite?


Steven Otto: I regret that I am not familiar with the article to which the hon. member 29180-2441
Motion for Concurrence in Report refers, but I am questioning now the statement the Prime Minister made that much more attention ought to be given to individual rights. I am sure this must apply to the rules.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And even to members.


Mr.   Olio@: Let me put the other side of the question because nothing is one-sided. Perhaps I may be the devil's advocate for a moment. It is true also that the government must maintain attendance in these committees; they must make sure the committees are attended. I am sure hon. gentlemen recognize that if some members continually fail to appear in these committees there must be some method of removing them or substituting other members for them.
I regret that the house leader is not here at the moment because I should like to suggest to him that rule 65(4)(b) should be amended. The rule should provide that when a committee is sitting and all the members are not in attendance, the whips may appoint or authorize the chairman to appoint any other member of the house who may be present at that committee to be a member of the committee for that sitting. When there is a lack of government members to pass a bill or to pass a section of a bill or estimates, I can see that we are not going to allow a vote to be registered against the government. Therefore, it will be merely a matter of whips getting enough members to make sure the government is supported. These members would be entitled to vote at that meeting, but the minute the meeting is over a member who may have taken issue with a certain part of a bill will still be a member of that committee with his rights completely vested in him. I should like to make that serious recommendation to the house leader because this rule introduces party discipline as part of the rules of this house and, party discipline has no place in the rules. It is a matter between the caucus and the leader.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Ask your Prime Minister about that.


Steven Otto: I have asked my Prime Minister about it and I am hoping he agrees with me. In fact, we have discussed it at some length. Therefore I seriously suggest that the house leader make the change I have suggested, because it would satisfy the government and also take this question out of the house.
In conclusion, may I say I am in favour of all of the rules changes. I am not afraid of
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report changing the structure of the House of Commons. I think all members recognize that there are going to be vast changes both in government and in the House of Commons. However, as I said yesterday, there is nothing sanctimonious about us. We will be replaced by a different breed of career M.P.'s A lot of policy decisions are going to be made by constituents through the regional desks, and I am certain they will be very beneficial.


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us about the regional desks.


Mr.   Olio@: You can read about them. My point is that there has to be change. Hon. gentlemen who have been here for 20, 15 or in some cases for even 10 years must recognize that there is nothing sacred about the rules that they know so well. It is always difficult for the older members who are experienced in the application of certain rules to accept new ones, because they are experts on the old rules but not on the new ones.
I welcome these changes. The sooner we make this house a house of legislation and not merely a house for debate, the better. All of these changes work toward that end. This house will be able to deal with more legislation. We will have eight or nine months for debate, longer than is the case now. We can debate all issues. The opposition parties will be able to bring forward those subjects they want to debate but which they are unable to debate now. The only thing lacking will be power to harass and to delay. The people of Canada do not want the opposition to filibuster or delay; they want them to contribute in an effective way. This they will be able to do under the new rules in the committees provided the committees are given some real strength.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, like other members who have taken part in this debate I am pleased to have this opportunity as a member of parliament to speak on parliamentary reform.
As the last speaker said, I do not think that anybody would argue, at least not on this side of the house, about our being in favour of reform. The Conservatives believe in parliamentary reform. We believe in reform now and not tomorrow. Why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? Because members of our party, together with other members of the opposition and members of the government, have for a number of years worked together harmoniously as members of special committees

on reform, initially established under a former Speaker, the hon. Alan Macnaughton, and then later under you, sir. Finally, the special committee on procedure was established to formulate a set of rules that would make parliament more effective in this new age that demands that decisions be made with compelling haste.
The first point I want to make is that all members agree with reform. The members of this party agree with all the rules that have been brought in by the special committee on procedure with the exception of two recommendations. Members of other parties agree with them all with the exception of just two points or perhaps one. So as I say that we are all in favour of reform, with the exceptions I have mentioned.
I should like to point out that if the government in all its wisdom were to compromise on those two recommendations the report presented by the hon. member for Grenvilie-Carleton (Mr. Blair), the chairman of the special committee, would be approved at this moment and we could get on with the country's business. As I have said, there is no argument that the members of this party agree with the reforms presented in the report with the exception of two.
I suggest that no party alone can declare that it is the party of reform because, as I said at the beginning of my remarks and as I shall repeat often, there has been a harmonious working arrangement toward this end on the part of members of all parties who have sat together on committees from time to time. I too have had the opportunity of representing my party on one of the earlier committees established to consider reform. Much of what the first committee recommended, much of what the second committee recommended, and much of what was contained in the provisional rules has been approved by the special committee on procedure, as outlined by my good friend and fellow graduate from the same university, the hon. member for Grenvilie-Carleton.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), both in this debate and on other occasions, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and, last but not least, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), have all stated that they are in accord with reform. So no problem arises there. We all want changes and we have all compromised our ideas about what kind of changes should be made in order to come to
December 12, 1968

some agreement as intelligent members of parliament. And we are in agreement on all matters but two, as far as we are concerned.
First-and we have stated our argument in this regard-we oppose and will continue to oppose vigorously closure in advance, the muzzling and gagging of parliament in advance on the authority of not so much a rule but of one man, the government house leader. He is not really the man in charge but is merely the agent of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I do not say this by way of criticism. As several speakers, including the leader of our party, have said, the house leader on the government side must carry out the will of the Prime Minister. But it is really left to one man under the proposed standing order 16A to decide for how long any matter can be debated. Whether the debate be in a standing committee or in this chamber, one man will carry out the will of the Prime Minister.
I do not need to remind hon. members how eloquently the Leader of the Opposition put the argument against what we say is deliberate dictatorship, or how eloquently other members, particularly the hon. member for York South, have spoken. He said at the beginning of his remarks and repeated at the end that this proposal was what he called a subtle way of obtaining totalitarianism without openly wiping out all opposition.
Let us remember what Edwin Burke said when talking of the function of and need for an opposition. He said:
He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
The hon. member for York South was every bit as eloquent as Benjamin Disraeli, who stated-and I ask members of the government party, particularly the backbenchers, to note this:
No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition.
The second objection that we make as a party is to the complete abolition of the committee of supply. In brief, this would remove from the House of Commons the consideration and supervision of all expenditures by parliament, and the preventing of overexpenditure by parliament exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures, or worse.
In the past far too much time has been spent on the consideration of the expenditures of the government in debates on estimates. We say, certainly we should cut down
Motion for Concurrence in Report that time; we agree with that. But we also say that: by arrangement through the house leaders, certainly not by using proposed rule 16A, one-third of the estimates each year ought to be brought before the House of Commons to be considered by parliament. If that will take too long, let us make it 20 per cent of the estimates. But to do away with the right of parliament to consider expenditures which have risen to almost $11 billion and let standing committees scrutinize those expenditures is all wrong. When you take away control of the pursestrings from parliament you make the executive all-powerful and reduce parliament to a rubberstamp, as my leader said the other day.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Much has been said about proposed standing order 16A. At this time I wish to direct the attention of the house to the abolition of the committee of supply and the proposal to take away from parliament the examination of expenditures which relate to taxation. The burden of taxation is heavy and is borne by all the people of Canada. In many cases that burden has meant that the living standards of many in this country have fallen below the level we think is necessary for the maintenance of decent homes. Indeed, the heavy burden of taxation is preventing some of our young people from being educated to the point where they are equipped to take their place in our great nation.
The estimates and government expenditures are to be scrutinized by standing committees which are creatures of the House of Commons. We may well ask, What kind of committees are they? How are they formed? At present our committees are totally and wholly partisan. They are purely the instruments of the Prune Minister. How is the chairman of one of our standing committees really chosen, Mr. Speaker? The government house leader knows how. When the Prime Minister or the government house leader wants a certain man to be in charge of a certain committee that may consider questions embarrassing to the government, they pick him to head the committee. He goes to that committee made up for the most part of government supporters and is then nominated and picked as the chairman. That is how their boy is picked by the Prime Minister or the government house leader. The house leader in particular has his hand in these things

he is into everything. So their man becomes chairman of the committee. And how do government members get on this committee or on to
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report any committee? Let us fool no one, Mr. Speaker. Many of us have seen the system operating over the years; it has been made use of by this government and governments before it. The majority of committee members are handpicked for the committee by the government house leader, the Prime Minister or the government whip, to do a job for the government.


Mr. Gilbert:: Right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They form the majority of that committee. Say that an item comes before that partisan committee having to do with part of the government's expenditures of $11 billion. Let us get down to practicalities. Suppose some of us want to find out why the cost of the performing arts centre has risen from $16 million to about $50 million. Supposing some hon. members of the N.D.P. or the other opposing parties want to ask some embarrassing questions. Someone may allege the government has been negligent, and so on. We ask our questions and pretty soon the partisan committee chairman rules us out of order. Then what happens? One of us may object, a motion is passed to say the committee chairman is right, and there is no appeal. We cannot appeal the chairman's ruling to Mr. Speaker. Yet there is an appeal with respect to matters brought up before the chairman of the committee of the whole house tO Mr. Speaker. You, sir, are well trained and Mr. Deputy Speaker also is well trained. Committee chairmen are not. Often they are members who have been elected to this house for the first time and who have never before seen the inside of a committee room. So the hanky-panky takes place.
This house is asked to approve of a measure which will allow $11 billion of expenditures to be scrutinized by committees of this kind. As I said the other day, they are nothing but kangaroo courts; they are nothing else. The Prime Minister maintains a majority of government members on all committees he is interested in. The government members are loyal servants who look for patronage and political plums and they vote as they are told to and obstruct any questions that might embarrass the government. If one of the boys steps out of line he is removed from the committee. The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Lind) was on the agricultural committee and did something to embarrass the government. Without any consent the party whip took him off that committee. But the hon. member for Middlesex is not to be put off so lightly; he objected in the house and was put

back on the committee. Unfortunately there are not enough men here with the integrity of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ministers do not always appear before committees and I do not object to that. Top civil servants are presented to be examined, and in this connection may I tell the house of my experience earlier this week. The vice-chairman of the National Energy Board appeared before the standing committee on national resources and public works, and I wanted to learn why there had been a cut-back in the export quotas of crude petroleum from western Canada, something which goes to the economic heart of Alberta, as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) knows. I wanted facts. That top man could not give the answer-not that he did not know it but he did not want to embarrass the government. The only way to get the answer is to ask the minister.
Surely it is not asking too much when we say that 20 per cent of the estimates each year should be brought before the house at the request of the parties in opposition, with the consent of the government, in order that certain matters may be aired in parliament. I repeat, if you take control of the pursestrings away from parliament you destroy parliament. It is dead. Take away control of the pursestrings and you make the executive allpowerful. When the executive controls parliament only about half the intelligence available to the opposition can be brought to bear on the consideration of financial matters. The opposition is more or less silenced and parliament becomes a rubberstamp.
The late Mr. Lapointe, a former minister of justice, a distinguished French Canadian and a Great Canadian, had some interesting words to say on the subject. I hope that every member of the government will read what was said by one of the great Liberals of Canada. He was speaking at that time against a Conservative prime minister. Always remember we can never have good government if we have government by people rather than by laws. This is what Mr. Lapointe said:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It means we are being asked to agree to be dragged at the wheels of the Prime Minister and to make parliament an appendage of the executive. This attitude of the Prime Minister makes our duty to resist this legislation more imperative. The first duty of parliament is to remain a parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental
December 12, 1968

body. Parliament has a right which is certainly paramount to the convenience of the Prime Minister. The right to live.
Parliament, he says, has the right to live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When parliaments die-and they died in Europe in the thirties-freedom dies, and the power of the people to express themselves dies with it. The duty of parliament is to defend itself and to resist the invasion of its rights and privileges. That is why I have risen today, and that is why members of all the opposition parties have made their protests in this regard. I am not against reform. But I, together with my hon. friends, am against the muzzling of parliament and the proposal to deprive parliament of its traditional control over the pursestrings. To continue the quotation:
When the Prime Minister says he speaks for the whole of the country he is mistaking the echo of his words for the voice of the Canadian people. It is parliament which is and must remain the authorized exponent of public opinion and of the public will. The legislation, the policies, must be what this house makes them. Even the government must be what the house makes it.
At that point he was interrupted by an hon. member who said: "That is what it will be." Mr. Lapointe answered:
That is very intelligent; it reminds me of the words of the Greek poet Homer that the gods deprive of half their intelligence those who lose their freedom.
That is exactly what will happen if parliament dies. We are in favour of reform, but remember it has been the characteristic of great nations which have had a long history of continuous creation that they finally failed because subsequent generations failed to comprehend the great institutions which their forefathers had built to guarantee the freedom and liberty of the subject. We in Canada are now faced with a real danger of the loss of parliament and the loss of freedom.
What is parliament? It was Lord Acton who said:
-power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
It was once said:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them, the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people.
We should bear these words in mind today when we consider the proposal to implement rule 16A and abolish the right of the House of Commons to look into the expenditures of
Motion for Concurrence in Report this nation which represent the total taxes collected from the Canadian people. To continue the quotation:
It should supervise all expenditures and prevent overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments, it asks questions and elicits information, it arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize any action by the government and in doing so prevent the shortcuts to the democratic procedure that governments like to make. The absence of a strong opposition means a one party state.
Reform is good, but if the government is allowed to use rule 16A, if it is allowed, under the guise of reform, to take away the right of parliament to look into expenditures which might be extravagant or which might be corrupt, then this institution is through. You might as well lock the doors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, it would be "amen" if parliament closed.


An hon. Member:: Yea, brother.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not intend to get into any argument with a man who just wants to heckle at a time like this when so many important things are at stake for this institution. The Prime Minister said that every democratic assembly requires some procedure for turning discussion into decision. Nobody argues with that. But let us not turn decision into dictatorship.
Let us consider some examples. We in the opposition have asked for a decision on a new oil policy for Canada because we are losing our oil markets. But we have received no statement of policy and no action has been taken. We have asked for a decision concerning wheat sales and means of expediting the drying of grain. Again, there has been no statement of policy and no action.
We have asked for a decision with reference to the Kennedy round discussions so as to protect our foremost industries in eastern and central Canada. There has been no statement of policy and no action. We have asked for a decision in the field of international affairs in an attempt to discover where this country stands with reference to NATO, NORAD and, indeed Biafra. But there has been no statement of policy and no action. We have asked for a decision as a matter of priority concerning a review of pensions for the aged who are today in dire need, living in
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report conditions which we criticize when they occur in other countries. Yet there has been no statement of policy, and no action. We have asked for a review of the pensions of veterans who served their country in what some Canadians classify as an imperialistic war. But once again there has been no statement of policy, no action. On the other hand, we have received ambiguous statements, wrapped in allegory, by the Prime Minister and other ministers on occasions when they can be encouraged to enter this chamber and grace it by their presence. Mr. Speaker, this government to date has a record of procrastination, vaccillation and tergiversation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The proposal to turn over expenditures of $11 billion, the total budget, to unreformed committees means the end of the parliamentary system as we know it.
What should be done about such a situation? Every party should have a certain number of chairmen on these committees. The New Democratic party represents a big vote; it should have a certain number of chairmen. The Ealliement des Creditistes should be represented by a certain number of chairmen on these committees. The moment these committees become non-partisan, the moment they are equipped with the technical help required so that they can get at the government and find out the sins of any government, there may be something to be said for taking $11 billion from the control of this institution and turning it over to creatures of the government. But until these requirements have been met we are utterly opposed to such a move.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We believe in reform. We believe the committees should be reformed. But we do not believe in destroying parliament by removing control over the pursestrings, which is the only hold which this institution has, finally, upon any government. Combine the implementation of rule 16-A with the power that any prime minister enjoys without checks and balances and, in the words of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the result is totalitarianism. The Prime Minister wants all probing to end. The Prime Minister wants all pushing by the opposition to get decisions to end. Do you know what he really wants? He wants a quiet, silent, effective,

confidential dictatorship. That is what the Prime Minister wants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He wants his government to operate like a submarine, to hide at the bottom of the sea and surface only for show. That is what he wants.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is his motive? You often have to go to a man's own words to find out his true motive and his true reason. I am told through the grapevine of the backbenchers in the Liberal party, among whom I hope I will always have many friends, that rule 16-A, through which control can be exercised over committees because the house leader can say how long a matter can stay in committee, is the Prime Minister's baby and that the house leader would really like at this stage to rock it to sleep.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had not wished to interrupt the hon. member. I am just calling the house to order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. This is what the Prime Minister said on February 13 when he wrote that famous article in Cite Libre-


An hon. Member:: What year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1963. These are his words. He has never denied them. They are interesting. They are not my words. He asked the question, what is the political philosophy of the Liberal party? At that time he was not a Liberal. He was looking around.


