1968-12-10

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has given notice of a question of privilege. Before hearing his question perhaps I might be allowed at this moment to give the result of the work I have done, with the advice of the senior officers of the table, in relation to the point raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
In a very learned presentation the hon. member suggested yesterday that the committee's fourth report should be considered in a committee of the whole rather than by a motion to concur therein with the Speaker in the chair. The member quoted a number of precedents going back to confederation which he submitted in support of his view that the report presented by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) should be referred to the committee of the whole.
Since yesterday, as I have noted, a review has been made of all instances when rules changes were proposed for the consideration of the House of Commons, beginning with and including the enactment of the first set of rules in 1867 but excluding the motions now before the house. There have been 29 such occasions. Many of these proposals, of course, were concerned with minor changes only, but some of the amendments which could be considered as substantial at least at the time they were proposed, were in fact debated with the Speaker in the chair. They were not considered in a committee of the whole.
For example, the 1952 amendments dealt with hours of adjournment, time of meeting and the consideration of private members' business. In that case the report of the special committee was considered by a motion to concur in the committee report; there was no reference to the committee of the whole.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the rules changes in 1960-61 and in 1962. These alterations, I submit,
were not inconsequential. The rules of procedure were amended, for instance, to reduce the length of speeches when private members' business was being considered. The length of the address and budget debates was reduced by two days in each case, a new procedure on questions was adopted, and private members' business was reorganized.
In 1960-61 and in 1962 all these changes were effected by way of concurrence in the report of a special committee. The proposals were not considered in committee of the whole. In all those cases the house itself, with the Speaker in the chair, debated the committee report. It will thus be seen that while most of the major revisions of house rules were considered in committees of the whole, as was quite correctly explained by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on a number of other occasions there was in fact no provision made for debate in committee of the whole.
This leads us to the view expressed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that rule changes can be dealt with procedurally in one of two ways. The minister has suggested that either procedure has been acceptable to hon. members in the past in changing the standing orders of the house. This opinion is borne out particularly by more recent precedents, and especially by those of 1952, 1960-61 and 1962.
It may also be relevant to remind hon. members that in most cases when major revisions were proposed, these were considered first by a special committee chaired by the Speaker, as, for example, in 1867, 1876, 1927 and 1955. In the case now before us the Speaker did not participate in the special committee.
I should add that there must be serious doubt whether the Speaker has the authority to take the action suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. After all, the Speaker is guided and bound by existing rules, precedents and practice; he cannot arrogate to himself powers which the house itself has never placed in him. The hon. member referred to the flag debate when Mr. Speaker Macnaughton agreed to divide the question then before the house. That decision,

December 10, 1968
Ruling by Mr. Speaker however, was based on precedents and citations of Canadian and British authors, and specifically recognize the authority of the Speaker to divide a motion. There appears to be no precedent in Canadian parliamentary practice to support the proposition that the Speaker is at liberty to decree, on his own initiative, that a motion will be considered in committee of the whole rather than by the house, or by the house rather than by the committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has submitted that the Speaker would have authority to direct that the proposed procedural changes be studied in committee of the whole, by virtue of standing order 50, which reads as follows:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
I would not think it could be argued reasonably that the motion to be proposed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is contrary to the rules of parliament. Is it contrary to the privileges of parliament? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre contends that it is and that the procedure now contemplated would adversely affect the privileges of hon. members.
The question arises as to whether hon. members would have greater opportunity to debate and amend the report in a committee of the whole. The scope for debate and amendment, in my view-and I suggest this to hon. members-is as great with the Speaker in the chair as it would be in committee of the whole. There is no limit to the number of amendments that can be proposed at this stage. Each individual proposition may be the subject of an amendment by way of a direction to the special committee. Hon. members may wish to refer to citation 221 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which refers to permissive instructions and mandatory instructions. Citation 221 (2) reads as follows:
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The object of mandatory instructions is to define the course of action which the committee must follow.
In view of this it seems to me the privileges of hon. members would not be diminished by conducting the debate with the Speaker in the chair.
My conclusion therefore is that the privileges of parliament are not affected in a way which would justify the Chair's intervention on the basis of standing order 50.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of every member of the house. In so doing I refer to the second report of the standing committee on transport and communications which was presented to the house on Tuesday, December 3, but in relation to which there has been no motion for concurrence. On December 3 the then chairman of the standing committee, the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Blouin), introduced under routine proceedings a notice of motion that he would move concurrence in the report on Thursday next, which would have been December 5. To date there has been no such motion for concurrence.
My question of privilege relates more particularly to the fact that parliament has before it a document, the report of the committee on transport and communications, and it is my understanding that such report must constitute an accurate reflection of what took place in the committee and must at the very least record the various motions and resolutions forming part of the minutes of proceedings. The report now before the house does not contain the resolution moved by myself and adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 28. On Friday, December 6, the standing committee met and had as the first item on the agenda the motion moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, which reads as follows:
Resolved:	That the resolution passed at the
meeting of the standing committee on transport and communications held on Thursday, November 28, 1968, be now rescinded.
I might point out that this motion has not been voted on by the committee. I would point out for your information, sir, and for the information of the house, that the motion was an important one relating to the visit of the committee to the Atlantic provinces, authority for which is requested in the committee's second report. My motion called for deferment of any action by the C.N.R. in curtailing rail passenger service in Newfoundland until such time as the committee had an opportunity to visit Newfoundland with a view to examining the situation at first hand. I might point out that the matter is one of some urgency since the decision to phase out rail passenger service in Newfoundland has gone into effect as of December 2.
December 10, 19S8

My question of privilege is based on the fact that the resolution adopted by the committee on November 28 was, in my view, deliberately omitted from its report to the house on November 29; that it constitutes an important part of the committee's recommendation to visit the Atlantic provinces, and thereby infringes upon the rights and privileges of myself and the other members of that committee who by majority vote moved its adoption.
I therefore move:
That the second report of the standing committee on transport and communications be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections to determine the reason for the omission of the resolution adopted by the committee on November 28 from the second report of the committee presented to the house on November 29, and which reads as follows:
"Resolved: That the Canadian Transport Commission be requested to postpone the implementation of its decision to abandon railway service in Newfoundland until such a time as the committee travel to Newfoundland to study the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces."


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, the Chair has to decide in circumstances such as these whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I would appreciate hearing from hon. members on that point to facilitate the Chair in the making of a ruling in due course.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and to commend the very able and succinct manner in which he presented his question of privilege. Unlike some questions of privilege, this one had attached to it a motion relating to the fact that a resolution adopted by the standing committee on transport and communications with reference to Newfoundland railway service was not included in the report of the standing committee. The hon. member has moved, therefore, that the report of the standing committee on transport and communications be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
Now, I think the first question to ask and answer, in accordance with your direction, Mr. Speaker, is why the hon. member for St. John's East wants to have these facts examined in the committee on privileges and elections. He wants to ascertain why this motion which was passed in one committee, namely the committee on transport and communications, should have been omitted from the report. There seems to be some suggestion,
Privilege
and I say this without any reservation whatever, that there was a little hanky-panky. We cannot come to a definite conclusion on this, however, without evidence. The only way we can determine whether or not there has been hanky-panky so far as this committee is concerned, the chairman of which was a government member and which was controlled by a government majority, is to get the people we believe to be directly concerned with the matter before a committee and examine them under oath about this omission from the committee report.
As Your Honour knows, so I do not need to repeat this, once a matter has been dealt with in one session, or dealt with in a committee, that ends the matter. You will recall our argument in relation to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. When the section of the bill dealing with those rates was defeated in committee of the whole, the then minister of transport moved another amendment relating to what was called statutory rates. At that time we took the position that they were trying to take a second kick at the cat. We say that the facts of that case are on all fours with the facts of this case. If one committee, Your Honour, has the right to rescind a motion which was carried in that standing committee, then every standing committee of the House of Commons is a farce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The question of privilege, sir, relates to the fact that we want to find out why the Liberals tried to pack a meeting to rescind this motion. Indeed, they would have done so if every Tory had not been present, together with the members of other parties, to make sure they could not get away with that hanky-panky they were trying to perform.
Now is a good time, perhaps, to mention the fact that this government is trying to transfer to the standing committees consideration of expenditures involving $11 billion, and to have them approved. Now, is this not a true question of privilege? If such committees get that authority and can be controlled by a Liberal chairman and a Liberal majority, and if when the Liberals have been absent they can then meet in a quiet little room to rescind a motion, what will happen to the expenditures and taxation problems of this nation? We cannot involve people in certain places who have given us certain information but I can say to you, as I stand in my place as a member of parliament, we believe there
3736