An hon. Member:: He smartened up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, he did, because this is their philosophy. They are now performing according to the philosophy which the Prime Minister said the Liberal party had. He asked this question and the reply he gave was:
Say anything, think anything you like. But put us in power, because we are best fitted to govern.
Those words are exactly what the new rules mean in reference to the two matters I have mentioned. As I have said, we are for reform but we are against closure before a debate starts and we are against taking away
December 12, 1968

the pursestrings from parliament and handing them over to a bunch of kangaroo courts.
In that same article the Prime Minister also said about the Liberals:
Power is what they are interested in. The only kick allowed is that which comes from a donkey. Some say it doesn't matter. Pretty soon, they will be talking about a nuclear storm in a teacup.
That is the Prime Minister's position. Quentin Hogg said:
Countries cannot be fully free until they have an organized opposition. It is not a long step from the absence of an organized opposition to a complete dictatorship.
It was said yesterday that no person in a position of power ever asked for more power without intending to use it. I suggest that no one ever achieved the power he asked for without using at least 100 per cent of it, and history shows that sometimes persons have used 110 per cent.
What happened in Europe? Italy had a parliament. Then it had a dictator by the name of Mussolini. Kerensky led a revolution in Russia and started a form of legislative assembly. Then came Stalin and parliament died in Russia. Parliament died in Italy. Look at what happened with Hitler. He was elected in an ordinary election, and then the Reichstag was burned down so that he might walk through the ruins as a dictator.
When we are going to reform an institution let us not destroy that institution. If we give men in powerful positions that much power without the rule of law then they have the right to abuse that power. History has shown us that human behavior is such that men will abuse power and then freedom dies. Lapointe said that what they were fighting for was the right of parliament to live.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that we are 100 per cent for reform except on these two issues. We want to get on with the nation's business. We do not want to gag parliament by having closure in advance and taking away from this institution the right of criticizing, analysing and probing the expenditures of the nation when taxes are so high already and are running rampant throughout the nation.
Why does the cabinet not meet and say, "We will approve these other rules. We will try the reforms we have got and leave out these two matters." Or if they want to have a little more reform then, as our party recommends, leave only 20 per cent or one-third of the estimates to come before parliament because they will not take up any more time 29180-245
Motion for Concurrence in Report and there will not be any more hours spent in debate. That is our position. I ask the government to consider it carefully. I trust they will be reasonable men and consider it.
I close with one last thought. Government spokesmen describe this debate as holding up the works. It is the government that is holding up the works. It can now approve what all of us on this side of the house agree to and send the other two matters back to the committee for careful study. There are reasonable men in this House of Commons on both sides. They would not have been elected to it otherwise. If this is done then believe me we can get on with the nation's business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour and privilege of being a member of the special committee which was to report on the reform of our parliamentary procedure and it certainly was a practical experience which I greatly appreciated.
Several members who have been sitting in the house for many years and who are experts on matters of procedure let us have the benefit of their wise advice and counsel.
Under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), the proceedings for the amendment of the standing orders were constructive and frank. In fact, all the members admit that the present standing orders do not meet present requirements. If certain important provisional changes were made, it must be admitted that the house has been exceedingly slow in amending its standing orders. During the last election campaign and since then we promised to change our rules in order to increase efficiency of the Canadian parliament and to use more wisely the time available to us. We are of the opinion that instead of engaging into lengthy and repetitious debates we should rather study a larger number of pieces of legislation and consider in a constructive and positive way, the estimates required by the various departments and bodies coming under federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the government has fulfilled its promise. There is no issue which had and still has stronger and more general support among the people. In fact, they agree that we should engage in discussion, but they require that we make a decision after a reasonable
December 12, 1868

Motion for Concurrence in Report debating time and when both sides have expressed their views.
The government has the responsibility and the mandate of governing and introducing measures in parliament which are deemed to be in the national interest, and it is the government which will have to answer to the people for its neglect or its procrastination in having its legislative program passed.
Although I recognize the inalienable right of parliament to study, criticize or change the measures put before it, it is necessary to reconcile those two imperatives which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I believe the changes proposed in the fourth and fifth reports of our committee will provide precisely that: better use of the time, which is of necessity limited during a session, without depriving the members, and especially the opposition, of their undisputed right to discuss and criticize the proposals of the government and this, at the various stages and especially in committee where all the estimates and the vast majority of bills are studied. This would allow a more comprehensive, constructive and efficient study, under much more favourable conditions.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It must be recognized that the volume and complexity of public affairs can only grow through the years and take up more and more of the time of parliament, while recognizing, on the other hand, that an unlimited right to debate and discuss all matters is a luxury we can no longer afford because, in fact, it could become a barrier, an obstacle to the orderly and legitimate study of the business of the country.
The members who have been here for several years know full well that the opposition did not limit itself to criticism and opposition; it deliberately and systematically obstructed the passing of certain bills which were eventually agreed to by the majority of the members, but only after repetitions and a waste of time which only served to reduce the efficiency and prestige of parliament.
It is recognized that government proposals or bills can be changed or improved through the suggestions of the members in the house or in committee. Besides, the government must not expect to be given a free hand, but it must be ready to justify its measures, to amend them or, if need be, to withdraw them; however, that does not usually happen after


interminable and repetitious debates. A legislative assembly must not place itself in a position where a decision can be delayed indefinitely.
The members opposite have maintained that the government now has the means at its disposal to limit the debate. Indeed, the previous question concentrates the debate on the main motion, but that does not necessarily mean, in practice, that the debate is substantially reduced. In fact, the motion can be debated, but its restrictions are such that it is impractical and rarely used. It was used, for instance, in 1955, during the debate on an act concerning the Department of Defence Production. It did not alter the length of the discussions.
The best known means, although it is rarely used, is that commonly known as the rule of closure which, since it was passed in 1913, has only been used 16 times only. This method of limiting the debating time now appears odious in our country, even though it is very often used in the United Kingdom, in somewhat different circumstances. It is a method which is difficult to implement and which requires notice and a special motion. The 1956 experience showed to what extent debates on procedure can last when such means are proposed. It is also applied when a difficulty arises and the debate becomes fierce and when feelings are running high.
It is used to bring to an end a particular debate or consideration of a motion when a reasonable time for each stage of a bill has to be planned ahead of time. The closure rule still exists, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) but I submit that experience has proved this is not a practical solution for the government, or even sufficient protection of the rights of the opposition.
In 1956 and on other occasions, the house raised important questions on the interpretation given to that rule which does not clearly specify what motions are affected by a particular proposal to end a debate. Therefore, it is an impractical method which is difficult to apply and which does not solve at all the difficulty of planning the parliamentary year or calendar.
The opposition leader (Mr. Stanfield) stressed in his speech Tuesday that discussions must remain within certain limits, and I quote:
There must be reasonable limits upon the time parliament spends in discussion.
December 12, 1988	COMMONS
The method advocated in the report of the committee on procedure, namely the setting up of a proceedings committee made up of a representative of each party in the House of Commons, might provide a reasonable period of time which will certainly be more extended than limited, at each of the stages of the various measures the house is called upon to consider.
There is no doubt that with some common sense hon. members of the various parties can agree in most cases and set up beforehand a sensible and realistic program taking into account the nature and the importance of bills to come.
But we must consider another possibility. What happens when one or more than one member, in a committee, cannot agree on the consideration of a given legislation?
It was suggested to leave that question in abeyance and rely on the common sense of members, or else let the debate follow its course. In my opinion, this is neither realistic nor practical. In that case, it normally and conditionally behoves, not one person but the majority of the elected representatives of the people, to decide on the course of action. It has been said that this would be tantamount to closure. It is understandable that this house, contrary to parliaments in other democratic countries of importance which have never known such a procedure, can entertain doubts on, the possible effects of such a course, and I submit that the fact of providing for a reasonable allocation of time for a particular debate does not deny the right of discussion, but it is actually an effort to avoid the needless repetition of the same arguments solely put forward to postpone a decision and upset the entire legislative program of the government instead of informing the people.
There is a difference between knowing in advance that a certain number of days will be allotted for the consideration of bills and an untimely termination as a result of the application of closure before any objection or suggestion has been made. The allocation of a definite period of time will not prevent a constructive and partisan debate, but on the contrary, it will encourage the member to use efficiently the time provided. The debate will merely be more concise and specific, rather than being long and repetitious. It is obvious that during each session in the recent past, an important part of the anticipated legislation died on the order paper, due to the lack of time to present and consider it. Therefore, in my opinion, we can only conclude 29180-245J
DEBATES	3865
Motion for Concurrence in Report from experience that a modern parliament adjusted to national needs, operating in a regularly, constructive and efficient way, must have a procedure for the planning of parliamentary business during the session, as is done elsewhere, without infringing on the basic rights of parliament and hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our committee on procedure in a masterly speech explained the main recommendations included in the report and I do not intend to reconsider them. I should like to speak briefly of the increasing importance of the standing committees of the house and of the need to reorganize them in such a way that they will be able to carry out their task and contribute in a positive and efficient way to the work of parliament.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Members of the house, and particularly back-benchers, who are often frustrated because they cannot participate enough in the preparation and consideration of bills and in the examination of estimates, will be able to make use of their talents and take an active part in discussions on subjects which they know well and which interest them. They will be able to do so, moreover, in more favourable circumstances than in committee of the whole; they will be able to discuss specific points and obtain answers and information from the ministers concerned and their officials.
Estimates will be referred to the appropriate standing committees, which will be able to examine them in advance and in detail. Moreover, the opposition will also have about 28 days, during three predetermined periods of time, in which to raise specific questions of its choice in the house, and the option of presenting six motions of non-confidence in the government on questions which it will choose itself or resulting from the reports of the standing committees. Parliament will therefore be able to control more adequately the administrative and legislative activities of the government.
All bills, except those derived from money resolutions or ways and means resolutions and those which the house has decided to stand, will be referred to the standing committees for detailed study before being reported back to the house. I think we need well-organized committees which will have enough time to study the measures submitted to them. This will probably require periodic adjournments of the business of the house, as was suggested in the conclusions of
386S
December 12. 1838

Motion for Concurrence in Report the third report of the committee on procedure.
The Leader of the Opposition has expressed doubts cncerning the possibility for the committees to function properly due to their present limitations and in view of the increase in work which will result from the changes in procedure. I believe the government admits that the organization of committees will be necessary to allow them to operate in a practical and efficient way, for instance, through the provision of a greater number of experts, translators, secretaries, premises, and so on.
Members will soon realize the importance of committees and the necessity of being present at the meetings, but in any event, the evident advantages of this system are worth a try.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss the numerous amendments which have been proposed and which will change considerably the old methods and the present practices of the house regarding matters as important as estimates and the procedure of the ways and means committee to levy taxes, following the proposals contained in the budget, and to authorize government expenditures.
Changing ordinary legislative procedures, and the rules on urgent debates as well as several other changes of lesser importance will enable our parliament to play its true role and to regain the prestige which it must have in the eyes of the people.
Finally, those rules are not immutable and if, in practice, it becomes obvious that some of them cause inconvenience or fail to give the expected results, they can be amended by the house which sets its own rules. Besides, realizing the effects of its recommendations, the committee suggested setting up a standing committee on procedure which could revise the recommendations and complete the work of the special committee. In fact, that committee had only a few weeks to deal with the problems it considered most important and most pressing.
I am confident that with the full co-operation of the members, those changes will not have the disastrous consequences some take pleasure in predicting every time the rules and procedures are changed substantially. Instead, they will result in the adaptation of our parliamentary procedure to the needs of a new and complex world which requires the efficient use of the time of the house during a parliamentary session.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, ever since I first became a member of this house I have been a zealous, indeed an impatient advocate for parliamentary reform. I believe, as do most other members, I am sure, that parliament is the supreme instrument of democracy and therefore the best means of bringing about needed changes within society. Therefore I want it to be both efficient and respected.
It has seemed to me that there is in parliament today unnecessary repetition at various stages of debate, that speeches should be shorter as indeed they are in the British House of Commons. The development of a more efficient system of examining legislation and estimates in committees would enable elected members to take a much more meaningful part in the proceedings of parliament than they do at the present time.
It is for these reasons that I deeply regret the government has seen fit to include within the package of parliamentrary reform, most of which I can heartily support, the poisonous pill of the proposed rule 16A. To get the desired reform of parliament we are asked to swallow rule 16A. I for one cannot possibly swallow this pill. The reasons for rejection of rule 16A have already been well stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and York South (Mr. Lewis), among others. They bear repetition.
Rule 16A as it is presently drawn undermines the very institution we are supposed to be improving. Parliament has already been rendered far too impotent by the growth of executive power. This rule would complete that process. By limiting debating time within the sole and arbitrary discretion of the executive, rule 16A would deprive the opposition in parliament of its only real weapon. That weapon is the right to rouse public opposition by reasonable debate in this house. It has been said before that members of parliament might as well go home if this rule is passed because their power to have any reasonable degree of control over the executive by an appeal through debate to the power of public opinion would be virtually removed.
The rule is very sweeping in form. A minister of the crown may propose a motion for the purpose of ordering any arrangement for the calling and allotting of time for the consideration and dispatch of any item or
December 12, 1968

items of the business of the house or its committees. I do not think any reasonable observer of parliament would deny the desirability of time allocation in parliament. This is indeed essential if parliament is to get through needed legislation.
I have no doubt that there are in the administrative pipe line many legislative drafts which urgently need to be enacted into law. I take, for example, the amendments to the Immigration Act set out in the government's own white paper. A new Immigration Act has been promised by at least the last ten ministers of immigration but never produced in parliament. I think of another example, the need to replace the present antiquated Expropriation Act, described by hon. Mr. Justice Thorson as the worst in the western world.
Time allocation is a reasonable, indeed a necessary proposal. It must be adopted. But to spring from this necessity to the proposed rule which gives the government unlimited power to dictate the length of debate is to abandon the idea of consensus, reason and agreement and put the proceedings of this house in the hands of a single man. It may be said that the government house leader must be supported by a majority in the house, but we all know that 999 times out of 1,000 the majority would support the house leader. The opposition, no matter how strong their case and how deep their conviction, would have to accept a stifling limitation of debate on the sole judgment of the executive.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
For the opposition to acquiesce in such a measure would be to betray our responsibility not simply to this parliament but to the whole institution of parliamentary democracy. The government, as I have said, would be the absolute master of the house. This may be precisely what they want, for all 1 know. It is precisely this that we must resist. I find it tragic that when 90 per cent of the proposals for parliamentary reform are agreed to, and indeed welcomed, by nearly all the members of the house, this opportunity of getting an agreed reform is thrown away by the apparently uncompromising determination of the government to use the opportunity to force the seizure of absolute power over the procedures of the house.
Apparently the government does not pay any attention to members speaking in the house. The minister in charge is not here and the rest of the members on the Liberal side are chatting. Nevertheless I plead with them
Motion for Concurrence in Report all the same. I plead with the government, even at this stage, to take a new look at rule 16A. As I say, perhaps one is wasting one's breath talking in this house-perhaps we should have short debates.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am listening.


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is very encouraging. There is one minister listening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
is the only one here.


Francis Andrew Brewin: This is a debate that affects the whole future of parliamentary democracy, and yet one minister sits and reads while the debate proceeds. I think this is something worth commenting on. It is some indication of the seriousness with which this government takes the whole institution of parliamentary democracy.
Despite the circumstances I plead with the government, through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he will listen to me-I am glad he is listening-to take a new look at rule 16A. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already made proposals for a reasonable compromise. He has conceded that when there are unanimous decisions of the committee in regard to the allocation of time its decisions can be made an order of the house without debate. It is suggested that when the majority of the committee is in favour of a proposed time allocation, it can be debated with respect to individual items with a minimum of debate. In fact, if one of the parties in opposition agrees with the government it will be possible, after a fairly short debate, to allocate time to the item. This in itself provides a reasonable prospect that no unreasonable attitude by a single party in opposition can hold up the business of the house.
The present proposal in rule 16A provides for the case where there is an impasse between the government on the one side and all the opposition parties on the other. It proposes that this can be resolved by the dictate of the minister and a simple majority in the house. It can be imposed, moreover, not in regard to a single item only but in regard to as many items as the government suggests. The rule is without any guide line or restraint whatsoever.
Surely some reasonable provision can be found. The case of an impasse between government and opposition occurs, and I think should be dealt with. It is true that in a case where all of the opposition parties obstinately
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report refuse to agree to a reasonable time allocation on an individual item, the process of closure would be open to the government. But it may be, however, that in respect of individual items and after a reasonable time for the opposition to state its objections in debate, and subject to some reasonable limitation, the majority supporting the government should be able to resolve the impasse. I am not pleading that there should be no rule dealing with situations where there is an impasse, but this is a far cry from the present proposed rule.
I would suggest to the government as a possible basis for a compromise solution minimum time limits in the allocation orders imposed by a government majority. This has already been proposed by Professor MacGregor Dawson in "Procedure in the House of Commons of Canada". Surely it is worth the effort on the part of the committee to come up with a solution which would be fair to the government and to the opposition alike and not an imposed solution. I understand that no real effort has been made in this committee to deal with this key matter, and I suggest that this house should not be asked to vote on approval of this rule until a real effort has been made by the committee on procedure to see whether the suggestion of Professor MacGregor Dawson or some other suggestion to deal with this impasse reasonably can be implemented.
In order that the proposed changes and reforms in parliament be secured without bitterness, I urge the government to agree to refer the matter back to the committee to arrive at some such solution which would recognize at once the rights of the opposition and still give some reasonable means, but not unlimited means, whereby the government can, in the absence of compromise, allocate time. If the government refuses to consider a compromise on rule 16A, it will indicate clearly that it prefers to be arbitrary, and that it is prepared to ride roughshod over the basic rights of the opposition. I suggest in all seriousness to the government members that this will not do their party, let alone this parliament, any good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: There is room for a reasonable solution if reasonable men will look for it and look carefully at it. As I have said, I suggest that Professor MacGregor Dawson's proposals would be one basis for a discussion. To ram

this down our throats is unwise as well as dangerous to parliamentary democracy.
It may be claimed that in the interests of efficiency the imposition of this rule is necessary. But suppose it leaves an embittered house and a justly suspicious public. I say it will poison the good effects of the proposed reforms of parliamentary procedure. Instead of being something adopted by all of us to improve the procedures of this house, this is something imposed on us by a majority vote and in the face of a lack of any reasonable attempt to reach a compromise on this issue. As I said, it will poison the good effects which would flow from the proposed reform of parliamentary procedures.
Although we are and will remain a parliament divided by party and no doubt a forum of vigorous party differences, vigorously expressed, there is no reason why the different parties should not co-operate in this parliament to produce a legislative record of which all parties can be proud. I suggest that the best way to start this is for the government to set the tone of parliament by accepting a compromise in this regard. They can set the tone, indeed, by insisting on securing virtually dictatorial powers over the procedures of parliament. They can set a tone which will seriously jeopardize the usefulness of parliament. It can seriously diminish the power of parliament. It can arrogate to the executive even more power than it has today. It can cripple and emasculate the effective functioning of the opposition and hence of parliament itself. To what end and to what purpose would they do this? Surely they should, even at this stage, look for means of compromise whereby we can work out together a procedure which would enable this parliament to be effective and to do a good job.
There are one or two other matters in regard to the report which I wish to discuss, one that I think has not been discussed before. I notice that the committee in section 38 of its report refers to private members' bills and motions and suggests that a means should be found whereby such bills and motions could come to a final decision or be referred to a committee for study. May I -urge that this proposal be given a high degree of priority in the future deliberations of the committee. It has always seemed to me that the private members' hour sometimes reaches a high degree of futility. Even high school debaters are at least at liberty to express an opinion at the end of their discussions. But day after day parliament sees the procedure
December 12, 1968

of private members' bills being talked out and dropped to the foot of the order paper, usually not to be discussed for another year. Some people think that this is of some value because the subject matter of the discussion is at least brought to the attention of the government by the debate and may eventually be adopted by them. Some people say that occasionally the press will deign to notice a private member's bill and thereby give it some publicity. But surely there are better ways of publicizing an idea than to waste an hour of parliament's time in a discussion which practically never results in a decision.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in this debate about government business, Mr. Speaker, he said that debate was all right but it should not be divorced from decision. I quite agree with that. Why should this, however, not apply to private members' bills as well? Why should debate forever be divorced from decision with regard to the bills brought before this house by private members? I appreciate that time makes it impossible to deal with all the private members' bills that might be introduced in a session, but surely it would be better to deal with some of them seriously and either pass them or reject them or else send them to a committee, than to have a large number brought forward only to be killed after an hour's desultory debate.
I would rather introduce one private member's bill during the life of a parliament which was seriously discussed and perhaps defeated or passed than introduce six bills per session, none of which was either accepted or rejected. Why should members bother to introduce private bills? Why should one bother trying to persuade one's colleagues in the house or the members of other parties about the seriousness of a matter which you are trying to introduce, when you know the bill is going to go through this farcical procedure that we go through in this house?
It has been proposed that more legislation be referred to the committees. This is well and good. I think the committees, in themselves, could be very useful as a better source of legislation than some of the bureaucratic sources which now produce our legislation or do not produce it, as the case may be. A great many more private members' bills should be sent to committees. There is a tendency now to say that a good idea is not a good idea if it comes from a private member of parliament. I think this is a great mistake.
Motion for Concurrence in Report This would do a good deal to enhance the legislative responsibilities of the individual member of parliament, whether he be a government or an opposition member. The present procedure in connection with private members' hour, it seems to me, tends to demean the seriousness of the functions of the individual member of parliament, and indeed of parliament itself. Surely it would be possible to arrange that those private members' bills which are fortunate enough to get high up on the order paper could be discussed and either accepted or rejected or referred to a committee, after or before three consecutive hours of discussion during the time available for private members' bills.
I might say, while I am on the subject, it seems to me something ought to be done about private bills as distinguished from private members' public bills. Many of these should be dealt with by machinery outside parliament rather than taking the time of the elected representatives of Canada.
Fundamental to the proposed reform in this report is the more effective functioning of the committees. What is proposed of course is not, as has been sometimes said, the adoption of the congressional system of the United States of America. The function of the committees should be, in effect, to secure a consensus if possible, and to enable government policies to be discussed and criticized by elected representatives before they become law. In my view a properly functioning committee system could tremendously invigorate the work of parliament. Let me pick one or two examples within my experience. There is no reason why the committee on immigration should not perform the function of checking the delegated legislation, namely, the orders in council which are the chief regulators of immigration policy today. At the same time, the committee could act as an ombudsman in immigration matters which so deeply affect the lives of so many individuals.
The committee on external affairs and national defence could be a means whereby the views of experts on Canadian policy in this field could be brought to the attention of the public, and could be brought to bear upon the actual policies of government in this important field. This would be a lot more important than the one-shot special review which the government is now undertaking. The contribution to be made by a vigorous and experienced committee on principle in this field would enable Canada to take a real grasp over Canadian sovereignty and have incalculable results. However, an effective
December 12, 19S8

Motion for Concurrence in Report committee system will require not only the co-operation of the individual members but also a real effort on the part of the government. The government will have to be ready to take seriously the recommendations of the committees. It will have to make better use of the committees, to use them as a means of securing a consensus. Only if the government is willing will it be able to use committees to obtain the contributions of individual members, whether on the government or on the opposition side, in the process not only of drafting legislation but in reviewing policy.
There have been some committees, of which I have been a member, which were virtually useless. I remember, for example, that the Columbia river treaty was referred to the committee on external affairs. This was a vast treaty affecting the future of this country in a very important manner. At the opening of the hearing the then secretary of state for external affairs came in and said that not one comma in the treaty would be changed, no matter what the committee decided to do. The lengthy sittings of the committee were a lugubrious post mortem on the treaty, relieved only by the vigorous and unextin-guishable opposition of General Andrew McNaughton.
The committee on national defence which studied unification was equally useless. After the government had insisted on second reading and insisted that there be no change in the committee, all you had in the committee day in and day out was the transfer of the bickering to the committee rather than carrying it on in the house. This was a complete waste of time. Hon. members will have their own examples in their minds of committees which have worked, worked well, and made a contribution to the development or improvement of legislation. I recall, for example, the joint committee on divorce which laid the foundations for the divorce bill and, indeed, brought to light progressive proposals which went much too far for the present rather conservative administration. Of one thing you can be sure, and that is that the core of the present proposals for the reform and revitalization of parliament will not work unless the committee system functions effectively. We will all have a very great measure of responsibility in trying to make that committee system work.
I notice that at the moment even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not here. Not a single representative of the government is present so far as I can see. Oh,
[Mr. Brewln.l
the Minister without Portfolio is here. In conclusion, I once again ask the government to be reasonable about changes to rule 16A. A flexible attitude in this regard would seem to be indicated by the Prime Minister's own remarks last Tuesday night. The government could bring a real measure of reform to our parliamentary procedures, with the enthusiasm and support of all parties. It could set the tone for the future of this parliament. I plead with the government not to insist on having its way in this regard but to take a fresh look at this problem.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that it was a privilege to have had the opportunity of serving as a member of the special committee on procedure of the House of Commons. It was a small committee numbering 12 members compared with the usual standing committee of 20 members. It did its work in camera without the presence of the press and without calling witnesses. The sessions were working sessions, shirt-sleeve sessions and sometime luncheon or evening sessions. It was a hard working, effective committee, and I want to say particularly how much I enjoyed the association not only with my own colleagues but with hon. members opposite who did their part in bringing about the reforms of the rules. It is a fact that at the end of the sessions held by that committee we were unable to come up with complete agreement on what the standing orders should provide, but there was a very broad accord within the four walls as members worked together in real understanding about the place of parliamentary procedure in governing the work we must do here. Therefore it was a very worth-while experience for me to have the privilege of associating myself in this endeavour with members of the House of Commons from all parties.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We in this house have the dubious privilege of owning what is perhaps the most antiquated set of rules in a modern parliament. While the story of how we came to inherit such a set of rules and why we are the antiquarians of the rules in Commonwealth parliaments has been told in this house before, perhaps it is worth telling once again in sketchy form. When we confederated in 1867 we inherited the rules of the House of Commons of Great Britain. These were the leisurely paced, midVictorian rules of that time.
December 12, 1968	COMMONS


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


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that I bow to the very superior knowledge of the rules of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If he wants to make points or to ask questions about what I have to say today, I am sure he can cut me to ribbons because I am a novice in the field. I think I have a rough idea as to what has happened to us historically. However, I would be very glad to give the hon. member an opportunity of asking his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for his kindness. I just wanted to be helpful since he is giving what appears to be an interesting bit of history. Is it not a fact that the rules that we took over in 1867, though originally they may have come from Westminster, were actually the rules of the House of Assembly of the parliament of the old province of Canada that existed from 1841 to 1867, which in turn had come from Upper and Lower Canada? I thought that he would like to have the complete story.


Grant Deachman: I think that is a fact. In searching my mind I recall that these rules were put together under the helpful guidance of Alpheus Todd, Clerk of the House of Commons in the union of Upper and Lower Canada. This was the man who bequeathed to the present House of Commons its first set of rules, who went on to become librarian of the House of Commons and whose son subsequently also served the house. So I agree with what the hon. member says.
As I was saying, our rules are essentially the former rules of the British House of Commons. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has said, commencing in 1881 the British house programmed its work. It was during that year that the British house had to face the troubles caused by the Irish party which brought the work of the House of Commons to a standstill. It became apparent to the members of the House of Commons of that day, accustomed to working at leisure in what was essentially a club, that there now had to be brought into the house a little more order and decorum, some mastery of its own rules and some capability of planning its affairs. As a result the rules of that period were vastly overhauled.
When the new dominions of Australia and New Zealand joined what was then called the British Empire they inherited not the leisure-
DEBATES	3871
Motion for Concurrence in Report ly rules of 1867 of mid-Victorian times but the updated rules of the British House of Commons following the Irish troubles in the house in 1881. At the turn of the century they set out to make rules for themselves which were updated from the rules of 1881 and vastly updated from the rules of 1867 or prior thereto, rules which essentially we have inherited. So it is, Mr. Speaker, that the Australians and New Zealanders have become the modern exponents of Commonwealth parliamentary rules. Great Britain has held the middle ground in rule making, and we in Canada have become the antiquarians of the rules of the House of Commons.
What precisely does the expression "antiquarians of the rules of the House of Commons" mean? It is not very easy to answer this. Everybody knows that the House of Commons wastes time but no one knows exactly how time is wasted. To get to the root of the problem I analysed the time spent on each item of the business of the house in the second session of the 27th parliament, which began on May 8, 1967, and ended its work on March 27, 1968. It was not the longest session of that parliament but it was, as I shall show in a minute, a session of more than normal length. This analysis was made possible, I might say, by the introduction into Hansard during the twenty seventh parliament of the notations of time at ten minute time intervals which hon. members can see in the record today.
The second session of the twenty seventh parliament of Canada encompassed a period of 46 weeks during which the house sat for 32 weeks, or 154 days. The hours in session amounted to 821, according to my own calculations, though there may be a fractional error there because it is pretty hard to figure them out exactly. An additional 26 hours were taken up on adjournment debates.
During that session government business consumed 72 per cent of the working time of the house, or 582 hours. Government motions, oral questions, privilege and urgent debates under standing order 26 took 20 per cent of the house's time, or 164 hours. Private members' business took 8 per cent of the time, or about 75 hours. These figures are exclusive of the 26 hours consumed during the adjournment debate after ten o'clock.
In a normal sessional week the house sits, as we know, 28J hours, exclusive of dinner hours and the adjournment debate. The question period at the commencement of each day requires three hours and 30 minutes per
3872	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report week, according to our present rules. Opposition members have seldom been known to relinquish a minute of this time.
Other business preceding the first item of government business, including questions of privilege, motions, and questions of urgency under standing order 26, required an average of 19 minutes a day, or one hour and 37 minutes a week. Thus it took over five hours a week to get to the first item of government business.
Apart from the fixed oral question period, the most time-consuming items in this period were government motions and replies to them, questions of privilege and questions of urgency, which at times developed into lengthy debates and also added to the time consumed before government business could be reached. On six days during the second session of the twenty seventh parliament this period took up the whole time of sitting, leaving no time at all for government business. On five other days the period exceeded two and a half hours. This represents a total loss of working time of two weeks in the course of a session.
It required 20 per cent or one-fifth of the house's time to get past the question period. It took two full weeks or ten sitting days to get through the speech from the throne debate at the beginning of the second session of the twenty seventh parliament. It is interesting to note that at the opening of this current session hon. members bored each other stiff with their own talk and gave up the throne speech debate at the end of the seventh day.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The budget is another timed debate. In the second session of the twenty seventh parliament the Minister of Finance brought down two budgets. They were discussed in the months of June, October, November, December and March on a total of 19 days, and included the budget statement itself and the debate on the bills. These two debates, the throne speech debate and the budget debate, took up 29 working days or a period of almost six weeks.
We should be careful in approaching this subject not to imagine we are modernizing our House of Commons rules. We are not. We are simply modifying procedures which were inherited over a century ago and which we have kept almost intact like a family heirloom. When we have finished amending our standing orders we will be applying procedures which other parliaments have been