December 10, 1968
Privilege
has been hanky-panky so far as this committee is concerned. I cannot speak for other committees. The only way we can find out who the culprits are in relation to this committee is to place them before another committee. The only regret I have is that this other committee will be chaired by a Liberal, and will have a Liberal majority.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give this point of privilege serious consideration, because it does go to the very root of democracy. The present situation constitutes a dictatorial act that is dangerous to democracy and will destroy democracy. Those are the three "d's" that we want to investigate as far as this question of privilege is concerned. I support and incorporate in my argument everything the distinguished member has said, and I hope, sir, you will give this matter your most serious consideration; because this institution will fall to pieces if this is the way our committee structure is going to be run, particularly when the government hopes to turn over the responsibility for $11 billion to this kind of kangaroo court.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to support the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East. I should like to point out to Your Honour one or two matters that have not been dealt with already, and which I think are very pertinent to the point at issue.
First of all, a report presented by the standing committee on transport and communications was tabled in this house and the usual procedure was not followed, in that concurrence of that report was not asked for. Instead this report of the committee, or the alleged report, still lies on the table of the house, and this in itself is a very strange state of affairs from which I think any reasonable persons could draw their own conclusions.
Second, I have been a member of the standing committee on transport and communications since this session of parliament started, and to the best of my knowledge attended all its meetings during the period that the matter contained in the report has been dealt with. It is quite possible that I might have missed a committee meeting because so many committee meetings were called without notice and unexpectedly, without any warning being given the members of the committee, but I repeat that to the best of
[Mr. Woolliams.l
my knowledge and belief I have not missed any meetings.
At no time to my knowledge was this alleged report that has been tabled in the house ever presented to the committee for approval or discussion, or as far as I know to the steering committee either. This seems a very strange state of affairs. I should like to know exactly how this report was drawn up, who drew it up, and what authority there was for tabling it in this house. I have been a member of committees of this house for nearly 15 years but have never before seen a situation where committee reports, which are normally drafted by the chairman and the steering committee, were not presented to the committee for approval before being tabled in the house.
In my opinion there is a prima facie case here for referring this particular report, which still lies on the table of this house, to the standing committee on privileges and elections in order to ascertain exactly how the report was put before the house, who drafted it, and what if any omissions were made in the report.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in urging that Your Honour grant this motion for referral to the committee on privileges and elections, I must first of all state that although I have not been in this institution of confusion too many months I am finding so many things that in my opinion are against the grain of democracy that it makes me wonder in which direction we are going in this regard.
The point I would certainly like to have cleared up and which I think can be cleared up if the matter is referred to the committee on privileges and elections is what purpose a committee really performs, and what its function is in this institution.
I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, because it has always been my opinion that matters referred to a committee and referred back to this house, or any action taken by the committee, should be dealt with. I respectfully suggest that the resolution in question before the transport committee was adopted by a majority vote. I thought at that time, and I was then serving as a temporary replacement for the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer) on the steering committee, that we would be consulted with regard to the report to be brought into the house. We were not consulted. That report did not include everything that had been passed by the transport committee. I was disturbed to find that the report
December 10, 1968

did not include that one portion referred to by the hon. member.
I therefore ask Your Honour to give serious consideration to referring this matter to the standing committee on privileges and elections in order that we may clear up this particular matter once and for all.
I plead with Your Honour to do this. If committees are to perform useful functions- and no doubt hon. members are well aware of the debate that is to come before us-then committees must be given authority to pass resolutions and motions that will be recognized by this house. If they are not recognized by this house and voted on by members of this house, there is no useful purpose in having any committees under our system of government.


Mr. Albenbrack:: This is the just society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say a few words in support of the motion which has just been moved to refer the second report of the committee on transport and communications to be committee on privileges and elections.
I was very much surprised, on November 28 last, to hear the chairman of that committee making an awkward attempt to explain on TV what happened during the committee meeting.
Mr. Speaker, it will remembered that, on that day, the house adjourned in order to allow a larger number of members to participate in the proceedings of the committees, and if that motion was adopted in the transport and communications committee it is due to the absence of the members of the party in power. To my mind, that proves the weakness of the party in power with regard to committee work, and that is one of the reasons why this report should be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for a more thorough study of the matter.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
A little later on today, we will probably consider the special committee report on the procedure of the house, and I note that this report intends to give a greater responsibility to the committees of the house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if such things are allowed to happen in committees, if members of committees who are members of the opposition, are given so little consideration I am 29180-2371
Privilege
wondering why we should give greater responsibility to these committees for consideration of departmental estimates or bills that are referred to them.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion made by the hon. member.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question before Your Honour is a very simple one. The allegation is that, at best, there has been a misrepresentation of what has happened in this committee. A committee report must reflect the true state of affairs with regard to resolutions which have been carried by that committee. If here we have, say, an innocent omission, that would be an innocent misrepresentation. On the other hand it has been alleged, and Your Honour must take cognizance of this, that there has been a deliberate omission of a resolution carried in the committee. Under the circumstances I submit it is not for Your Honour to decide whether there has been either a deliberate misrepresentation or an innocent misrepresentation, but whether there is a prima facie case of an abuse of the privileges of hon. members of this house.
After all, it is a report of a committee of this house which had been charged with the examination of a certain subject matter. If the committee report is a misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise, of the conclusions of that committee then there must be an examination, because there has been a breach of the privileges of this house.
I put it to Your Honour that this is the limited question you have to decide. With the greatest respect, I suggest to Your Honour that the motion is well founded.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I would have thought that by now the Prime Minister or someone on behalf of the government would have made your task easier, Mr. Speaker, by agreeing to the motion. If there was nothing wrong in what was done, then the government members of the committee on privileges and elections would be able to show that this was so and the matter could be cleared up.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No. There would then have to be the resignation of the member making the charge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: If there is something wrong, the thing has been done and I would think the

December 10, 1968
Privilege
Prime Minister would be particularly concerned about this. Why do I hold this view, and why do I take a few moments of the time of the house to urge Your Honour to see a prima facie case of privilege? I do so in the context of the fact that we are about to consider changes in the rules, one of the most important parts of which consists of giving more work and more authority to the standing committees of this house.
I was saying we were about to change the rules so as to give more authority and more work to committees of this house. If the allegations are correct-and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot know at this point- you have to accept them as stated, and there has been no contradiction of them.
If it is still correct that a report of a standing committee can be written by a chairman alone, or by a chairman and some of his buddies; if it does not need to go to the steering committee, then those who say our standing committee procedure will be a farce are thoroughly correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: One then gets the suspicion that one of the objectives of putting estimates in the hands of the committees is, in the minds of some persons, precisely to achieve that kind of purpose.


George James McIlraith: Order.


David Lewis: The Solicitor General may call "order" if he likes, but I suggest to Your Honour that in the context of the duties we want to place on these committees it becomes terribly important that the kind of misbehaviour alleged against the chairman of the committee should not be permitted to go unchallenged, without action being taken by this house.
This is why I suggest that Your Honour is deciding in this case not merely an isolated instance but something which is important as a precedent for the future work of this parliament. As to the incident itself, I agree that what you have before you is a simple allegation of misconduct by an officer of a standing committee of this house, an allegation that a report tabled in this house was an incorrect report, an incomplete report which did not represent the decision of the committee. I can hardly see anything which is more clearly an abuse of the privileges of the house than that.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On the same question of privilege, may I just say "ditto".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. D. S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I rise only to deal with some of the points made by the hon. member for York South. First, he implied there was something sinister about the fact that at this point the government has not indicated whether the motion would be accepted by it. Perhaps I can remind the hon. member that at this stage we are faced with the question of deciding whether there is a prima facie question of privileges, not whether the motion is acceptable. When that has been determined we will be prepared to make a decision in favour of a reference.
It seems to me that allegations of the sort the hon. member for York South has made against the chairman of the committee, who is regrettably absent today, are the kind of thing which should be considered by the standing committee on privileges and elections, and for my part I would be quite prepared to support this motion. But I would point out to the hon. member that there is a tradition in this house that where serious allegations such as the hon. member has made against the chairman of the committee are discovered to be unfounded, it has been the tradition in the past that the hon. member's seat goes with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest both to the hon. member and to others in this house-and I say this on behalf of the absent member who is not here to defend himself-


Mr. Bell:: Talk about tradition, when last night we passed billions of dollars in estimates in five minutes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest it is not proper to suggest there has been some kind of false or fraudulent conduct on the part of the hon. member who is absent, and I for one would be delighted to see the allegations made by the hon. member for York South and others disproved by the committee.


David Lewis: May I ask the President of the Privy Council a simple question. If there is unanimous agreement that this be considered a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker might be able to deal with it without the necessity of this debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I say to the
hon. member that Mr. Speaker has the right and the responsibility to decide questions like this, and the hon. member for York South should not seek to arrogate this right to himself.
December 10, 1968


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: It is well to go back and read what happened on December 6 when this matter was brought before the house by my hon. friend from St. John's East. As reported at page 3587 the question was asked as follows:
Would the house leader advise us what is the position of the resolution which was passed by the committee dealing with the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission allowing the Canadian National to abandon rail passenger service in Newfoundland, which was not incorporated in the first report of the committee to which I referred in my original question?
The answer given by the President of the Privy Council is most revealing:
I have not studied this. I am advised the resolution was passed but that it was out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the overheated nature of the hon. gentleman's argument a moment ago, because after all conscience does have its effect, even on ministers. In other words, sir, there is the admission by the minister that a resolution was passed, and he is now endeavouring to raise a smokescreen concerning the unfortunate illness of the chairman of the committee. He himself took the responsibility, in his answer in the house, to admit that the resolution had been passed, but said he was advised it was illegal. Sir, if this be not a privilege of parliament then we might as well close down here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The government goes
from stand to stand as it tramples on the rights of the house. It says in effect, "Let us be efficient and have an expanded committee system". I am one of those who through the years have not supported that stand. I believe this committee system is the American congressional plan and will not work under our system of government.
We are to have committees now. This is the essence of the proposed change in the rules, but even before the matter has come before the house we have the situation of an alteration of a resolution clearly defined by the minister and which he said was out of order. What business has he to be an appellate court over a committee of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if this be not a question of privilege we might just as
Privilege
well close down the committee, for each time the government finds itself with its points down or its members absent and loses a resolution it can say "It wasn't legal; it was unlawful." This is a repeat performance of what happened in February, 1967, when the government was defeated and said in effect, "Oh, we are not defeated. We will give you another chance to say that we are here properly." And they got that chance.
This is a denial of the rights of every member of the house, and I am surprised that no member of the government has stood up and agreed to the necessity of an investigation taking place. No doubt there will be red faces if it does take place, because the minister who has just spoken admitted in the house that the resolution had been passed. So there is no question about that; it was passed. Sir, we have to rely on Your Honour to protect our rights which are being trampelled on day by day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has already taken part in this debate.


An hon. Member:: He wants to break another rule.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister cannot speak a second time except with the consent of the house-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -or unless he rises on a point of order or on a question of privilege.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, the regrettable thing is that the right hon. member for Prince Albert during-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister knows the rule. He can speak a second time only if he has the consent of the house or if he seeks the floor on a point of order or a question of privilege, and I have not heard that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the only point I would make, and I am raising it by way of privilege to speak a second time, is that my remarks have been misconstrued by the right hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I refer to the fact that as the right hon. member for Prince

December 10, 1968
Privilege
Albert read out, I made it perfectly clear on that occasion that I had no direct knowledge of the events that took place. As a matter of fact the hon. member for St. John's East at that time took exception to my remarks and I had to indicate-


John George Diefenbaker: Read on. It is just as well, because I missed that next section.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could be heard, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister should be allowed to speak. He has claimed the right to speak a second time under a standing order which provides clearly that an hon. member can speak a second time if he claims his words have been misinterpreted. Standing order 37 is the one in question, if hon. members will consult it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I made it perfectly clear as recorded at pages 3587 and 3588 of Hansard that I had no direct knowledge of this. I was recounting advice I had received, and as recorded at page 3588 I indicated that what I did was probably wrong-


John George Diefenbaker: Read the next line.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting into a discussion on the substance of the matter. I see that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley would like the floor so I shall recognize him, but I have to indicate to hon. members that I have reached the point where I can give a decision.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is only one point I would like to cover which has not been covered and which might affect the deliberations of Your Honour. Not only is a prima facie case supposed to be established, but I think the evidence is abundantly clear here today from what has been said on both sides of the house, in heat and out of heat, that privilege is at stake. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has read part of the record but, more important, we have the statement of an hon. member here today stating as a fact that has not been rejected and challenged, and cannot be rejected and challenged by any hon. member, that this resolution was passed.
Unless committees are to become a charade the privilege we suggest is well established, but there is the other point on which I am afraid Your Honour may be misled, and that is that a question of privilege must be raised

at the earliest possible opportunity. Addressing my remarks to that point I would point out that this matter was before the transport committee, and even after the report was tabled an abortive move was made, one day a week afterward, to rescind the resolution, and there were rumblings and moves made thereafter to bring the resolution back before the committee.
I would point out that as a result of the estimates being passed last night in an abundance of dollars, in effect the work of the transport committee expired. It was only after last night, when the work of the committee expired, that the hon. member for St. John's East had the opportunity to raise the question of privilege today. So, Mr. Speaker, you have the question of privilege, and you have it raised at the earliest opportunity, which is today.