DEBATES	December 12, 1968
using for decades. There is nothing revolutionary about what we are doing here. In the light of modern legislative practice we are barely updating ourselves to the 20th century.
Lest I be accused of exaggerating let me describe one of our procedures. We take a whole day to hear the Governor General read the speech from the throne. There was a time when this speech was a simple and unadorned catalogue of legislation which the government proposed to introduce during the session. Today the style is to fortify this naked statement with sugary adjectives and syrupy editorializing. I will not go so far as to say that recent speeches from the throne were written by C.B.C. scriptwriters, but I will say that they could be fitted into a Quentin Dur-gens script with very little editing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: That is all we do on the
first day. Next day two new and starry-eyed members move and second the address, and that is all we do on the second day. On the third day the leaders speak, and when they have finished almost everyone gets up and walks out. For the next week and a half oratory crashes and reverberates through the almost empty chamber until it is finally silenced by votes or, as was the case in September, by common consent out of sheer boredom.
One might excuse this old charade if we did it only at the opening of a new parliament, but we do it every session. In the lifetime of this parliament, if it runs four sessions, it will take up eight weeks or two months of parliamentary time. And the throne speech is not the only time consumer. We debate the budget for a week and then we debate the budget resolutions. Recently we have been bringing down two budgets a year, doubling the time required for the budget debate. We send the estimates of the departments to the standing committees of the house for detailed examination. When they come back to the house we examine them in detail again in committee of supply.
I ask you, sir, if you set out to devise a way of examining estimates would you invite 364 people into a cathedral-sized room and ask them to get on with examining the estimates? And if you found year after year that only about 20 or 30 people came when it was time to examine the estimates would you not imagine, perhaps, that the procedure had become outdated and it was time to change it? When we sit here sometimes near the end
December 12, 1968	COMMONS
of a session or just before the Christmas or Easter recess and have estimates to pass we find ourselves saying, "Shall vote 5 carry- carried, shall vote 10 carry

carried, shall vote 15 carry-carried", and when we look up at the gallery and see people there who may have come great distances to find out what parliament does do we not wonder what they may think of us and why we have not devised a better way of carrying on our business? We alone among Commonwealth parliaments have hung on to these antique practices and that is why, sir, the procedure committee is anxious to see them changed.
I want to deal for a moment with the way we use our time and with the way we spent our time on bills. It has been said many times in discussions in this house and among ourselves, and it was brought up one time in the procedure committee, that on average we really do not take too much time on bills and if the programming of the work of the house were just left to the good will of hon. members we would work out a logical program in which there would be adequate time for the examination of bills. Well, sir, let me give you an idea of how the house has behaved in regard to the examination of bills when no timing device has been used. When we look at the record of government bills considered during the second session of the twenty seventh parliament we see that we spent four days on the Cape Breton Development Corporation, three days on the manpower and immigration bill and five days on the C.N.R. bill, No. C-151. We spent three days on the emergency gold mining bill, seven days on corporate and consumer affairs-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: -and nine days on the broadcasting bill, No. C-163. I note that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is applauding the seven days we spent on his department. I can advise him that unless we are able to arrange and program our work we might not be able to get ministers' future bills through this house.
Between January 22 and Easter we spent on the Criminal Code amendment eight days; on the Judges Act, three days; on the divorce reform bill, six days; on the Income Tax Act, five days; on the broadcasting bill, No. C-163, 12 days; on the patent bill, three days; and on the Income Tax Act, that is, wrapping up the budget, three days. That, sir, is the way we employed our time on bills. When we look at the work we have to do in the house, how can
DEBATES	3873
Motion for Concurrence in Report we possibly pursue a schedule like that? How can we possibly, within the limits of 365 days, employ our time usefully in this house if we pursue a program of that kind? Sir, when the procedure committee during the last session went to England and talked with the officers and members of parliament at Westminster regarding the employment of their time, its members came back and prepared their fourth report, an ecstatic report on the way the affairs of the House of Commons of Great Britain are handled. And no one was more ecstatic than the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who is leading the party opposite in the discussion on this measure. Let me tell you, sir, what they said about the way legislation should be handled in the light of their experience in Great Britain. They said:
-the ministry has a right to bring forward each year a legislative programme appropriate to a session of normal length with knowledge that the House of Commons will decide expeditiously whether or not to pass each of the proposed measures. Intense debate followed by decision is regarded as reasonable and advantageous by members from both sides.
Sir, I only hope that hon. members on the opposition side realize what members of parliament in Great Britain have already realized that the programming of the work of the House of Commons means a more efficient House of Commons not only from the standpoint of the government itself but from the standpoint of every backbencher who serves in the house. The committee made its report to this house. Hon. members opposite helped to write it and agreed to it. The committee went on to say:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
At the same time it is recognized that the opposition should be given ample time in each session to bring forward for debate and decision its own substantive motions.
Two observations were heard repeatedly at Westminster. The first was, "we have decided that there are only 365 days in the year." The second was, "We have decided that in debate there comes a time when enough is enough."
Then the committee reported:
We have reached the conclusion that at Westminster the opposition is willing to accept intense debate and speedy decision on government bills partly because this approach is conducive to order in the daily and weekly business of the house and to predictability in the duration of the sessions, but chiefly because of the efficient way in which supply days are used at Westminster.
The proposals we have introduced do not follow exactly the procedure at Westminster nor in Australia or New Zealand, but they are, I believe, the best that people with long
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report experience of parliamentary rules have been able to devise with the assistance of many who have studied the rules of the House of Commons for many years. The principal cause of difficulty between us arises from the proposed rule 16A which would allow for the programming of the work of the house and under which the number of days to be given to each important piece of legislation and, indeed, to all business which goes through the house, could be determined. This is objected to on the grounds that it would throttle the ability of members opposite to carry debate to what they believe to be its ultimate and just conclusion.
There are three ways in which we can manage our affairs in dealing with legislation. We can, as we do now, let debate run on until it runs out, perhaps keeping on the record the old guillotine order just as a farmer might keep an old and rusty gun in his cellar. He knows he dare not fire it because it might blow up in his face, but it gives him some kind of comfort. He does not really intend to use it, but it is there.
The next way is the closure method by means of which, if debate on a measure or a bill has gone on far enough, an attempt is made to bring the discussion to an end. Well those of us who have been here for two or three sessions or more have some experience of how this works in practice.
A bill is introduced and after debate has gone on for some time cabinet ministers on the front benches begin to lean toward each other and ask: "Do you think this has gone on long enough? Are they going to keep it going for another day, or do you suppose they are waiting for some of the people out west to get back to the house and have their say before the bill goes through?" Then they say: "Perhaps we should let it go on for another day." At the end of the day the leader of the house gets up and says: "I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent to continue this debate for another half hour or so in the hope we can make a little progress." And somebody down at the other end of the chamber says: "I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker." So no more progress is made that day and it appears there is no desire to get the bill through.
What happens next? We go into caucus where the minister gets up and says: I do not know whether they are filibustering, and the only thing we can do is let it go on for another day. Then he turns to the backbenchers and says: "Look, you will not get any

votes by debating this bill in the house tomorrow, so if you would please shut up we will get on with letting the opposition members talk. Perhaps they will run out of speakers soon and we shall be able to get on with the next measure."
What happens then? Ten o'clock comes around and still the bill has not gone through. Now the backbenchers are anxious to get on with something else, and hoping to get into the act they begin to creep down to the front benches to whisper in the minister's ear and ask whether he intends to apply closure. The minister remembers what happened to C.D. Howe and after thinking a little he says: "No, I don't want to do that. I believe they are running out of speakers. They have only got five guys left over there and they are not very good."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Grant Deachman: We have all seen that sort of thing go on this session in connection with bills which were not all that important, either. Hours slip into days, days into weeks, and our work here in the house has not been done.
The other alternative is the one we suggest in rule 16A, that we should do as other parliaments have done and program our work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: When I appeal to hon. members to program the work I do not expect to receive thunderous applause from the opposite side. I notice I am not receiving it. It is probably a fact of history that no opposition member ever moved a motion to program the work of the government or voted in favour of such a motion when it was brought forward by a government. This is because opposition members have a vested interest in confusion. They do not want to see the government programming its work and running its affairs in the House of Commons in an orderly or businesslike fashion. They do not want to see these bills going through as planned, to hear the arguments set forward both for and against and then vote on them and move forward to something else. No sir, that is not for opposition members.
I doubt very much, unless there are some philosophers over there instead of politicians, that we shall get a great deal of help from the opposition. But I come back to the point that in Britain government and opposition members alike are disposed to retain the
December 12, 1S68

ground they have gained in the programming of their own work.
I wish to draw attention to another aspect. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite who went to Britain and talked to people there about the way in which they program their work also agreed to the fourth report and were, in fact, quite starry-eyed about it. Indeed, when I spoke to the hon. member for Peace River some time before the last election-as a matter of fact it was before we even knew there was to be an election -he was starry-eyed and ecstatic about it, simply because the convention of last April had not taken place, and he did not know that after the election we would be on the government side and he would be sitting in opposition. He had it in his mind that we would be sitting over there on the opposition benches and he would be programming the work of a Tory parliament. He wanted it so badly he could taste it and he framed it in the words of the fourth report.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Sir, we know what we have to do here. We have to get on with ordering the work of parliament in an orderly way. I think that in their hearts members opposite also know that this has to be done. They know that when the time comes it is not really going to be all that distasteful. We are not really going to take away from them the right of debate. They know this has not been done in other parliaments where work is programmed.
But quite apart from that I want to appeal to members opposite just to be fair. I appeal to them in this way. I share the business of being a backbencher and I think we backbenchers, including those opposite, want to do what is right in order to provide justice to the backbenchers in this house. We do not care about the ministry. We know they will get in their licks. We do not care about that long range of extinct volcanoes opposite that occupy the front bench. I am concerned about the backbenchers. I appeal to them.
If we program our work the majority of the poor backbenchers will then be able to take part in debates. We on this side of the house, who now sit on our hands waiting for the people on the other side to run out of steam, will be able to take part in timed debates. We won the last election so easily that we came back here with backbenchers in large numbers. The majority of backbenchers are on the Liberal side and in fact slop over into the corner to your left, Mr. Speaker, so
Motion for Concurrence in Report that there is a whole rump parliament operating over there. These are the people who have to be given justice under the new rules. I appeal to all backbenchers to pass 16-A and make it possible for the majority of backbenchers to take part in the proceedings of this house in an equitable way, the way we should be able to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: We know that opposition members want to hear what we have to say and so I ask them for the privilege of letting us enter into debates in the way in which they now do, and share with them the delights of being full-blown parliamentarians. Let us pass 16-A. Let us program the work. Let us all go to work and not just some of us.


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


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report of the committee on parliamentary procedure. For our part, we have been hoping for a long time that a similar committee would be set up and would produce a report. I expect all the members in this house have also been hoping that a study on parliamentary reform would be made.
A while ago, I listened with great interest to the member who preceded me as he outlined the work of that committee and explained how our government operates under the present rules. We found it a bit amusing, just as visitors do when they find out how our procedure works and our debates proceed. As proof of this, may 1 mention this person who, the other day, sat in the galleries while we were adopting the estimates. This person heard the whole rigmarole. When I met her, I asked her what she thought of it. She said that here the litanies are very long. Indeed, she thought we were reciting the litany of the Blessed Virgin or the Sacred Heart and felt like saying "Ora pro nobis".
Mr. Speaker, this gives you an idea of the picture a spectator can get when he follows some of our debates. That is why, for six years now, we have been begging various governments to modernize the process and make those rules more realistic and up to date.
Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate the team of members who worked hard on the committee on Procedure. Here is a striking example of what sincere men can accomplish when striving for the progress of
3876	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report our society. Ninety-eight per cent of the amendments proposed were accepted unanimously by the members of the committee. Is this not outstanding work intended to improve the working methods of the house and to make its debates more effective?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I will not recall here all the points raised in commitee. Tonight I would like to deal with one point only which was not settled and make my humble suggestions to the house. I am sure that during the Christmas season a happy solution will be found to the ticklish problems which concern all hon. members because I cannot believe for a single moment that 263 hon. members will dare play politics about a matter of such importance to the survival of our democracy.
In fact, I think we are dealing with the most delicate part of the rules of the house. I will even say that we are at the heart of a problem which has been a stumbling block for past governments and the main reason for that waste of time and money which in some way has led the people to lose faith in parliament.
Today, we come to the crux of the matter, at the crossroads of democracy and dictatorship, because to be realistic one must admit there is some dictatorship in any democracy, just like a dictatorship cannot survive without some democratization. In fact, any move made by one man or a majority group, whether it is called a political party or otherwise, becomes a dictatorial act for the minority group. It cannot be otherwise, since the law of the majority is the very foundation of any healthy democracy.
Therefore, it is on this principle that I want to call the attention of this house, since we admit that parliament is made up of political parties, one of which is a majority party, that is the one that received a greatest number of votes and consequently, it represents the majority of the democratic community.
Having established this principle, I think that we should now rise above our respective parties, and engage in a frank and fair discussion. Yet, if some members are not competent, they should, in the days ahead, yield to those who are, because one must not forget that the members of this government, sooner or later, will feel the good or ill effects of the new legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that if, for a few days only, we could reach a certain degree of

DEBATES	December 12, 1968
individual freedom and independence, it would be a lot easier to get legislation passed, which would be in line with reality.
It is for that reason that we second the amendment to refer the matter to a standing committee where order 16A can be considered again, and where we will be in a position to discuss it openly and in a friendly way. We would be far from this parliamentary platform where everyone is anxious to show himself to advantage, at the expense of the main issue.
Of course, it is easier for us, members of the Ralliement creditiste, to work towards the passing of a sound legislation because unlike other parties, our party cares only about the interests of the people.
Our first question is as follows: Why did the government introduce standing order 16-A? Why did the official opposition protest against this standing order?
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, in order to make an impartial judgment, I must get inside the skin of a Liberal on the one hand, and a Conservative on the other.
In view of the party which I represent, this is quite an easy thing for me to do, for I have no special ties with either one of those parties, particularly since those who elected me here are all former Liberals or former Conservatives. Therefore I am not dealing with the problems of committed Liberals or Conservatives.
If I were a real Liberal, a docile one, I would naturally be in favour of standing order 16A, because it is the instrument above all others which will give my party supreme power. On the other hand, if I were a true Conservative, I would oppose it for the opposite reasons.
I am a member of a free party which wants to be logical, constructive and progressive. We have given proof of this since we have been sitting in this house, for our motto is to vote for good measures and against those which are not in the best interest of our fellow-citizens.
Therefore, as I have said, we are supporting the amendment in order to find a logical, impartial and non partisan solution to the present conflict.
In my opinion, and I say it quite simply, neither the government nor the official opposition are totally right or totally wrong. Let me explain what I mean. Let us talk of democracy, since that is what is at stake. We have said that majority rule is the very basis
December 12, 1968	COMMONS
of democracy, and I hope that is accepted by everybody. Therefore, we can conclude forthwith that it is the party that has received the greatest number of votes that represents the majority, and that is the people's will. Thus, we can say that this government is a majority government by the will of the people.
Now, at the leaders level, the same government becomes suddenly a minority government, since they are now three against one, as compared to the majority received from the people. I believe this is the whole problem Mr. Speaker. The members of the opposition want democracy in this meeting, but would it not be the right time to ask ourselves if the composition of this assembly is not at variance with this same democracy?
The problem is so serious that we wonder which group is sinning the most against democracy. If it is the leaders group, in my opinion, that is where the remedy should be applied. The government house leader has been so untractable, that he has done like the surgeon who cut off his patient's head because there seemed to be something wrong with it.
Therefore, it is only natural that every member is protesting. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government house leader went further than be intended in his proposals, because I cannot conceive that a man, who calls himself a democrat, could honestly speak like that. It is with good reason that the opposition members clamour that democracy is dead, as this will happen very soon if the proposed rule 16-A is adopted.
However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) left us yesterday with a glimpse of hope when he stated that his government remained willing to discuss the matter. Now, if the government is sincere, and truly eager to preserve democracy in this country, there is one logical thing it can do towards the suggested reform, and that is to invest the government with such authority as to enable it to discharge its responsibilities while guaranteeing the rights of the minorities. What about turning the present committee on procedure into the paramount instrument we need to direct the proceedings of the house? We would have, in that committee, as in any other standing committee, proportional representation with majority rule.
Ever since I have been here, Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of the fact that the meetings of the leaders, because of inadequate representation, have caused some fancy skating
DEBATES	3877
Motion for Concurrence in Report and disputes that have left the people bewildered. Let us stop once and for all these futile hagglings and let us tackle boldly the real problem and find a genuine solution, namely a leaders committee with proportional representation of all parties or, if we wish, a committee on the business of the house.
I am under the impression that by acting as he did the government leader wanted to accelerate the work of the house. I firmly believe that they are all ready to sit at the committee table and draft a new legislation which will give the government the necessary powers to use its majority mandate without undermining the rights of other members.
I was always told that a small peaceful settlement is better than all great wars. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that every member is truly trying to find the reform which is needed. At Christmas time, let us show the country that we are men of goodwill, not only by our words, but also by our deeds.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be presumptuous to ask to call it six o'clock?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps we could call it six o'clock and make the five minute adjustment as we approach seven o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Lotbi-niere (Mr. Fortin)-Industry-Production in Canada of parts for new jet planes; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Consumer Affairs-Request that protection be included in the Criminal Code; the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid)-Unidentified Flying Objects- Reported sightings over Sioux Lookout, Ont.