Mr. Speaker:: The conclusion I have come to after hearing hon. members of the house is that it obviously would be easier to resolve the question now before the house in a standing committee than it might be to resolve it in the House of Commons. My initial reaction was to follow the advice of the hon. member for Calgary North and give the matter serious and protracted consideration, but hon. members have indicated quite clearly, in my view, that there is a prima facie case of privilege and that it is the type of question which might be sent to a committee.
I must say I am worried to some extent about the remedy sought by the motion. I think the committee would have some difficulty in examining the members of another committee, one committee of the house looking into the affairs of another committee. That may cause procedural difficulties at that stage, but that question is not what we are seized with at the present time.
What the Chair has to decide without resolving the question of whether it is a de facto question of privilege is merely to determine whether it is a prima facie case of privilege. I think the hon. member for Annapolis Valley has made a very important point, one which had worried me all along, as to whether this matter had been raised at the first opportunity. In view of the fact that we have reached the end of consideration of the committee's reports probably the question has been raised at the first opportunity, thus disposing of one objection which I had in the back of my mind.
I do have to reach the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of privilege and, if the
December 10, 1968

house decides the motion should be carried, the matter would be referred to a committee as proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. I would therefore put the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East, as follows:
Mr. McGrath seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North, moves that the second report of the standing committee on transport and communications be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections to determine the reason for the omission of the resolution adopted by the committee on November 28th, from the second report of the committee presented to the house on November 29th, and which reads as follows:
"Resolved:-That the Canadian Transport Commission be requested to postpone the implementation of its decision to abandon railway service in Newfoundland until such a time as the committee travel to Newfoundland to study the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces."
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants inquired whether any member of the task force on government information had requested the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to ask Canadian radio stations for tapes of news broadcasts. I stated that I would inquire, and on the following day I informed the house that the answer to this question was no.
While the answer given to the house was technically correct, in that no member of the task force made any such request, I have since learned that a researcher employed by the task force did initiate such a request.
The task force, as hon. members know, is seeking to assess the effectiveness of government information services. To assist it in doing so the task force studies the manner in which information about government activities reaches the public. Information printed in the daily and periodical press is collected through the employment of clipping services; information broadcast by radio stations is equally important but requires a different technique of collection. The Canadian RadioTelevision Commission was approached in this respect for its technical assistance. What was being studied was not the operation of
Business of the House any radio station but only the transmission of news events. A technical supervisor at C.R.T.C. undertook to request ten radio stations to provide tapes. This request was made at the end of November.
I felt it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to enlarge to this extent on my previous answer, to assure the house that there is no attempt on the part of the government or on the part of the task force to withhold information in this respect, and I apologize should my brief answer of Friday have been regarded as in any sense complete.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, since I was the member who raised this question I should like to thank the right hon. Prime Minister for his more complete explanation today. I wish now to simply say for the record that it is a matter of regret that the officials of either one or other body who advise him gave him incorrect advice in the first place.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
December 6, 1968-Mr. Blair (Chairman of the special committee on procedure of the house)
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.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether the house will agree at this stage, before the hon. member proceeds with his motion for concurrence, that this motion be taken as the first order of government business in order that the ordinary routine proceedings can be followed. I believe hon. members and the government might be prepared to accept this suggestion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must consider this in view of standing order 43(2), and would accept this suggestion with the understanding that the provisions of this standing order would apply, having the effect to transfer this as the first item of government business, giving it priority thereafter. Subject to that I think this suggestion would be acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed.
December 10, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED ANNOUNCEMENT BY STATE SECRETARY OF CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC DISPARITY

[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 Secretary of State was announcing government policy in Winnipeg when he said that in January or February a special federal-provincial conference will be held on economic disparity.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement, and I must confess I am not aware of this timetable. I imagine the minister may have been considering a meeting at the official or ministerial level rather than a full-blown federal-provincial conference.


Mr. Stanfield:: Is it possible that the government of Canada, as the Secretary of State said in Winnipeg, considers that the Canadian constitution and economic disparity have nothing in common and that economic disparity and constitutional equity is secondary and must be preceded by linguistic ability? Does that represent government policy?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that I must see the statement to assure myself that those are exactly the words of the Secretary of State. Government policy on this has been stated many times. There is a danger to the unity of this country on a language basis, but there is also a danger on the basis of economic disparity, and it should be the intent of any federal government to seek justice in both fields.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister confer with the Secretary of State and perhaps make a statement to the house that is acceptable to the minister and the right hon. gentleman as to what is the policy of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I often confer with the Secretary of State, but I have made this statement now without conferring with him as of this date. The statement is that both are extremely important; the correction of regional disparity and the correction of linguistic inequities.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether such a conference, if it does occur, will take place finally in respect of
(Mr. Baldwin.]
regional development, and whether some consideration will be given to provincial and other important bodies such as municipalities participating in such a conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer to the first part of the question I must repeat that as far as I am concerned I have no knowledge of the minister having made that particular statement. If he feels there should be a federal-provincial conference at one level or another, and if this is agreeable to the provinces, it certainly would be acceptable to this government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that there is a possibility such a conference would not in fact be headed by the present minister of regional development rather than the Secretary of State?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, who is scheduled to head up a department of communications, asking him whether in view of the record of profits by the Bell Telephone Company, which has in some years exceeded the permissive level set up by an appropriate authority, he is giving consideration to steps to oppose the application by the Bell Telephone Company for an increase in rates.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission is a court of record set up by the government and proposes to investigate the justification of such claims.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission hears evidence and argument and, does review with various levels of government this evidence and argument, I should like to ask specifically whether the minister has given consideration to taking some appropriate steps to make sure that the Canadian Transport Commission is not only effective, but effective in the public interest.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be assured that the Postmaster General will follow the hearings with close attention. What action he may take is a question which he obviously cannot resolve at the present time.
December 10, 1968



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES TO MEET EDUCATIONAL COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in an answer to my question, the right honourable Prime Minister answered and I quote:
We are not among those who hold blindly to views of the past.
Could he tell me if taking into account the recommendations contained in the Aird Report of 1927 which recognizes to the provinces the exclusive legislative right in educational matters is to hold blindly to views of the past?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is argumentive and I do not think that, as put, it is in order.



STUDY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN ALASKA AND NORTHERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which I intend to phrase in two parts. Will he be meeting within the next few days with Premier Manning of the province of Alberta in reference to setting up a special committee to study the oil industry in view of developments taking place in Alaska and the north; and has he agreed to have or has he had any discussions with Dr. Howland, chairman of the National Energy Board, in reference to such a study, as he recommended to a committee of this house?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will have the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Manning tomorrow morning, as will some of my colleagues. I suppose he will want to raise this matter, but I have not had a discussion with the chairman as requested. I thank the hon. member for giving me an idea as to what the subject matter of that discussion might be.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether I might ask one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not say this by way of criticism. Dr. Howland mentioned that he was short of staff and short of money to make a study. Would the Prime Minister consider-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask a question?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But, with the greatest respect, I have to preface my question with these remarks so that the Prime Minister will understand it. Dr. Howland mentioned that he was short of money. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider discussing this matter with his colleagues. I refer to allocating money for this very important study which will be so important to the national revenue of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider discussing it with my colleagues, yes, Mr. Speaker.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights, I ask the Prime Minister a two fold question. First, is the government planning any statement on or commemoration of this very important day? Second, in view of the fact that Canada has given such full and complete endorsement of this universal declaration, is the government prepared to amend section 6(1) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so that this act will not be in violation of but consistent with the express provisions and purposes of the United Nations' universal declaration, particularly article 20 (1)?


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


Robert Norman Thompson: The question has been asked, sir.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having brought to the attention of the house this very important anniversary. I had not planned to make a statement today. I just want to say that last week there was a conference held in Ottawa, as there were in other places in Canada, and the federal government played a large share in sponsoring them. I myself participated in the name of the government and made statements about the importance of this event, such as suggested by the hon. member. On the second part of the question, we are not thinking of any specific amendment in this context but we are doing, I think, something much more important. We have set aside this year, the 20th
December 10, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry anniversary of the declaration of human rights, as a year when we raised with the provinces at the federal-provincial conference in February the matter of putting into the constitution a charter of human liberties. We will be discussing it also next week. We hope the people of Canada will support us, and indeed the opposition parties too, in this very important endeavour.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Following the minister's return from his tour of Indian reservations, where he apparently found inadequate health services, is he going to make a statement to the house outlining the proposals he will be suggesting by way of improvements for Indians living on reservations?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I had not planned to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I indicated previously in the house, in answer to questions from several hon. members, that we were reviewing the question of Indian health and were making improvements. I think many hon. members have a general idea what those improvements are.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his statement to the news media the minister indicated that he was going to make some proposals in respect of changes. Would he immediately enlighten the house as to what these proposals may be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's first question was quite in order. He asked whether the minister was going to make a statement. I gather that the minister has replied to that question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister's statement that he is improving the health services for Indians include the proper staffing of the Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton, which has reached the point where it is non-effective in certain sections?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The allegation is there.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government give consideration to making representations to the government of the People's Republic of China in respect of the case of the journalist, Mr. Anthony Grey of Reuters, who has been kept in close confinement, I believe, for a year and five months by the Chinese government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, we do not have diplomatic representation with the People's Republic of China. It is our objective to try to attain a mutual recognition. We are very concerned about the internment of this gentleman. I do not know whether it would help very much if we were to make representations through other channels, but I can assure the house that we share the hon. member's concern about this gentleman and will do everything we can to help.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider getting a message by some means to the government of the People's Republic of China saying that this breach of fundamental human rights might damage the future good relations between Canada and that government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the minister has noted the hon. member's suggestion.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning hazards to safety owing to the work to rule program being carried out by some members of the staff of Air Canada. The Prime Minister at that time undertook to look into the matter. Since then several instances have been reported to me of aircraft landing and, because of this work to rule program, apparently being unable to discharge passengers at the proper location,
(Mr. Trudeau.]
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
which causes obvious hazards. Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of looking into this matter? If so, can he inform the house whether all safety precautions are being taken by Air Canada so that the safety and lives of passengers and staff will not be endangered?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the Department of Transport is doing what it can to make sure that, without breaking the law itself and without interfering unduly in problems of labour relations, it has this question under advisement. The minister may have a fuller report to give to the house tomorrow.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Scarborough Zasl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister tell the house whether he has reached a decision to confirm or otherwise the recent election of the chief and band council of the Garden River Indian reserve in Ontario? I ask this question in view of the representations made last week by the said chief and band council to the minister.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received of course representations from the chief and the band council, and after consideration of the matter with the Minister of Justice, I have come to the conclusion that I could not recognize the election of the chief and the six councillors who had been elected on that reservation. If there was a misunderstanding, it is due to an error of one of the officials of my department.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the department giving consideration to a substantial reduction in the staff of letter carriers as a result of the change to five day delivery?
DEBATES	3745
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, as I explained during the debate on the bill, we do not anticipate that there will be any reduction in staff, but that the people who would normally be laid off will be taken care of by the normal growth of the department and also by those who retire. In other words, no people will be laid off because of the five day week.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I take it that it is not true that discussions are going on between officials of the minister's department and representatives of the union concerned with respect to this very question?


Eric William Kierans: There are always discussions going on between the officials of the department and the leaders of the union. I saw them myself last week about a number of different problems. However, I imagine that such discussions deal with the orderly transition to a five day week in the urban centres after February.


Hon. Marlial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Postmaster General tell us if, in view of his policy to close down post offices, postmasters left without a job will be assured of getting another one in his department?


Eric William Kierans: We are closing down the small suboffices and all the postmasters in such premises already operate a business or hold another job.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the transition to the five day week, which has been referred to, the cause of the drastic impairment and reduction of satisfactory mail service throughout the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question includes allegations which are not acceptable.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Postmaster General advised members of the house on October 7, I think, that some payment would be made to the rural mail contractors who provided services during the mail strike. Would he now advise the house when these cheques will be paid?
December 10, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: They are going out at this time. We had to prepare a complete accounting of the amount that was owed and therefore had to apply to the Treasury Board to obtain approval for the total amount. This has been obtained and the cheques are going out this week and next week.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he planning in the near future to make a statement regarding the consolidation of Canadian military bases, a matter which he and his department have been studying recently?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this matter will have to be considered in cabinet before I can make any statement on the Canadian base posture. The study is concluded within the department and we are now preparing a submission to the cabinet in that respect. Following that I expect I will be able to make some announcements.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister bear in mind the fact that a number of bases have been anxiously awaiting a decision by the government in this regard, and would he do his best to hurry it up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the request of the health minister of Ontario that medical schools increase the turnout of physicians, has the minister reached any decision on the virtue of continuing the health services grant for medical complexes beyond 1970?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to give a statement of policy. I suggest to him that that cannot be done now.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday in his absence? If I may summarize it briefly, it is as follows. Will the government give consideration to proposing an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to make it possible for the cost of living increase in pensions to reflect the full amount of the cost of living increase rather than being limited to 2 per cent in any one year?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minisier of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I indicated previously that this matter was not one of our priorities for this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this year is almost finished could this matter be considered in the new year, or could it not at least be included in the review of social welfare matters that the minister's department is undertaking?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fair to say it is included in the review.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Sainf-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Could the hon. minister tell us whether the Treasury Board has approved an expenditure of about $40 million to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue the work on Place Radio-Canada in Montreal?
My question is in two parts, Mr. Speaker. First, has the Treasury Board already approved the expenditure and, if so, what amount has been approved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister could perhaps answer the first part of the question.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: This question is on the agenda of the meeting which will take place later on this week.
December 10, 1968



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the commitment given a month ago to make a decision and announce it on the future of the Northumberland strait crossing, has the minister been in contact with the premier of Prince Edward Island to communicate to him the difficulties in arriving at a decision and could he enlighten the house at the same time?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes, I have been talking to the premier of Prince Edward Island, and at this time the answer to the second part is no.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question. In view of the nearly one year's consideration that has gone into the resumption or otherwise of this project, can the minister indicate whether or not we will hear on this matter before the end of the year?


Arthur Laing: I indicated November at one time, and now I hesitate to suggest December.