December 12, 1968
Motions for Papers
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


André-Gilles Fortin: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all extracts of the minutes of the Board of Directors of Air Canada concerning the move of the maintenance base from Winnipeg to Montreal and of all correspondence exchanged between the government and Air Canada in connection with this matter.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have placed on the order paper a notice of motion for papers in order to know what were the issues discussed by the Board of Directors of Air Canada concerning the move of the maintenance base from Winnipeg to Montreal. Furthermore, in this notice of motion I asked for all correspondence exchanged between the government and Air Canada in connection of this matter.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) answered me yesterday that the tabling of such documents would create a precedent and would not be in line with government practice whereby Crown corporations are run in such a way that hon. members cannot inquire about their mode of operation.
Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that the subject matter of this motion is not at issue, that is, whether or not we should move the maintenance base from Winnipeg to Montreal or whether we should accept the offers that the federal government has just made to private companies with regard to the maintenance base. It is rather a question of discussing the opportunity of producing or tabling the documents to which I referred.
Mr. Speaker, if we take a closer look on the one hand at the administration of Crown corporations and their growing importance in the economic life of this country and, on the other hand, at the position of the Canadian government which refuses to produce information on the ground that it would be a precedent, I think that this is an obstacle to the efficient running of Crown corporations, since this house, in my opinion, has the right to know what is going on in the Crown corporations.
All members have been able to read the numerous questions I put on the order
tThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Bichard).]
paper, regarding the administration of crown corporations, as well as the answers I received.
As to notice of motion No. 50, dealing with a particular subject, the government considers it to be a matter of principle, as far as can be seen by the answer given to me by the hon. Minister of Transport when he said that these had always been considered as privileged papers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is a question of principle, I agree, but let it be a true matter of principle. In that connection, I shall refer the house to the answer to question No. 53 which I had put on the order paper in order to learn how many senior civil servants were earning $17,000 and more at Polymer corporation-a	crown corporation-whose
turnover amounts to more than $5 million a year.
I was given the following answer, and I quote:
Polymer Corporation does not have any civil servants in its employ.
Mr. Speaker, they are playing upon words; they have civil servants since it is said further on:
The corporation would not wish to furnish the information requested as disclosure of the number of employees earning $17,000 and more-
-and are bilingual
-would not be in the best interests of the company.
Mr. Speaker, if the possibility for hon. members to get information about the crown corporations is to be made into a matter of principle, we should be old, but we should be given sensible answers.
If I had accepted yesterday the answer given by the Minister of Transport to the effect that such documents could not be tabled, I would have perpetuated the good old tradition according to which, when a member has received an answer, he remains in his seat as was the custom under the good old system which prevailed in Quebec when one was told: You, shut up. That is somewhat familiar and I cannot understand that such a system could prevail here. I think it is of basic importance, Mr. Speaker, for us to be able to get such information.
I spoke a while ago of the Polymer corporation; it is an extremely serious problem and it is exactly the same case as that of Air Canada, about which I intend to speak immediately.
December 12, 1968

Allow me, by way of degression, to refer to the Polymer corporation. Mr. Speaker, why would the Polymer corporation refuse to provide that information? There is absolutely no reason. If there is any, it would be the lack of bilingual officials which would be quite compromising for that famous policy on bilinguism which is still suppose to be applicable in the public service. This is why the information is not disclosed.
In the case of Air Canada, Mr. Speaker, they refuse to provide those documents on the grounds that it would affect the competitive power of crown corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I will say again that this argument is not valid, because the Canadian government, owing to the considerable number of crown corporations, has given them a privileged status, so that they compete unfairly, and I say that sincerely, with private enterprise.
Moreover, not only are crown corporations granted commercial, jurisdictional and legislative privileges which are not granted to private enterprise, not only are they favoured to the prejudice of private enterprise, but members of the house still cannot get information on them or, if they do, it is by bits and pieces and sometimes, the information is wrong. For example, I am thinking of the answer I was given by the Polymer corporation.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I had also put question No. 724 on the order paper, which included nine items, wherein I inquired about the famous maintenance base in Winnipeg, and I shall quote part of it:
Did the President of Air Canada send a letter during February, 1963, to his employees informing them of the transfer of the base?
We know that such a letter has been sent, Mr. Speaker, but we want an official reply. That question-and it can be checked-has been on the order paper for too long. Decisions are now being reached. Everybody is aware of that and I cannot get a reply to my question. In addition to that, they would like me to abstain from demanding the tabling of documents for my own information and for the information of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is one of the privileges of hon. members on all sides of the house to be able to obtain information. I acknowledge that sometimes we may ask for information likely to jeopardize the security of the country, for instance. In such cases,
Motions for Papers
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the government that it would be dangerous to give away such information.
In this case, the matter is of an administrative nature. And since we are both administrators and lawmakers, we must be fully aware of what is going on. In this case, we must know whether or not Air Canada officials sent a letter to those employed at the Winnipeg maintenance base, advising them of the possible transfer of that base to Montreal. We must also know, Mr. Speaker, if Air Canada has truly considered whether or not it was advisable to make such a transfer and whether or not it has looked into all other aspects of the matter. Moreover, we have to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Canadian government made representations to Air Canada in order to force that agency to move its base or not. If the Canadian government were acting this way, it would create a precedent, enabling it from now on to twist all Crown corporations around its little finger. Yet the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who is here, did say the other day that he could not give any order to the C.B.C., another Crown corporation.
Such is the confusion in which we find ourselves now, and this is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is enormous work to do in the matter of relations between Crown corporations and parliament. We all recognize that certain information must be provided to members of parliament.
We may ask ourselves a great many questions Mr. Speaker, about this famous matter of Air Canada, but we must wait, indefinitely for answers. And by the time an answer appears to be forthcoming, we are told that this might create a precedent. That is indeed a fact because the honourable Minister of Transport said and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, as all members of parliament will appreciate, this motion relates to correspondence that has always been claimed to be privileged, not public documents.
Mr. Speaker, whether or not we present a motion for papers on any matter or ask any information concerning Crown corporations, we will never be able to get what we are looking for.
The proof of that is that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has been away for a month and a half. While we are scrambling to know whether the C.B.C. really has a policy as to the allotment of its broadcasting time between political or other movements,

December 12, 1988
Motions for Papers
we are unable to get such information. Although he had promised to give it, he now refuses to do so.
So what other means have the members of this house for calling those Crown corporations to account? Should one of those Crown corporations be guilty of some glaring injustice, how could they bring it to light? I have numerous cases in mind, but what is to be done? It is absolutely impossible to get the information we want.
I was told that, in the case of C.B.C., the Secretary of State said that it was impossible to supply such information and that besides, he had never promised it. And then, he only managed to say: The member does not know that I do not know.
Mr. Speaker, in this case I wish to get information from a Crown corporation, not necessarily to annoy the government but to better fulfil my role as administrator and legislator. If I am here merely to applaud everything the government and the crown corporations do, better do away with the notice of motions, with questions, with the right to speak. Besides, a good start has already been made in that direction if we cannot even obtain information.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how a precedent would be created by asking for information, since we are supposed to do so. This is no time to say: It cannot be done because it was not done in the past. It is a matter of knowing if it would be advisable to do it, and I think that in view of the examples I have mentioned from the C.B.C. and Air Canada, it would be advisable and even urgent to set up means of communications which would enable the crown corporations to give such information.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the matter deserves consideration. In fact, it is of capital importance for hon. members in 1968, since the government has more and more control over the crown corporations. It is a well-known fact that the state operates today an important industrial, commercial and financial sector. It operates uranium mines through the Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. It is one of the main rubber producers since it operates Polymer corporation. It operates also one of the most important railway systems of the country, the C.N.R.
The government owns also several highway transportation companies, which I will not mention, to avoid a digression.

My purpose is to discuss the advisability of tabling documents, and I want to bring out the importance of this principle.
The government operates the largest hotels of Canada, as everyone knows. The government is engaged in air transport, through Air Canada and Eldorado Aviation Limited. The government owns and operates one of the most important radio and television broadcasting networks, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I might also mention the operation of hydro-electric enterprises like Hydro-Quebec, Hydro-Ontario, and others.
The federal government is engaged in the mining industry and exports minerals. The Sequem corporation is an example of that. In short, Mr. Speaker, the state owns and operates a great number of commercial, industrial and financial enterprises. And the only information which is available to hon. members with regard to these companies is insignificant, like that supplied to me by Polymer corporation which I mentioned at the outset.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In the face of such government encroachments in the economic, financial, industrial and other fields, it becomes increasingly more difficult for hon. members to face up to that cumbersome administrative machinery and to get information. And when we put a notice of motion for papers as I did, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it should be possible to issue a copy of all the minutes of the board of directors of Air Canada concerning the transfer of its maintenance base.
I think it is possible to give us at least a summary of these minutes. If this document is privileged, or if it is dangerous to supply this information, which I doubt, the government should establish a system for preparing a summary of these minutes to be given to the members for their information.
I think this request is reasonable and consideration should be given to the possibility of establishing such a system. I shall not accept the excuse that it would be impossible or dangerous to do so.
Mr. Speaker, meetings have been held, and the answer given by the minister proves it sufficiently. How would this endanger the security of the State? Can anybody explain that? There is no real danger; however, there have been some underhand dealings in this respect, and that is why I attach such importance to the matter.
December 12, 1968

I must point out that three reports have already been presented concerning this matter by the commissions of inquiry, Wallace Clarke, Dixon Spears Associates and Thompson. These three commissions came to the same conclusion that the government would lose money with the Winnipeg base as long as it stayed there. Furthermore, the president of Air Canada sent a letter to Winnipeg in 1967 announcing that this transfer would take place. However, that was more than 11 years ago and nothing has taken place yet. Therefore, there is political interference in this matter and this is what I am trying to find out, not for the purpose of exposing a scandal but to ensure a healthy, normal and fair administration. Moreover, I consider this a matter of principle, so that in future, crown corporations will report through their representatives in the house, and the members of the house will then obtain information.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak much longer. I would like to conclude and give other members the opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. I think it is fundamental that we should change our mentality, that we should change, if you like, our views on crown corporations. If the state wants to go into business, if it wants to launch out into industry, if it wants to bluff financially, it will have to be on equal terms with private enterprises. That is why I placed Bill No. C-115 on the order paper. I know that the government will probably kill it, without having any bad intentions, because it wants to maintain its crown corporations. But, if it wants to keep them, they must really be answerable to the crown, to a minister.
I do not agree with the attitude adopted by the hon. Secretary of State the other day when he told me that the C.B.C. was not answerable to him and that it was independent. The right hon. Prime Minister replied the same thing, which makes me think that there are irresponsible men in government if we cannot obtain information on crown companies which, as I said before, are very numerous.
Mr. Speaker, I insist-and I want to make my point-that the Canadian government should supply the information requested in that notice of motion for production of papers, in order that we might know exactly what happened and what is now going on with regard to the famous Air-Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg. I feel that we are entitled to know. This would not be creating a
Motions for Papers
precedent, not interfering with the security of the state, nor would it be prejudicial to the companies. On the contrary, it would be prejudicial to public opinion to refuse information which the opposition has the right to know and the government has the duty to provide.


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: It is obvious Mr. Speaker, that the government should give to parliament the fullest available information possible on any question brought before this house by hon. members. Parliament must be in possession of such information as it requires in order to arrive at the best possible conclusion. This often includes the production of documents and papers, the disclosure of which is necessary for a proper understanding of the matter before the house. But such disclosure has its limitations in the public interest. It is almost too basic for repetition to say that there are many communications and documents of such a confidential character that, in the public interest, should properly be withheld from publication. This motion calls for more than the resume mentioned by the hon. member. It calls for a copy of all extracts of the minutes of the board of directors of Air Canada concerning the move of the maintenance base from Winnipeg to Montreal, and of all correspondence exchanged between the government and Air Canada in connection with this matter.
This would mean that the minutes of meetings of boards of directors of crown corporations would be considered public documents. The competitive nature of the business of Air Canada and other crown corporations, such as Canadian National Railways, would be endangered. In short, a dangerous precedent would be created. So far as correspondence is concerned, it could mean that any opinion given the minister or any interoffice communication would be public knowledge. Such items, prepared for the minister's information only, have always been privileged. They are so obviously privileged that such a motion as this requires no debate. It is almost too elementary to discuss the ramifications that such a motion, if passed, would bring about.
Passage of this motion would stifle freedom of expression and would deprive the minister of the benefit he now enjoys of receiving voluntary and varied opinions on the many problems before him. Public servants are very frank amongst themselves and are equally frank with the ministers. If their opinions on contentious issues are to be made

December 12, 1888
Motions for Papers
public, then the public servants of this nation will have great reluctance in giving any minister their honest, reasoned and valued opinions. The purpose of privileged communications is very clear. It means that such communications cannot be made public. We must encourage officials to speak frankly and openly; we must not muzzle them with the passage of this motion.
I am not going to waste the time of this house by speaking for the retention of such an obviously clear and compelling privilege. There are dozens of precedents throughout Hansard to uphold my position. Unless there is to be a breakdown in administration, this motion must be defeated, and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) knows it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to section 7 of standing order 66, the vote is postponed until eight o'clock this day.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, since this completes the business under this section, would it not be in order to ask that we adjourn for supper?


Yves Forest: No, I think we should go to the next item of business, namely private bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous consent.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon) moved: the second reading of Bill S-7, respecting The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
progress we have made now I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent to adjourn the house till eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being around seven o'clock this house stands adjourned till eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to section 7 of standing order 6 it is my duty to ask the house to revert to private members business for the taking of the vote which was postponed earlier this evening.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Fortin) which was negatived on the following division.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
YEAS Messrs:
Beaudoin	Lambert (Bellechasse)
Benjamin	Laprise
Burton	Lewis
Dionne	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Fortin	(Vancouver-Kingsway)
Gauthier	Orlikow
Gilbert	Rodrigue
Godin	Rondeau
Harding	Tetrault
Knowles (Winnipeg	Thomson (Battleford-
North Centre)	Kindersley)-19.
 NAYS Messrs:
Alexander	Caccia
Allmand	Cadieu (Meadow-Lake)
Anderson	Cadieux (Labelle)
Badanai	Cafik
Baldwin	Carter
Barrett	Clermont
Basford	Cobbe
Bechard	Comtois
Bell	Corbin
Blair	Cote (Richelieu)
Borrie	Crossman
Boulanger	Crouse
Breau	Cullen
December 12, 1968

Danson	McIntosh
Davis	McKinley
Deachman	McQuaid
Deakon	Mahoney
Dinsdale	Major
Douglas	Marshall
Drury	Mongrain
Durante	Monteith
Fairweather	Morison
Flemming	Murphy
Forest	Noel
Forrestall	O'Connell
Foster	Olson
Francis	Otto
Gendron	Ouellet
Gibson	Peddle
Gillespie	Pelletier
Givens	Penner
Gray	Pepin
Groos	Perrault
Guay (St. Boniface)	Pilon
Guilbault	Portelance
Haidasz	Reid
Hales	Richardson
Hees	Ritchie
Hogarth	Rochon
Honey	Roy (Timmins)
Hopkins	Roy (Laval)
Howard (Okanagan	Rynard
Boundary)	Schumacher
Howe	Scott
Hymmen	Serre
Jerome	Sharp
Kierans	Simpson
Knowles (Norfolk-	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Haldimand)	Stafford
Lambert (Edmonton	Stanfield
West)	Stewart (Cochrane)
La Salle	Stewart (Marquette)
Legault	Sullivan
Lessard (LaSalle)	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Lind	Thomas (Moncton)
Loiselle	Turner (London East)
Lundrigan	Valade
MacDonald (Egmont)	Wahn
Macdonald (Rosedale)	Walker
MacEwan	Watson
MacGuigan	Weatherhead
Maclnnis (Cape Breton-	Whelan
East Richmond)	Whicher
Macquarrie	Whiting
McCleave	Winch
McCutcheon	Woolliams
McGrath	Yanakis-130.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield, (p. 3762).
Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, speaking in general terms
Motion for Concurrence in Report the motion before the house is one which some people might think was somewhat innocent, and might not deserve a great deal of consideration. But when a motion is made for concurrence in the report of a committee, generally speaking that calls for an examination of the report itself. So we have before us a motion by the chairman of the special committee, the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Blair), that we concur in the report of that committee, thus bringing about an examination of what is in that report. That is exactly what I propose to do in the few minutes at my disposal.
I say it seems as though this is a simple motion, but it is not. It is a very dangerous motion to pass, because it threatens the very life of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Indeed it removes safeguards vital to every Canadian. It jeopardizes the well-being of every man, woman and child in Canada; that is what it does. And, Mr. Speaker, I propose to prove those words to the satisfaction of anyone whose eyes are not clouded by political bias. Apparently the government has predetermined closure at its disposal, and the veto power is placed in the hands of the government house leader by the report of the special committee. There is not any doubt about that whatsoever, and it concerns every piece of legislation which may be brought before this house.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) implied in his speech of two nights ago that there comes a time when discussion should cease and decisions be made. We agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but the time for decision is not before there is any debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder what the desk thumpers opposite think of that.
In the course of a very brilliant address, an address with which no one could help being impressed, my leader moved an amendment. It is very appropriate and proper that we examine that amendment, which reads:
That the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house be not now concurred in but referred back to the committee with instructions that it have power to recommend that proposed standing order 16-A be amended to provide that a motion to accept the decision of the proceedings committee shall only be made following the unanimous decision of the proceedings committee arrived at during a meeting properly convened upon adequate written notice.
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to everyone within sound of my voice that that is a very reasonable amendment, because it says that unless there is unanimous decision the house should not accept a motion of the committee. This is the only part of the committee's report that is dealt with in this amendment. Personally, I propose to have somewhat extended remarks to make later about other matters, because I attach great importance to the right of the house to examine, criticize and suggest changes in the voting of money, a right that is as old as the parliamentary institution itself.
But to return to the trend of my remarks concerning legislation, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bit unusual to have complete unanimity among the three opposition parties. This means that every one of those parties, and its leader, has examined the situation and it has been agreed between them that there are points in the report of the committee which they cannot accept. This is embodied in the amendment because it is the only amendment that has been moved. Generally speaking there is a subamendment, but not at this time. So, I say that is unusual. The very fact that this unanimity exists here tonight should appeal to every member of the house, because after all what we are here for is to legislate and vote and speak in the interests of the people of Canada. We are here for something more than pounding desks. There is no question about that.