CONSIDERATION OF BRIEF OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Prime Minister on December 5, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his parliamentary secretary were both away ill, asking whether the government had considered the adoption of the proposals of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, at which time the right hon. Prime Minister said he would take notice of the question. Can the Prime Minister say whether the government will follow the recommendations and proposals of the I.P.A. of Canada and allow western oil into eastern Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts whether I should have allowed the question in the first instance. It seems to me
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member was asking then and is asking again for a policy statement. But in view of the fact that in a moment of weakness the first question was allowed, the second one may be allowed also.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, this is a highly technical question to which, I confess, I do not know the answer. As the hon. member knows, the minister is still in hospital and I do not have an answer to the question from him. I will make sure the department studies the question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the government could look into the resolutions and proposals sent by the I.P.A. of Canada?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATION OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he authorize official representation from the Northwest Territories at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference next week?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have answered this question several times before, Mr. Speaker. We intend to include as part of the federal delegation some representatives of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a supplementary question. Will the official representatives of the Northwest Territories at the federal-provincial conference consist of the elected members of the Northwest Territories council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The selection of the delegation has not yet been finalized both as regards members from the Northwest Territories and members of the cabinet, but I expect it to be done at this week's cabinet meeting.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question I would like to ask the Prime Minister. Will these representatives be considered as delegates to the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will be part of the federal delegation and in that sense they will be delegates. However, as the hon. member knows, the federal government speaks with
December 10, 1963

Inquiries of the Ministry one voice at the federal-provincial conferences, as does each province.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am certainly glad to hear that representatives of the Northwest Territories will be present at the conference. However, when I asked the Prime Minister the other day if representatives of the Indian people would be allowed to attend, he said there would be no delegates other than those representing the provinces and the federal government.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baitleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he discuss the future of the Yukon with the premier of British Columbia at the provincial conference next week?



ATTENDANCE OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS AS OBSERVERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I believe he has already indicated that provision is to be made at the federal-provincial conference next week for observers from the opposition parties. What arrangements are being made, and will we receive information shortly as to what those arrangements are?
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties, Mr. Speaker, that there will be space available for observers from all parties in this house. The exact number of seats depends on the number of seats which will have to be allotted to provincial government observers. We have not had replies from all of them indicating how many observers they want to bring. The cutoff date will be very soon, so I think we will be in a position to approach the leaders of the parties and tell them how many seats they will have. It will be approximately the same number as last year or perhaps a few less if the provinces ask for more room.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent highly suggestive findings of the U.S. food and drug administration that cyclamate, the artificial sweetener used in many dietetic foods and soft drinks, causes chromosome damage in animals with the danger of cancer, a shortened life span and congenital abnormalities, have any tests of this sweetener been made in Canada and, if not, will the minister ask the food and drug directorate to investigate it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the food and drug directorate is investigating this matter.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON HEALTH RESOURCE FUND GRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he would make a statement on motions on the results of his discussions with provincial health ministers and his own senior staff on the future of national health resource funds grants?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the discussions have gone far enough at this early date to enable me to announce anything.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the two distinguished gentlemen across the way, the Minister of National Defence and his seatmate, the President of the Treasury Board, whether or not they can now unequivocally indicate to the civilian employees of the Department of National Defence that they will receive their retroactive pay increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member is not simply restating a question asked before. Perhaps there is a distinction between this question and the one asked previously, and if there is the minister might reply.


J. Michael Forrestall: The question is a restatement, of course, but earlier neither minister
December 10, 1968

was in a position to answer. I hope they are in a position to do so today.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated the other day we were making a real effort to come within the limitation of December 31. I think we can achieve that. There are indications we are going to achieve it. This question is related to one I had the other day about overtime. I should like to add that the people working overtime to achieve this end are going to be compensated not by receiving double time but by receiving leave after the holiday period.


J. Michael Forrestall: I might just comment on the minister's remarks and pass along the gratitude-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he can answer the question I put to his parliamentary secretary yesterday in his absence. Has the government any plans to establish a salt fish marketing board for the Newfoundland and Atlantic fishermen?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the desirability of setting up a salt fish development board or marketing board is receiving active consideration in the fisheries department.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house who is conducting the study into the feasibility of this project?


John (Jack) Davis: Departmental officials at the moment.


James Aloysius McGrath: have a further supplementary question. Has the minister had a communication today from the Newfoundland Frozen Fish Trade Association, which is meeting in St. John's to take a decision on whether or not they should close down the industry as a result of the inaction of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows it is not sufficient merely to ask whether a communication has been received.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a further supplementary question to the one asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. Will the Minister of Fisheries undertake to hold consultations with provincial fisheries ministers and representatives of the salt fish industry in the Atlantic provinces prior to taking any firm stand on the establishment of a salt fish marketing board?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, we will continue our consultations, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister say when the study to which he referred a moment ago with regard to a salt fish marketing board will be completed? If the findings lead to the establishment of such a board, will that board be functioning in time to handle next season's catch?


John (Jack) Davis: I doubt very much that a board could be set up and functioning in time to handle next season's catch.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he has had time to study the report yet or will be able to answer the question. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister would consider setting up a special federal-provincial committee of ministers and officials to study ways and means of implementing the recommendations contained in the second volume of the B. and B. report?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have given consideration to that, Mr. Speaker, and I will, if the occasion arises, discuss it at the federal-provincial conference at one time or another. It looks to me, however, that there might be a disposition to use the already existing subcommittee on languages which was set up last February at the federal-provincial conference. The forthcoming meeting may decide to continue using the subcommittee to further the consideration of the second report. However, I will be in the hands of the participants in the conference.


David Lewis: Do I understand, then, that the subject matter of the report or the effect of
3750	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the report will be on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The general subject matter of official languages, Mr. Speaker, will be on the agenda. There will be, at any rate, a report of the subcommittee of officials as part of the total report of the committee of officials, and if the provinces or the federal government decide to discuss that report, as I have no doubt they will, I am sure they will be considering the general subject matter of languages. They may also want to address general considerations to the kind of recommendations made in the second volume. I would merely say that one week's notice in this respect will perhaps not be enough to enable very good progress to be made at this particular meeting.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to a press release, which was made an appendix to yesterday's Hansard, page 3731, concerning Air Canada's Winnipeg base. There is a reference in that release to the fact that negotiations for the sale of the base will involve protection of the interests of the present employees. Does that involve a guarantee to employees that they will retain their jobs, seniority and other rights they now have?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member would mind asking the Minister of Transport this question? He is the one who is responsible for the press release. I cannot answer this particular question.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister what commitments he may have made to the Canadian Manufacturers Association in response to their brief opposing any moves toward a planned economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question which can be asked at this time.
DEBATES	December 10, 1968



PROCEDURE


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton) moved:: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move concurrence in the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house. In doing so, I hope-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I must say immediately that we did not take into consideration the electronic devices, but perhaps we should have.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The lights of parliament are getting dim.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In undertaking this task I hope that without offending the rules of the house I can explain briefly the nature of the three reports which were filed on Friday last. The third report is an explanation of the various recommendations made by the committee. These recommendations are set forth in the form of draft standing orders in the fourth and fifth reports. The fourth report contains major recommendations of the committee dealing with such matters as supply, ways and means, the legislative process, the programming of business, and so on. The fifth report contains a number of important but less significant amendments and also includes a number of amendments which would be consequential upon the adoption of the fourth report.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In making these remarks I am conscious of my duty as chairman of this committee. I intend to speak factually, objectively and dispassionately in an attempt to explain what this committee, composed of representatives of all parties in the house, attempted to accomplish in its reports.
I should say at once that your committee held 26 meetings in the space of almost three months and that all of its deliberations were marked by extreme cordiality and by the fullest and frankest exchanges of opinion. 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

December 10, 1968

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.
All hon. members will be aware that since 1964 this house has carried on much of its important business under a series of provisional orders. The reforms which have been accomplished by these orders are important, but it was generally recognized that the house could not complete the task of reforming its procedure until it had dealt with important matters such as the business of supply and the legislative process. These matters were studied intensively by a committee in the last session of the last parliament. The fourth and fifth reports of that committee, which were filed on March 13 and March 20, 1968, form the background for the report which is now presented to the house.
First, I propose to deal with the business of supply, because if this aspect of our report is adopted it will provide the framework and the parliamentary timetable about which all the other business of the house will revolve.
I need not remind hon. members that under the present provisional rules supply is discussed in two stages. There are four two-day debates on supply motions and 30 days are allocated to the consideration of estimates in the committee of supply, a total of 38 days in all.
I think it is fair to say that the handling of the supply business of the house satisfies no one and it is the subject of much justifiable criticism. First and most important, it fails- and it has always failed throughout the life of all the parliaments of Canada-to satisfy its basic purpose of providing for a full, careful scrutiny of the estimates of departments. Whether or not a fixed period has been set for the conclusion of the business of supply, the Hansards of our parliaments are full of lamentations and condemnations of the practice of passing numerous items of supply without debate, without scrutiny, without check at the end of the session or at the end of a supply period. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that most of these lamentations which have always been on record come from the years before the time that there was a formal limit on the number of supply days.
In addition, I think it is fair to point out that such discussion and scrutiny as there has been of supply, particularly in recent parliaments, have tended to occur long after a good part of the money has been spent. This
Motion for Concurrence in Report scrutiny long after the event runs counter to the theory of parliament appropriating money only when it is satisfied that the purposes are proper.
Without derogation of hon. members I think it is also fair to comment that the debates on supply estimates tend to be general speech-making events on the part of both opposition and government members. There are few, if any, detailed questions about the money expenditures proposed. The speeches are uneven in their effect, concentrating always on the first item of the departmental estimates and leaving many items undiscussed.
In addition to this unsatisfactory discussion of estimates in committee of supply, the practice on supply motion debates is equally unsatisfactory and imprecise. As the house well knows, on the four occasions now prescribed by the provisional rules when the government must propose a motion to go into committee of supply, it is the right of the opposition to move amendments and subamendments and to raise serious issues of national policy. These debates, although valuable, lose considerably their force and effect for two reasons: first of all, because they are too few in number and second, because no proper notice is given. It is only in the latter stages of these debates that the members of the house are prepared fully to grapple with the points which have been raised.
The principal purpose of your committee in dealing with the business of supply was to restore vigour and purpose to the supply proceedings of the house. Your committee noted that the British parliament, for example, no longer undertakes any detailed scrutiny of estimates in advance and reserves supply days for general discussions of national policy matters that are raised by the opposition.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, your committee, on this question of supply, adopted the unanimous recommendation of its predecessor committee made in March, 1968, which combines the British concept of general days of debate in the house with continuing scrutiny of the details of the estimates by standing committees of the house. In connection with the business of supply, your committee recommends that parliament should adhere to a regular yearly timetable. The session, it recommends, should start normally in the month of September or early October of each year and should terminate around July 1 of the following year.
For the purpose of the allocation of supply the parliamentary session would be divided
3752	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report into three periods, which have been termed semesters, ending on December 10, on March 26 and on June 30. The most important business of supply would take place in the third period ending on June 30. This would commence with the tabling of the main estimates of the government in February of each year. These estimates would be immediately referred to appropriate standing committees, which would be directed to report them back to the house not later than May 31. In the first semester it is possible that some supplementary and additional estimates would be considered, and they too would be referred to the appropriate standing committees. In the second semester there would be supplementary estimates and, in addition, interim supply would have to be voted before the end of the fiscal year or March 31 to cover the period from April 1 to June 30.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The committee recommends that in total, during the three periods 25 days should be allotted to the opposition for motions on any subject within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. Only at the end of these allotted days, only after the opposition had had their say on these motions, would the house be asked to vote supply. Five of these allotted days would occur in the first semester, seven in the second and 13 in the third. In each of the periods the opposition would have the opportunity to move not more than two no confidence motions. The other motions would simply expire at the conclusion of the day of debate.
In addition to the 13 allotted days in the third period the committee has recommended that a further three days should be allowed for the consideration of final supplementary estimates, if any are brought down during the period ending on June 30. In connection with the allotted opposition days I should emphasize that it is the recommendation of the committee that the opposition would have complete freedom to choose whatever topic for debate it desired. I think it is to be expected that in the third semester some of the opposition motions, perhaps most of them, might relate to the reports of the standing committees on the estimates of the different departments, or they might relate to criticisms based on information discovered by the opposition during standing committees.
On the last allotted day in each period all motions and all other business relating to supply would come on for decision at the end of the day. At this stage members of the

DEBATES	December 10, 1968
opposition would have the right of giving notice to call for separate votes on specified items in the estimates. Your committee considers that the adoption of this procedure would provide much greater protection to the public and members of parliament than prevails under the existing procedure. Undeniably it will provide a much greater opportunity to hon. members to scrutinize the estimates in committee where officials as well as ministers may be examined.
The procedure of permitting debates on prearranged subjects will give the opposition an opportunity it does not now possess to raise meaningful debates on matters of national interest as they occur from time to time. I emphasize again that the government's request for supply must pass first the hurdle of the standing committees, then the debates on the various opposition motions and, finally, the final vote on the estimates in the house. Consequently I believe it can quite properly be said that the house will have more effective control over the granting of supply than it has had heretofore.
On the other hand, the committee felt that the provision of supply on a timetable such as proposed would be of immense benefit to the house and to hon. members. It would enable the government to expect timely decisions on its requests for appropriations. In all respects the form proposed is similar to that which has been adopted by other parliaments such as that of the United Kingdom. I also suggest that this new procedure would avoid what many regard as an existing scandal under existing procedures, where the estimates of different departments are considered in a committee of the whole house attended usually by hardly more than a bare quorum.
The second major area of reform considered by your committee was the legislative process, namely, the procedure under which public bills are translated into law. At the present time any money bill, that is, a bill imposing a charge on the exchequer, must be preceded by a debate on the resolution which, under the provisional rules, is limited to one parliamentary day or a total of five hours. The bill must then have its three readings, the first being a formality. Second reading frequently is preceded by a major debate, followed by a clause by clause consideration in committee of the whole house; that is then followed by third reading. I wish to say that the committee felt general agreement that the resolution stage of a money bill no longer serves any useful purpose. Debates on a measure which has not yet been placed before the
December 10, 1968