An hon. Member:: Don't criticize your own party.


Hugh John Flemming: You still hold the record. You are the champions at that.
Let us examine the record of what exactly is the difference between the opposition parties, combined, and the government. First I am going to quote the words of the chairman of the committee when he inroduced the motion because he mentioned certain things about the committee's report. Then, we listened this afternoon to a dissertation of half-truths which implied that the opposition was against the legislation making progress. Nothing could be further from the truth and certainly the chairman of the committee did not say so. As reported at page 3750 of Hansard, he said:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
At the end, despite its best efforts the committee had to agree to disagree on what appear to me to

be only two or three issues at the most. The suggestion that was made in some quarters of the press that the committee broke up in violent disagreement is entirely false and does a great disservice to all members of the committee and also, I suggest, to all members of this house.
So I suggest that the chairman of the committee have a word with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and set him right, because he certainly needs to be set right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I wish now to refer to and emphasize this question of unanimity, and the importance of it, because in my opinion it is the very crux of the whole argument. The government house leader, as a member of the proceedings committee, actually will have a veto power over that committee, because all he will have to do is disagree. So he disagrees and there is a lack of agreement. The other three house leaders may agree, but that will make no difference. All the Liberal house leader need do is disagree with them and then there is a lack of agreement. Subsequent to the committee meeting he will be able to put on another cap, the cap of leader in this house and not the Liberal leader. He will be in a position to say to this parliament how much time will be spent debating legislation. I submit that that is an arbitrary use of power and that no self respecting parliament could ever consent to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: By virtue of that power, however, he could limit the debate on every item of legislation at every stage. I ask my friends opposite and my friends everywhere for that matter, has he ever said what he will do about the debate on the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code; has he ever said how much time will be allocated for that? Everyone within the sound of my voice is aware that disagreeable things will be contained in that omnibus bill-and "disagreeable" is a very mild word, in the opinion of many people in this country. There is no question about that. Has he said how much time will be allocated to that debate? I suggest he has not. Those who support the government think that because they have the voting power, they will carry the motion for concurrence; and I do not presume for one moment that anything I say will change their minds.
December 12, 1968

If this resolution passes and the report of the committee is accepted I say that the ordinary member of this house will become a puppet, to be moved at the end of a string by the Liberal house leader and, judging from some of their remarks, that is all some Liberal members are capable of being. So I ask, what about minority rights? They simply become non-existent. We have heard a good deal about minority rights, but under this legislation they would go out of existence. So the Liberal house leader can disagree, and his disagreement will have more influence than the other three house leaders combined.
I say that this motion deserves a label. It should be labelled a motion to muzzle parliament, a motion to remove freedom of speech, or a motion to remove the liberty of the subject; because you cannot take away the rights of the people's representatives without taking away the liberty of the people themselves. There is no question about that.
We are told that this is a very mild and inoffensive sort of report. Let us read what some independent people say about it. They are the people I like to consult-people who have no political prejudice. So we will look at the Montreal Gazette of yesterday morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: The article to which I should like to refer is written by Mr. Arthur Blakely, a distinguished journalist and a member of our own press gallery. Let us examine what Mr. Blakely has to say. How does he label the proposal; how does he refer to the motion now before us? I will tell you.


An hon. Member:: We know.


Hugh John Flemming: Whether you listen or not I am going to tell you. He said:
Government and opposition forces clashed head-on in the Commons yesterday over the Trudeau government's demand-
"Demand", Mr. Speaker.
-for unprecedented, omnibus closure powers to control proceedings in the House of Commons.
Hon. members can read that for themselves-unprecedented, never happened before; omnibus, all embracing, closure. That is what it means. They are going to control the members of this house, according to Mr. Blakely.
But that is not the only thing. I have another quotation from the same paper and by the same author:
Unlike his predecessors, the logical Mr. Trudeau has pursued the theory to its logical conclusion by
Motion for Concurrence in Report demanding powers for which none of his predecessors dared ask, which would give the cabinet complete control of parliament and its deliberations and reduce almost to a nullity parliament's traditional but already-tenuous control of the nation's purse strings.
Those are the words of Mr. Blakely as they appear at page 7 of the Gazette for Wednesday, December 11. Let us now refer to an article which hon. members opposite might like a little better because it appears in the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 12, 1968, which newspaper generally speaking has supported this government. I cannot understand why, I will never be able to understand the reason. Let us see the words that appear in this independent opinion:
Nothing is more fundamental to democracy than the belief that society is composed of reasonable men.
Then about half way down the first column the article continues:
We question the strength with which members of the federal Government hold a belief in the reasonableness of their fellow man. House Leader Donald Macdonald, who has been given the job of reforming the procedural rules of the House of Commons, has insisted that proposed reforms include rules that would in effect provide closure in advance of debate.
This is what appears in the Globe and Mail. Then, further down on the page we find this:
They-
"They" meaning the opposition parties.
-will not go along with the government plan that, in cases of disagreement, a cabinet minister may make a motion in the house suggesting a limit and, after a maximum of two hours of debate, the motion be put to a vote.
Can anyone blame us. When there is disagreement and it is not unanimous, then he will come in and move that the question be put, there will be two hours debate, and then away it goes.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Let me quote further:
Considering the Liberal majority, the result would never be in doubt. The government could arbitrarily limit debate before a word was spoken and before the strength of opposing arguments could be heard and assessed throughout the land.
This is closure in advance. We opposed it when former trade and commerce minister C. D. Howe tried to impose it in the pipe line debate of 1956. We oppose it even more strongly now.
I say to the government that it had better recall what happened, because that government was out of office within a year. It did
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report not in my opinion go out of office because of the pipe line; it went out of office because it imposed closure before there was any debate to speak of. That is the reason it went out of office. The article then states:-
The pipe line bill was on the order paper. On May 14, 1956, Mr. Howe closed his introductory speech with the announcement that he would move the following day for closure. He did, the Liberal majority passed the motion and debate on the first stage of the bill was cut off at one o'clock on the morning of May 16. This newspaper condemned the action in words that still apply: "Closure in advance of debate and the silencing of the committee of the whole before its deliberations began are an insulting defiance of every elector who cast a Liberal vote in the late general election."
This applied then and it applies now. The article goes on to say:
"What the country has seen is a dictator's revolution, engineered by one minister, but acquiesced in by all, as no cabinet voice has been raised against it."
Down at the bottom of the editorial we find these words:
What constitutes ample debate cannot in every instance be determined in advance.
Every reasonable man agrees with those words, there is no question about that. The article states:
Those who believe it can, and that they must have the power to determine it, deny the proposition that reasonable men occupy the benches of the opposition.
I submit that reasonable men do occupy the benches of the opposition but, as I said a few minutes ago, I do not expect to convince anyone opposite or the overflow by these remarks. They are supporting the minister and they are going to continue to do so. They have probably-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are discussions taking place which make it very difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is helpful to me as well; but as far as I am concerned, they do not bother me. The Prime Minister and the government hold the house in the palms of their hands. No doubt hon. members have been polled, and very likely they have been told.
Let me refer to Mr. Page, another independent authority on parliamentary procedure, who writes in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. He

has made a study of the subject now before us, and while this is general in its application I think it is important enough to be included as part of my remarks. He says at page 31 of this issue:
Impatient reformers have demanded prompt and extensive changes, but there are good reasons for the slow implementation of procedural reforms. The fundamental problem is to find the correct balance between the time and means needed by the government to carry out its business and the preservation of free, full, and productive debate in the House of Commons.
Everyone knows that is true, and we acknowledge this. There is no difference among us in this regard. On page 32 he goes on to say:
When the government attempts to institute its own rule changes, as it did in May, 1965-
It is doing so today through this motion.
-the opposition feels that its rights are being impeded while the government secures for itself the means of perpetuating its term of office by offering efficient government obtained through muzzling the opposition, thereby destroying parliamentary democracy. The opposition points out that lengthy debates, such as the flag or the Canada Pension debates, produced valuable compromises in the legislation which would not have been implemented if the government had tyrannical powers. The opposition naturally holds that any rule change might allow the government to conceal faulty legislation or shoddy administration and hinder the opposition's scrutiny.
There is no question about that. He likewise says at page 33:
The object of reforms must be carefully evaluated before speedy means are used to alter the principal functions of parliament, an action which would make it a truncated and perfunctory part of our governmental system. The problems of or obstacles to procedural reform are surmountable and parliamentarians are convinced of the usefulness of proposed changes.
These are the opinions of a man who has made a study of our parliamentary system here in Ottawa. While they are moderate in tone, I consider that a deep-rooted consideration would force the chairman of the committee to ask that this be referred back to the committee. There should be no question about that.
I think we should ask ourselves these questions. Why does the government ask for such powers, and what is behind this? We have had brilliant addresses during this debate, including the brilliant address of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the brilliant address of my leader, the brilliant address by the hon. member for York South, and brilliant addresses today. I am not referring to my own.
December 12, 1S68	COMMONS
Yesterday when the hon. member for York South referred to this matter he expressed the opinion that when power is sought it will be used. The use of this power would make the Liberal house leader a virtual dictator. It gives him complete power over this par Lament.
We must examine the question as to what type of things the government wants to introduce, and whether they are in the interests of the country or are desirable. We must consider whether they will improve parliamentary procedure. When they do, we have no objections, but these are the things that the committee on procedure intends to determine by consultation. The proposed amendment would indicate that we are for improvement, but what about those things that might not be improvements but are sought by the government? What about those things that are bad? What about those things that might even be interpreted as being evil?
Does this parliament not want protection? I am not referring particularly to this government, but to any government that may be in office. Should one surrender the protection which we have at the present time and give an absolute veto power to the leader of any administration? If that is the wish, then undoubtedly this motion will pass. If it is not, the amendment will be passed and the motion will be lost.
I submit to you in all seriousness and with all the conviction with which I am capable that we cannot afford to take a chance. I have listened many times to the government house leader since I have been here in the house. He is a good interrupter and he is quite well suited for the vocal cut and thrust and retaliation of House of Commons debate.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Personally I consider that he is all right, but as I watch him operate and see him in action I am convinced that his devotion to partisan advantage is so great that I am reminded of the words of Shakespeare in the play "Julius Casear". When Julius Caesar asked for almost unlimited power he was told, by a character in the play, in the words put into his mouth by the bard of Avon:
How oft the power to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done.
Possibly ill deeds will not follow the passing of this report of the committee but, as I said, we cannot afford to take the chance.
In all seriousness I put to the government house leader the following question: Does he 29180-246
DEBATES	3887
Motion for Concurrence in Report want to take responsibility for automatic closure in the absence of unanimous consent from the proceedings committee, without having his colleagues share it with him? Does he wish to go down in history as the lord high executioner who was responsible for the death of parliament? That is a good question for him to answer. I do not think he does. Let us take an example. What would the government house leader have done in the following instance when a few days ago a committee report came to this house with a motion which took place completely ignored? Subsequently, a motion was made on a question of privilege to refer it to a second committee and you, sir, saved the day by ruling it in order, so that now it is before a committee. What would the government house leader have done that day, had he been in complete control? This is a good question for him to answer, but not now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He said the proceedings were illegal.


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder what would have happened if he had been inclined to disagree. I am sure the government house leader will understand those of us who, looking back three centuries, realize how right Shakespeare, that great judge of human nature was when he said those wise words which I quoted a moment ago. The house cannot afford to take that chance.
Now I wish to deal with the question of estimates. There has been much talk about parliament being an old fuddy-duddy institution. I do not agree with such a contention. First, the government brings in the speech from the throne their program, in general terms, of the things which they think they want to accomplish in the interests of the people. A debate follows, in which everyone in the house has a chance to take part and to make suggestions to the government of the day on things they think have to be added, or things with which they disagree. Then the government introduces the budget, which indicates to parliament how they are going to raise the money and in what places and on what things they are going to spend it. Subsequent to that we have a budget debate, and then we have the detailed resolutions.
Although I do not oppose the general idea of sending estimates to a committee because, in my opinion the purpose in doing so is so that the committee may examine the deputy ministers, the departmental officials and even the public, from whom they get certain ideas
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report of what is best for the public good, it is my opinion that the committee room is not the proper place for a public debate. The chamber does not lend itself to public debate, and so when the suggestion is made that one-third of the estimates or even a smaller percentage of them come back to the house to be debated here-those estimates to be chosen by the opposition

for a period to be agreed upon among the leaders, we think it is vital that it be accepted. The power to tax has been one of the prerogatives that the people's representatives have fought and died for, and the imposition of undue burdens of taxation upon people has resulted in some monarchs losing their heads. Yet we are going to do away with it, as though it amounted to nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Even in the United States Congress, where it is said the committees have more power than our committees have, estimates must come back to Congress for final approval. It is the taxpayers, those who are really responsible for finding the money, who are the important people.
I suggest that there is a remote likelihood that our suggestion will be re-examined by the government. However, they should concede that this is a point with which surely no government can disagree, when the members of this assembly ask that they be allowed a final look at the estimates of a limited number of departments, possibly over a limited amount of time.
I have practically exhausted all the points I wished to make. However I wish to go back to what I said in the preamble of my remarks, that I do not think the motion to adopt all the committee's recommendations in one vote, holus-bolus, take it all and swallow it, is proper or right. In fact I think it is premature. We have not yet tried a partial change. Everyone agrees that we want to do things a little differently, but we cannot afford to give up those rights which have come down to us through the years, rights for which people have fought and died.
Many people within sound of my voice in this chamber have fought in foreign wars to preserve the freedom of the individual. I repeat that in my opinion this is the most important step. I do not think that the government is giving it proper consideration and I do not think that the members of the house have considered it sufficiently. I think the government is going too far, all in one jump. This is too much. The government in my


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: May I begin my participation in this debate, Mr. Speaker, by saying what an honour it was for me, as a new member in this chamber, to be appointed to this special committee dealing with and recommending changes in the procedures of this house. It is perhaps significant that in one sense I, alone, represented the new members. I say that advisedly, because although I was joined as a new member of that committee by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), we all know that his vast experience in the workings of the committees of this house during the years that he practised law in the city of Ottawa make it difficult to regard him as a new member in this chamber. Certainly the manner in which he chaired that committee and carried out these difficult duties confirmed that opinion, I am sure, in the minds of all members of that committee. I was honoured especially, Mr. Speaker, when I saw the membership which made up that committee, from both sides of the house. The members who were assigned, by my own party as well as by opposition parties, and who participated so vigorously in the proceedings of the committee, in my opinion, indeed made an impressive list.
Conscious as I am of the honour that was bestowed upon me of being a member of that committee, I am equally conscious of the duty which was imposed on me of examining most thoroughly the purposes of this parliament and of its traditions, in order that I may pay proper respect to all these procedures which have served this parliament in a proper fashion. At the same time I felt I had a very important and serious duty to examine critically all of these procedures, all of the traditions and institutions that go with them, with a willingness and even a desire to disregard or dispose of those which had ceased to be functional; to replace them with new and more meaningful procedures which would better serve the members of this house in the conduct of their business and the deliberations in this chamber.
December 12. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
During the debate on this report I have found some confusing references, Mr. Speaker, by those illustrious members of the opposition benches who participated in the debate. I hope to make reference to them later in my remarks. Nevertheless may I say that my confusion grew as I listened to the remarks of the last speaker for the opposition, and placed them against the background of some of the records I have had occasion to examine during his tenure of office as premier of New Brunswick. In that context I should like to refer to a statement that appears in the Synoptic Report of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, page 620, volume 1, where the Hon. Mr. Flemming is reported as saying:
Once again the time of this legislative assembly is being taken up with a third attempt to express non-confidence in the government and, in fact, to endeavour to usurp the functions of the government through action of this kind.
On two previous occasions, I have expressed the government's views on the matter and the reasons why I have opposed previous motions for leave. The position has not changed at all in this connection.
On September 22, 1952 and again on June 18, 1956, the government was clothed with the necessary responsibility and authority to introduce legislation and to guide it through the necessary legislative changes thereafter.
Such responsibility and authority was not given to any other party and political group so that the attempt to usurp and assume the functions of the government in this connection is plainly in defiance of the popular mandate and of what is understood as constituting responsible government.
Again, I should like to quote from volume 2, page 703, where the same hon. member is reported as saying:
That's right, we are not ruled by the minority.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that a new member coming into this chamber faces his duties with some sense of confusion about the attitudes expressed by hon. members opposite? I should like to cite another example, that of the leader of our party, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Reference has been made from the opposition benches to statements of his at a time when, it has been said correctly, he was not a supporter of this party. I hold him up as an example of the kind of thing honourable Canadian citizens should do when they feel, as I am sure he does, that if one is to contribute meaningfully to the deliberations of this chamber, then one does not stand aside and criticize it from the outside. The thing to do is to come here and make a contribution to its improvement, to its change, so that it can become and continue to 29180-2461
Motion for Concurrence in Report be a powerful force in the government of this country, as it must be if it is to survive.
The challenge to democracy, and to all these institutions at the present time, is the same challenge that is facing many of our institutions in this day and age. It has been seen so graphically that the church in today's society is facing a desperate challenge because it has seemed to fall out of touch with the needs of the people. One sees the church scrambling, trying to catch up. The university students are a group who, in their endeavours at college, might from time to time get carried away with their celebrations and their hazings. What do we find today in their attitudes toward these institutions? There is disrespect for the failure of these institutions to keep pace with the growing needs of young people in our country.
I say that this institution of parliament is not exempt from that kind of attitude on the part of the young people of our country. If we do not change our ways and expedite our procedures in this chamber in order to keep pace with the needs of the youth of our country then we, too, are going to fail into disrespect, to merit their distrust, and this institution will suffer interminably for that. What particularly surprised me was the constant reference, and perhaps it is a good example, to the parliament of the United Kingdom. It seems that the general trend amongst members on both sides of the house is to accept the mother of parliaments as an example. Is it not surprising, when one examines the facts, to find that not one but at least five different methods of closure lie in the hands of the government of the United Kingdom? All of them are invoked on a regular basis. Is it not surprising to find that debates in the United Kingdom parliament are almost invariably of one day's duration, on some occasions two and on rare occasions three? Is it not interesting also to find that private members hour has been lost entirely in that parliament, because of the increasing work load? Is it not surprising also to find the practice of using ministerial orders as appendages to legislation which give the cabinet unbridled power? These annexations to legislation or corollaries to legislation are increasingly used without intervention of parliament, simply because the work load of this parliament has become so great.
If this chamber is not prepared to face its responsibility, and in fact to program its legislation at this time, then in the same manner the privileges of the members on all sides of the house are going to be eroded. They will
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report have to give way to the increasing work load until they disappear and lose their relevance altogether. In the light of this background, how should we move to improve our procedures? Really, there are only two areas of disagreement. The committee has worked long and hard. It has made good use of the precedents and practices in other parliaments. It has presented a report to this house, which report we are debating today. Most of the recommendations are acceptable, but there are two areas of controversy, namely the additional responsibilities being given to standing committees, and the programming of legislation in the house.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Dealing firstly with the question of standing committees, it seems to me that hon. members opposite are missing the point. They are complaining, for example, that by referring the estimates of the departments to the standing committees the government is attempting to take away from this chamber the responsibility and power it now has in the spending of the nation's money. What is really so startling about this claim is that they miss entirely the relocation of time that is involved, this new relationship between the studying of the estimates and their timing.
As it is now, I am sure all hon. members will agree that whatever study of the estimates is done in this chamber-and, as has been said before, there is a tendency to make speeches here rather than to study estimates-this study is always done ex post facto. The money is not only budgeted for but in most cases the estimates are considered in this house long after the fact.
An important thing to consider in referring these estimates to the standing committees under the proposed rules changes is that members not only have an opportunity in the committees to get a close observation and examination of the estimates, but they can do this at a time when it is meaningful. This is the point that seems to be entirely missed by hon. members opposite.
Neither can I understand their complaint that there is any loss of the power of this chamber. Under the proposed amendments to the rules the opposition is given an allotted number of days, any of which it can, upon the return of these estimates from the standing committees, set aside to examine the estimates in this chamber if it so desires. One must also point out that those 25 allotted days, plus three reserved for the examination of the final supplementary estimates-making


28 days in all-can be augmented further by the use of any of the eight days that are allotted to the throne speech debate, or any of the six days that are allotted to the budget- making in all a further 14 days-that are not used up for those purposes.
On all of these days the opposition can completely control the subject matter of debate in this house. So there is no substantial diminution of the days they are allotted under the supply procedure at the present time. Therefore the opposition loses no power or opportunity to insist that this chamber examine estimates in detail. Moreover, when the estimates are considered in the chamber, they will first have been attacked in a standing committee.
So it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the opportunity of the opposition to examine estimates in detail in the standing committees is provided, plus the opportunity, if they so desire, to bring the estimates back to the house in order to focus the attention of the chamber upon them. Now, then, can the opposition complain that this chamber is being deprived of the power that it should possess in respect to the expenditures of the nation?
The most interesting area of all has become that of programming. It seems to me that there are certain basic points involved here. In the first place, it is obvious to me as a new member that reforms of this sort toward programming are necessary. I do not have to turn to the traditions of parliament, or to the examples of other legislative assemblies throughout the world, to support that statement. I go no further back than September and October of this year, when we sat around here for three weeks listening to a small number of opposition members speaking time and time again on the same subject of farm legislation. I understand from actual count that one opposition member spoke no less than 12 times in a repetitive fashion on that very subject. Not only did these members individually repeat their own remarks and suggestions to the government every time they spoke, but one member after the other stood in his place to repeat what others had said. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be suggested, even taking into account my unpractised eye, that quality of debate improves in proportion to its length.
I was astounded to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) actually make reference to the length of the flag debate in supporting his proposition that debate in this house should be unbridled, because, as we all
December 12, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	3891
know, that is a far, far cry from the position that he took during the currency of that very debate. As a new member I am not afraid to say that the length of time spent in this house on the farm legislation was absolutely disproportionate to its importance; to its importance, that is, in relation to other matters of legislation that are waiting to get the attention of this chamber.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary that our procedures change. Not only is it necessary, but apparently in the minds of opposition members it is highly desirable. Certainly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stood on his feet to say that he has been a proponent of this programming idea for years, and in fact has called it "calendarizing" the parliamentary year.
Although it is necessary and desirable to change, the point that seems to be missed is that it is the responsibility of the government to take this step. If there is any doubt about this, then would hon. members opposite answer me this: When they go home for the Christmas vacation and are asked, by chance, why this house did not get around to considering, for example, the drug bill, is it possible that they might say to some of their constituents: "Well, you must understand that it is the opposition benches that control length of debate, so it is really not fair to blame the government for its lack of programming in bringing that legislation forward, because we in the opposition prolonged the debate on the farm legislation to the extent that the government did not have the chance"? If they do so, then I accede to their view that responsibility should rest on that side of the house in the matter of controlling time. But it is a false premise to believe that supporters of the opposition will be as generous as I have suggested. What they will do is blame the government for not knowing how to program their legislation. They will claim the government is disorganized and cannot bring forward important legislation; that the government does not know how to plan its affairs.
The government is visited with this awesome responsibility. If it does not take the action suggested in this report, there may not be a parliament left when next we seek to elect a new government. This government is considered by all Canadian voters to have the responsibility of taking this step, and the government is taking this perfectly correct step in moving directly and vigorously, and in a meaningful way, into the area of programming.
Motion for Concurrence in Report
Too often we have seen reforms that are obsolete by the time they are introduced. Too often have we seen changes that are away behind the fact and the need. These proposals, as I see them, are not. They constitute a very meaningful and direct step, what I consider to be a courageous step taken by the government, one that I have absolutely no hesitation in transmitting to my constituents as an intention to stop pussy-footing around with the question of programming, and to deal with it in a logical and sensible way.
Given those facts, if you will, what, then, are the true logistics? Let us stop reducing this thing to ridicule, to one of one-man meetings. What are the logistics of setting up a programming committee? The very first consideration that comes to my mind is that in setting up a programming committee the government immediately sacrifices its majority position in the house, if its meetings are to be attended only by the house leaders. If there is anything more fundamental to our parliamentary system than that the government should enjoy a majority in the house at every point in its deliberations, then I do not know what it is. If the government sets up a business committee, which all members agree is a good idea, it will have only 25 per cent of the representation on that committee.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
When one moves on from there to examine what must be done in the light of that consideration to resolve the difficulty that arises when that committee cannot agree or come to a unanimous decision, he must bear this representation factor in mind. If, as has been stated I believe, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the decisions of that committee are reached by a majority of the four house leaders, then what in fact has taken place is that the government has now completely transferred to the opposition control over the time of the house. It has taken a position as one member of a committee of four, and consequently surrendered itself. If the majority of three opposition members say, "That is the way we will program the legislation," that is an abdication of the government's responsibility, an absolute folly. In any event, in any committee such as this you will ultimately bump up against the government's majority. If someone says, "Well, put more members on it," the only logical extension would be that the committee will become representative of the position of the parties of the house, and again you will run up against the government majority. Of course you do;
December 12, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report there is no way around it. I challenge any hon. members of the house to set up some committee like that to program the time of the house that does not ultimately bump up against the government majority. That is fundamental to the operation of this house. The choice is between continuing with the present chaos and getting into the question of programming, and leaving the resolution of disagreement in the committee, by making the committee bigger with a majority of government members, will not be more palatable to hon. members of the opposition.
It has been suggested ad nauseam that the good will of hon. members will resolve this crisis, and about that I want to make several observations. It has been said that the government does not need these residual powers, because the great likelihood is that in a very high percentage of cases the house leaders will agree among themselves. That may be the case. Certainly if the committee had been operating when the farm legislation was before the house, if the new rules had been operating, no matter whether some backbenchers liked the idea or not, that legislation would have been concluded by quick agreement on a much earlier date than it did. However let us examine the proposition that the government does not need this residual power, because the deliberations of the committee very likely will conclude on the basis of agreement. After all, we are only trying to allot time for the debating of subject matters we are all interested in, as citizens of the country. Either that proposition is true or it is not. If it is not, the argument is self-defeating; if it is true, then the government has that residual power to solve any disagreement. That residual power is so minor and will be so rarely exercised that I do not see why we need worry about it.
The second point about the good will argument is that it is said that the discussions and deliberations of this committee will be destroyed, so to speak, if the government holds a stick over its meetings and has the ultimate power. The suggestion is that if everything is left on the basis of consent, agreement and good will, everyone will go to the committee and discuss. I submit that a much more reasonable proposition is that unless the government holds the residual power to resolve any crisis, unless it holds the residual power which will avoid a boycott-and that has happened in fairly recent memory-then the deliberations of the committee will not be meaningful. If the government does not hold that residual power it will in fact get itself


into a situation where the tail will wag the dog. Finally, the one thing that seems to be absent from all opposition suggestions on the subject of good will is that good will does reside on the government side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You said it.


James Alexander Jerome: In any event there seems to be no recognition that this government is interested in incurring the good will of this chamber and in maintaining a good relationship with the voters of this country. There seems to be some suggestion that, because the government is to retain a residual power in resolving conflicts within the business committee, therefore it will be like a ramrod in this chamber, or like a dictator. Some think that it will come to this chamber every Thursday afternoon with a bundle of orders saying, "Ho, hum, here is another Thursday afternoon; get ready for some more government legislation to be shoved down your throat." How long do hon. members think that any government adopting that ridiculous position would last?


An hon. Member:: Four years.


James Alexander Jerome: One can see that the true rationale of proposed standing order 16A is simply an emergency power to resolve any conflict within the business committee. It can only be invoked when the members of that committee either refuse to attend it or refuse to deliberate on the allotment of time of the house. If that is the case, despite what the hon. member for Peace River has said, what is so alarming about this suggestion? There has been a suggestion that the government can always invoke standing order 33 and bring on closure.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what they do in England.


James Alexander Jerome: Yes. And what will happen if the government decides to use standing order 33? Without doubt the opposition, in a state of apopleptic horror, will go running to the television announcers outside in the lobby and say, "They have done it again." Certainly, it is easy to say, "Wait until you get yourself in a jam, and then try to get out of it." That is not programming. That is a rescue operation and the government wants no part of it.


Hugh John Flemming: They will want it and need it.
December 12, 1968	COMMONS


James Alexander Jerome: I have attempted to say some of the things I felt it my duty to say and to examine some of the things that need examining. They say there is a generation gap in this country. I say that it is not with hon. members who are my contemporaries and of my generation that the difficulty lies. If one goes back in time a short distance only, he will see that many young people are coming forward; they are only five or ten years behind us. When one talks to them about this institution and about institutions in this country in general he does not find great respect for those institutions. I came to this chamber because I believe this parliament has to survive; it therefore must improve and expedite its procedures to get on with the business of the nation. If I had not believed that I would not be here, and I am sure that many hon. members of this house have come here because they have concluded that reforms must be undertaken. But, Mr. Speaker, they must be undertaken in a meaningful way.
I have concluded that parliament is dedicated to discussion, yes. But parliament is not an insular ivory tower, a private club where members sit around as in a debating society and discuss things at the expense of the needs of this nation. This parliament serves not only its members; it serves the people. If it fails to serve the needs of this nation it will disappear, because there are other forms of government that can replace it. I say therefore that this government and this parliament have a responsibility to introduce legislative programs adequate to meet the needs of the nation. The government has the right to expect that program to be considered. The opposition has the right to examine and criticize that program and expose its faults to the nation; it has the right to amend it where possible and, in any case, to vote for or against it as it sees fit.
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that in my humble opinion these reforms are only a beginning. They are not drastic; these are not terminal changes. These are beginnings, because there are other areas of major significance that will have to be changed. Certain parts of our procedure are difficult for new members to understand. For instance, it is difficult to understand why certain matters have to be talked out on a daily basis. Some things this nation will not tolerate any longer, and there are more reforms that will have to be brought up. I am therefore very encouraged that the establishment of a standing committee has been suggested.
DEBATES	3893
Motion for Concurrence in Report
I feel that the changes which are proposed at the present time are a significant first step in the direction of improvement and expedition. They will give not only new members but all members a meaningful opportunity to attend standing committees and deliberate on the legislation that has been presented before us in this chamber. We shall be able to program our legislation through the calendar year, therefore do much more work during the parliamentary year and master the terminal point of our legislative program.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I believe these changes are directed to that end. I trust they represent only a beginning and that a standing committee will continue to recommend such changes. This is the only way in which we can maintain the vigil necessary to ensure that parliament becomes a more effective place; it is the only way in which we can rest assured that this institution will survive as the guardian of our democratic liberties.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit a question? He suggested that in the United Kingdom they no longer set aside an hour for private members discussions. Will he not admit that in Britain there are almost 24 full days appointed by the House of Commons for the debate of private members bills and resolutions, and that in the United Kingdom the government has the courage to let these bills and motions go into effect?


James Alexander Jerome: I do not think I should be called upon to comment on the courage of the British government. The only thing I can say is that the source of my quotations was a book recommended to all new members by no less a personage than the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I referred to Lord Hailsham's view of the purposes of parliament, and the alarm he expressed there about the absence of opportunities given to private members. I may have drawn an incorrect inference from that as to the opportunity available for private members to introduce legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Twenty four days.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the hon. member permit a further question? He has spoken glibly about programming. Suppose a minister came before the house in connection with a measure affecting, say, 10,000 people employed by the International Nickel Company, and the program called for a debate lasting one day. If time did not permit the hon. member as a
December 12, 1988

Motion for Concurrence in Report backbencher to speak on their behalf, would he still be in favour of programming?


James Alexander Jerome: In the first place, that is a hypothetical question. In the second place I would have to say that as a member representing the constituency which houses the International Nickel Company I would be not only surprised but somewhat ashamed if my party did not feel I was worthy to participate, at least to a certain extent, in the procedure.


Mr. Simpson:: I hope the hon. member who has just resumed his seat does not consider himself to be the only member representing a constituency which houses International Nickel. I should like him to know there is quite a large development in my own constituency.


John Stratford Burton: unreasonable, I am sure there are many people in this country who would be interested to hear them say so.
Then we have the prairie grain advance payments bill. The resolution stage took one day. Of course it should be noted that this afforded members an opportunity to discuss many aspects of problems facing the grain industry in western Canada. Then another half day was consumed during the second reading, committee and third reading stage in respect of this bill. This is a total of one and a half days for the prairie grain advance payments bill, or a total of ten days for all these pieces of farm legislation.
Then there was the debate on the post office bill, the other piece of legislation which required lengthy discussion. I wonder whether hon. members on the opposite side of the house will suggest that the debate on that particular bill should have been curtailed. One day was consumed on the resolution stage. On second reading there was a lengthy debate; there is no question about that. Three and a half days were consumed on the second reading stage. On the committee stage we had another day. Then the third reading consumed about 20 minutes. This is a total of five and a half days.
These were the most controversial pieces of government legislation discussed to date, during the current session. Admittedly the debate did take a considerable amount of time, but I would be interested to know whether members on the other side of the house would suggest that, in fact, discussion on these bills should have been curtailed. It is true that there was some duplication of discussion at the resolution and second reading stages of the bills. This is one thing which is suggested in the rules with which we wholeheartedly agree, namely the cutting out of the resolution stage of bills. This will in effect cut out some time.
In addition to these pieces of legislation there have been another five bills which have passed through all stages of discussion in the house. First of all, there was the publication of statutes bill. All stages in respect of this bill were completed in 40 minutes. Then there was the C.N.R. branch line construction bill. The resolution stage took half an hour. The second reading and committee stage took one and a quarter hours. The third reading stage took half an hour. This, in terms of time, represents three quarters of a day. The resolution stage of the bill to amend the Judges Act took one hour. The second reading, committee, and third reading stages took one day, 29180-247 h
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for a total of one and a quarter days. The next is the C.N.R. capital financing bill, the second reading and committee stages of which took one day. The third reading stage consumed one and a half days, making a total of two and a half days. The resolution stage on the Customs Tariff bill consumed one day and the second reading, committee and third reading stages consumed three fifths of a day. This is a total of one and three fifths days.
The debate on the farm legislation consumed ten days, the debate on the post office bill consumed five and a half days and the five other bills were disposed of in a little more than six days of the time of the house that was available to the government. This is a total of something over 21J days. However, in the time since the opening of this session other items of government business have been considered as well. The resolution stage has been completed on the official languages bill. The minister has made part of his speech on the amendments to the Patent Act, the Trademarks Act and the Food and Drug Act. Ail these items consumed one day. The discussion on the I.M.F. special drawing rights resolution was completed in just under two hours. Some ten minutes has been spent on the resolution concerning the fresh water fish marketing board. The farm machinery syndicates credit bill has passed through the resolution stage, in spite of some handicaps involving procedure.
When one considers that this is a new parliament and considers also the many problems relating to the Prime Minister's decision to recommend dissolution of parliament last spring, and the inexperience of some of the new ministers in this parliament, it would appear that parliament has completed a considerable amount of business.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might at this stage call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the house on the orders of the day recently concerning the ten L-1011 jets which Air Canada had ordered from the Lockheed Company.
December 12, 1968
3898	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Since my question was ruled out of order,
I asked that it be discussed at ten o'clock, to find out whether Canada intended to ask this company to make parts for jet planes in this country, in order to provide jobs for Canadians and participate in regional development program so as to abolish regional disparities.
Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has ordered ten L-1011 jets which are to be manufactured by the Lockheed Company at a cost, apparently, of $175 million. The first six jets are to be delivered in 1972; three more will be ready by 1973 and the last one in 1976.
Air Canada has already ordered these 270-passenger planes, after spending nine months appraising the advantages of these aircraft and other similar models.
This giant aircraft, Mr. Speaker-for the information of hon. members who are not familiar with the statistics-has a cruising speed of 565 miles per hour, which is 15 miles faster than the DC-8 and DC-9 aircraft now used by Air Canada. The engines are made by Rolls-Royce and have a thrust of 40,600 pounds; they are therefore twice as powerful as the most powerful engine of the DC-8. Those planes will be used exclusively for domestic flights in North America.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the contract given by Air Canada, Canadians, naturally- and here I speak for them before parliament -hope to be able to participate actively and intensely in the manufacturing of at least part of those aircraft, for instance, certain parts, as I suggested.
It may be an excellent thing to grant contracts to competent companies which are known for doing a good job but, to my mind, we must nor forget also that Canadians need employment, that they face huge and complex economic problems. In this regard, we do not know what to think because no statement has been made since the news of the contract came out. All Canadians are waiting to find out whether they can find there a source of employment.
This then was the purpose of my remarks this evening. I should like to get a reply to this question: With a view to encouraging decentralizing programs, with which it dins our ears every week, will the government sign agreements with the Lockheed company to give work to Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I would like the spokesman for the Department of Transport to tell us-


I repeat to make myself clear-whether negotiations are now under way between the government, through Air Canada, and the Lockheed company, to arrange for the manufacture of at least certains parts in Canada to encourage and support Canadian labour.
Moreover, as I said before, the engines in these aircraft being Rolls-Royce engines, and as this English firms has a subsidiary in Canada, it therefore does not seem impossible that this new contract could give work to a good number of Canadians without interfering with the contract, since a number of those aircraft are already made in Canada; this is not something to be scorned in these days of unemployment, insecurity and regional disparity.
Mr. Speaker, I feel my proposal is quite acceptable. It surely calls for a positive reply on the part of the government, in order to reassure Canadians who are asking themselves a lot of serious questions in this regard.
I do not wish to take any more of the time of the house; the main purpose of my intervention being a specific reply. I trust the reply of the government will be as favourable.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can cheer up my hon. friend as far as the purchases of the Lockheed company in Canada are concerned. That company has already placed orders in the past in Canada, it is doing so at the present time and it will do so in the future.
Of course, at the present time, these orders concern the 1011 jet recently purchased by Air Canada and an American military transport aircraft called the C5A.
As far as the 1011 jet is concerned, we expect that the contracts already signed and those being negotiated will bring to the Canadian subcontractors, while the program lasts, a sum of about $300 million. My department is now trying to increase that amount.
As far as the C5A is concerned, $150 million have already been spent on it and that amount will probably be doubled during the construction program of that aircraft.
My hon. friend might be interested to know the names of the Canadian subcontractors. They are: Northwest Industries, Edmonton; Fleet Aircraft, Fort Erie; Bristol Aerospace, Winnipeg; Canadair, Montreal; United Aircraft of Canada, Montreal; Canadian Aviation Electronics, Montreal; Abex Industries, Montreal. Other companies around Toronto
December 12, 1968

and Hamilton in particular also have smaller contracts.
Like the hon. member I am sorry that more of those contracts are not awarded in the eastern townships. It is too bad for the eastern townships but what makes the eastern townships unhappy makes Montreal happy. That is one of those things that cannot be changed very easily.
Furthermore, at the end of February, a conference of tenderers will be called in Toronto, and another one in Montreal. The Lockheed company will, of course, take advantage of this opportunity to brief the Canadian industrialists, and it is possible that other opportunities will be offered to Canadian subcontractors.
This is roughly the situation and I think that it will, at least, moderately cheer up my hon. friend.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT PROTECTION BE INCLUDED IN CRIMINAL CODE

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Minister of Justice the following question:
In view of the fact that the housewives' charter to protect the consumer has now become part of Britain's criminal code, will the minister introduce similar legislation or consider such action in connection with his new omnibus bill to amend the Canadian Criminal Code?
The minister replied that he would certainly want to talk that over with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I hope he has done so.
The speeches of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are studded with declarations that the consumer has the right to be protected from fraud, deception, misleading advertising and other unscrupulous malpractices. Surely the time has come to legislate firmly, clearly and unmistakably against this sort of thing. We need teeth in the Criminal Code to protect the consumer. If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is to live up to the first half of his title, that is, if he is to be the watchdog for the consumer, he will have to be given the necessary legal teeth.
In Britain they have taken a long step forward in the direction of protecting the consumer from fraud. The housewives' charter, which became part of Britain's criminal code last month, deals with business ethics. A board of trade spokesman describes it as a law vitally important to the whole community. It is designed to give safeguards to everyone who buys goods and services. It requires
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion merchants, when describing their goods, to tell it as it is. Details such as size, manufacture and performance must be given correctly. The same thing applies to certain statements describing services.
For the first time the law extends not only to written but also to oral descriptions. The law requires local weights and measures authorities to enforce it. The housewives' charter, technically known as the trade descriptions act, 1968, has been in the making for several years. At the time of its introduction into the British parliament in the spring of 1966 one British newspaper commented:
Publicity about the penalties may have the deterrent effect which is needed, without the prospect opening up of butchers or bakers or candlestick makers, being prosecuted by the dozen.
The strict provisions of the new law are clearly designed to curb the malpractices of a few businessmen and their employees in the hope that this protection for the consumer will build up his and her trust in the marketplace.
If we had such legislation in Canada there would be means of inquiring into and dealing with advertising which is mailed wholesale to customers, such as that which I drew to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs recently. It begins:
You have already won a great art treasure! Congratulations! You have already won ... an oil painting by Renoir! or an etching by Rembrandt! or a woodcut by Holbein! or a lithograph by Chagall! or a silk-screen by Warhol! or a lithograph by Picasso! or, at the very least, you have certainly won a full colour reproduction of a Gainsborough!
All of which, and much more, is designed to sell an encyclopaedia. What is sold in the process is an unprotected public.
This type of promotion demands the closest scrutiny by public authorities. It is misleading for the very reason that it is so well written. Thousands of Canadians are led to believe that they are already well on their way to possessing a priceless art treasure. Only the fine print indicates that this so-called contest is open to residents of the United States as well, that it is void where prohibited by federal, state, provincial or local laws or regulations, and that there is only one prize per family.
The letter authenticating the top prize-the Renoir-was sent by an American appraiser to an American publishing firm over 18 months ago. Who is to say that this contest was not available to residents of the United States much earlier than to residents of Canada? Who is to say that any Canadian has a
December 12, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion chance for more than the booby prize-the coloured reproduction of the Gainsborough, costing a few cents? This whole matter bristles with questions demanding answers that can be given only after proper investigation. The public has a right to be protected from misleading advertising.
The fact that this particular advertising emanated from Maclean's in Toronto led me to believe that the publishers of that well known magazine were responsible, although the two addresses were different. Further investigation indicates that the two Maclean's inhabit a single building on the corner of University and Dundas streets in Toronto, hence the two addresses. It would appear that this is one of those perfect marriages where the two have become a single whole. In any event, the evidence available leads one to that conclusion.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
All of this, Mr. Speaker, points up the need in Canada for legislation to protect the consumer from misleading advertising and other malpractices of the marketplace. I urge upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or for that matter the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Basford), the need for a housewives' charter as part of Canada's Criminal Code.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that in Britain they now have what they call a shoppers' charter in the form of the British Trade Description Act, 1968. I am pleased that the British have this. I do not want to disappoint the hon. lady, but my officials have examined it and have advised me that most of the provisions of the shoppers' charter in Britain are already contained in the laws of Canada, principally in section 33(c) of the Combines Investigation Act and section 306 of the Criminal Code. As the hon. lady knows, the latter is to be transferred from the Criminal Code to the Combines Investigation Act so that I can have direct administrative responsibility for it. If we were to pass the motion now before the house, dealing with procedural reform, we could undoubtedly get to that more quickly than we will be able to do now. There is protection also in many of the provincial consumer protection acts, as well as the sale of goods acts. The point I am making is that much of what the British have done, we have already done in Canada or have under active consideration.

We have already examined the British charter. I have a special assistant on my staff in charge of consumer affairs who will be spending three days in London in the early part of January examining this and other consumer programs in Britain, and judging their suitability to Canadian conditions. I should like also to make the point to the hon. member that at the first meeting of the consumer council which I appointed in November and which met on Monday, I said to the council:
It seems to me that it would be useful to have before the public, before industry, before consumer groups, and before government, a declaration of consumer rights, and I would hope your council would endeavour to draw up such a declaration. Such a declaration should attempt to set out those consumer rights that will ensure that the consumer benefits from our competitive economic system. It could serve as a guide for the conduct of further debate on consumer affairs... It would clarify for all sectors of our economy precisely what the consumer demands of his economy and his society.
So, I think in asking the consumer council to prepare a declaration or charter of consumer rights, undoubtedly I have been a step ahead of what the hon. lady is urging. I feel, with all due respect to the British, that in terms of consumer affairs Canada is where the action is. We have established a department; the provinces are all establishing departments or bureaus. My own department is shortly introducing a hazardous products act which will go much further than anything contained in the shoppers' charter in England. I shall be announcing in a short while a prices and income policy to benefit the consumer. I will be announcing a textile and fibre content care label program. Already before the house is the drug legislation to deal with drug prices. Again, if we improve the procedures of the house, we will be able to deal with the drug legislation much more quickly and get the prices of drugs in Canada down. We have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: My point is that it is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My point is that the hon. member's time has expired.



UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS-REPORTED SIGHTINGS OVER SIOUX LOOKOUT, ONTARIO

Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on December 4,	1968, I
addressed a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) concerning
December 12, 1968

the alleged sighting of unidentified flying objects over the town of Sioux Lookout, Ontario. I did this deliberately because the Department of National Defence maintains a very thorough, and I would probably say expensive, radar detection establishment at Sioux Lookout. I also thought this would be an opportunity for the Department of National Defence to shed some light on this phenomenon of unidentified flying objects.
If I were a pilot of one of these U.F.O.'s I am certain that I could think of no better place to land and examine planet Earth than Sioux Lookout, Ontario, the people of which have a tremendous capacity for offering hospitality that is exceeded only by their ability to out-enjoy visitors.
In a more serious vein, there have been a number of sightings located in the general area of northwestern Ontario. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will recall an instance where the hon. member for Selkirk brought to the attention of the house the rather spectacular experiences of people in the Falcon lake area. However, no satisfaction was ever given the hon. member, and if the government has any information at all about these matters I think it should be made available to the public. There is, as hon. members know, a great deal of curiosity about this subject.
Shortly after my last visit to Sioux Lookout I was told by telephone, and in person, that there had been a large number of sightings there. An article appeared in the town's paper, the Daily Bulletin, which I should like to quote to bear out my claim that there have been extensive sightings in this area. This is the November 29 edition of the paper, and the article reads as follows:
For the last two evenings several people in town have sighted an unidentified flying object over Pelican lake.
Last night's sighting was observed by quite a few people outside Jim's Coffee Bar on Front street at about 6.00 p.m. The only information we could gather from observers was that it "was a big light in the sky, which kept changing in colour". No idea as to its shape or manoeuvreability was given. About a month ago, at least five people saw an U.F.O. Four on a return trip from Dryden spotted a green light in the sky near the "Turkey Trail" while another person in town saw the same phenomenon about two hours earlier over Pelican lake.
Both descriptions tallied on checking them out and the U.F.O. was described as a flat circular object of bright greenish hue, which appeared to be pulsating. It was travelling at conventional
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
speed for an airborne object and glided down behind the tree line out of sight.
Then the article concludes with the question: Anyone have an explanation?
That brings me to the point of my question, Mr. Speaker. We do have this very extensive facility at Sioux Lookout that is operated by the Department of National Defence. Surely if anything was in the sky over that period, records would be kept by this most efficient establishement, one which, I might add, is also an expensive establishment. Therefore I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary-and it is very kind of him to stay up so late-whether he could release some of this supposedly confidential information for the benefit of the Canadian public. The Christmas holiday season is fast approaching, but I do not want to receive the answer from the parliamentary secretary that it was Santa Claus trying out his reindeer in anticipation of Christmas.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not setting a precedent this evening by answering this question, but questions relating to unidentified flying objects should really be directed to the minister who speaks on behalf of the National Research Council. However I undertook to check out the observations made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and I am informed that although there were some strange lights noticed in the Sioux Lookout area on the night of November 27, no radar reflections were picked up by the radar station at Sioux Lookout.
I do not like to disappoint the hon. member, but may I take this opportunity to forecast to him that there probably will be some unidentified flying objects picked up by that radar station on the night of December 24. There is some evidence that these will eventually be identified as a space vehicle propelled by eight unknown objects, and this will be reported through the regular NORAD channels. It is highly unlikely, however, that the pilot of this space vehicle on that night will be identified either as the hon. member for Hamilton West or the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday, December 13, 1968