house are so stylized and artificial, and they waste so much time, that it is hardly necessary to elaborate in detail why it is sensible to dispose of this procedure. It is contemplated that any bill making a charge on the consolidated revenue fund would be accompanied by the type of message from the crown recommending the expenditure which is contemplated by section 54 of the British North America Act. The bill, on the motion for first reading, would be directed to be read the first time and printed. With the elimination of the resolution stage it is contemplated that the government could publish many, if not most, of the bills relating to its total legislative program early in the session, with immensely favourable consequences for the total planning of the session by the joint action of government and opposition parties.
Your committee gave very careful consideration to the question of second reading and it considered that under present circumstances there is an exaggeration of the importance of second reading. The true accomplishment of second reading is the definition of the scope of the bill and the agreement of the house to examine further into it. But at second reading it seems premature to engage in a decisive debate-a debate which is long and perhaps hard-fought, before the house has had an opportunity to consider the detailed clauses and provisions of a bill. Second reading admittedly is an important step along the way, but in order to place it in proper perspective your committee has recommended that the motion on second reading hereafer be, "That this bill be now read a second time and referred to a committee."
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Under the revised standing orders it is contemplated that practically every bill will be referred to an appropriate standing committee. Some bills will not be referred to a standing committee, namely, the taxation measures following on the budget and the formal bills dealing with supply. It also seems possible that the house leaders will agree that certain minor legislation requiring no intense study at the committee stage might continue to be dealt with in committee of the whole.
The effect of this new procedure will be to revive the importance of the stage at which the report on the bill is considered. Our report recommends that if the bill is reported with or without amendment, it should be put to a vote at the report stage without debate unless members have put down specific amendments to the bill to be considered at this stage.
Motion for Concurrence in Report
The rules would provide a proper period between the publication of the report and the commencement of the report stage and also for the giving of notice of amendments which probably would be printed on a separate notice paper to be attached to the bill. Mr. Speaker would have the right and authority to select and combine amendments so that the debate would follow the order of the bill and would be concentrated on the decisive questions to be determined by the house.
It is expected that the effect of this change, if accepted by the house, would be to transfer the fulcrum of debate on major legislation to a later stage in the consideration of the bill. In some instances it is to be expected that this new procedure would greatly enhance the importance of third reading.
It is obvious that under this procedure legislation will receive more careful consideration and scrutiny than at present. Instead of legislation, estimates, and all the other business of the house having to go through all the required stages in this chamber, it would be possible for important stages to occur outside the house where more time can be taken and more detailed consideration can be given particularly to the drafting of legislation. This procedure could be adopted, of course, only if the committee of the whole stage were abandoned. For otherwise ministers would not be willing to have their legislation considered in detail in both a standing committee and committee of the whole and the members themselves would regard the standing committees as unimportant.
The foregoing description of the legislative process substantially applies to the proceedings of the United Kingdom parliament, which was favourably commented upon by last year's committee.
The business of ways and means is of an importance equal to that of supply and the total legislative process. Your committee felt that like the committee of supply, the committee of ways and means has also become superfluous and merely an interesting procedural survival from long forgotten history. The motion to go into committee of ways and means is made by the Minister of Finance on the presentation of his budget. It is recommended that this procedure be abolished and that the minister, when he wishes to present his budget, make a resolution couched in very general terms to the effect that the house approves the financial policies of the government. As part of his budget presentation, the minister has always filed
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report resolutions for the amendment of the different taxing acts and at some stage subsequent to the budget debate these resolutions have been considered and the bills given first reading. It is consistent with the committee's approach to the resolution stage that it should recommend that debate on these budget resolutions should be abandoned and that they should be put to the vote after the conclusion of the six-day budget debate or at such time thereafter as appears to be suitable.
In other respects, the business of ways and means would be transferred to the house and would be conducted with the Speaker in the chair, and after second reading all the various finance bills would be referred to a committee of the whole house.
The effect of the changes recommended and summarized thus far may be emphasized at this point. Although there are 365 days in the year, it is self-evident that parliament will not sit on all of these days and it is highly advisable that it should not do so because hon. members must keep in close contact with the constituencies they represent. Assuming members want to be in their constituencies during the summer, approximately four weeks at Christmas and two weeks at Easter, and making allowance for Saturdays, Sundays and statutory holidays, it seems that a reasonable number of sitting days would be approximately 160 to 170 in any year. Of this total, eight are occupied by the debate on the Speech from the Throne, six by the budget debate and, if these recommendations are adopted, 28 by the business of supply, a total of 42 days in all for general debate. I should have added earlier that your committee recommends that any days unused on the debate on the address or on the budget debate should be transferred to supply.
This leaves something like 125 days during the parliamentary year for the passage of legislation and the completion of other business of the house. This is by no means an inconsequential number of days but measured against the volume of legislation presented to this and previous parliaments it does not provide room for the luxury of wasted time.
The scheduling of parliamentary work is in no sense a new idea. It has been followed in Britain and elsewhere for many years and the Canadian parliament is one of the few major parliaments, if not the only one, lacking any procedure effective for the prior planning of its legislative and other programs.
I believe that most members agree that procedures should be adopted to permit the


house to plan its work. Naturally different members have different ideas as to how this might be done. The basic proposals of your committee is that a proceedings committee be established consisting of the house leaders of each party in the house. I think it is important to point out that this committee will consist of the four house leaders treated as equals, and will not reflect the numerical proportions of the different parties in the house. This excludes the possibility of majority decisions by this committee.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It is recommended that the committee be chaired by the government house leader, that it meet generally twice a week, and that it make its reports to the house on most Thurs-' days. This committee, in its work, would have many advantages.
Under the new rules most of the legislation proposed by the government would be disclosed in detail early in the session. The publication of this legislation would not be held up by the necessity of waiting for approval at the resolution stage.
Placing less emphasis on the second reading debate, and the reference of most important legislation to standing committees would fully acquaint members of the house and the country of the significant features of legislation which was under discussion.
At any time the proceedings committee would be in a position to make a reasonable and intelligent assessment of the amount of time which might properly be allotted in the parliamentary program for the specific stages of different bills before the house. Your committee recommends, where the proceedings committee would make a unanimous recommendation to the house as to the amount of time to be allotted to a particular stage of a particular measure that that recommendation would automatically become an order of the house. Knowing the specific amount of time which has been allotted to different stages of different measures the government leader, in consultation with his colleagues, the other house leaders, would be in a better position than at present to establish a reasonable timetable for calling the different stages of measures before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is no time for hon. members to make remarks. There is no reason to expect that the
December 10, 1968

house leaders will not co-operate conscientiously and effectively in making the new proceedings committee work. To a very large extent this new committee will permit the leaders of the various parties, particularly the opposition parties, to assume responsibility for the performance of their parties in the house. Heretofore the inability of the house to enforce agreements made between party leaders has resulted in a wasteful prolongation of debate which often has been deplored in every quarter of the house.
To me it seems unthinkable that any party would fail to take a serious part in the discussions of the house program, and it would appear to me that any party which failed to make a positive contribution to this discussion would suffer in the public esteem. I find it hard to believe that any party would take the peculiar stand of saying that it opposed a procedure for the establishment of a sensible program for the house business, and that it would not conscientiously and sensibly take part in these procedures.
Nevertheless we have to recognize that we live here in a political forum and, notwithstanding the desire of hon. members to accommodate themselves, there may be times when serious and unbridgeable disagreements may arise as to the programming of business in the house. Where such disagreements arise, the question which faced the committee, and which I submit this house must answer, is: who shall have the responsibility to propose a resolution to the disagreement? Much has been said, and may be said again, about the desirability of leaving an issue of this type to be worked out by the parties or, failing this, to be worked out by events. This, in the opinion of the majority of your committee, would mean in effect that any opposition party represented on the proceedings committee would have an absolute veto over the planning of the business of the house.
This veto would have both its obvious effects and its hidden effects. Obviously it would express itself in a prolongation of debate, a repetition of arguments, and a filibuster hopeful of political advantage. But it is likely to have a hidden and even more insidious effect. The undue prolongation of debate on one measure precludes the house from dealing with other measures during the session and as a consequence important sections of the public may suffer. Moreover, experience has shown that such discussions might be of an endless character giving no indication to parliament or to the public of when such a debate would end.
Motion for Concurrence in Report
Accordingly your committee has recommended that the event of disagreement in the proceedings committee should not be dealt with by default, should not be dealt with by the unsatisfactory process of permitting one or more parties to impose an open and a hidden veto on the proceedings of the house. In the recommendation of your committee it is much more open, straightforward and businesslike for the house and the whole of the country to know how a stalemate of this kind is to be resolved. Consequently the proposal of your committee is that the government in such an event be confronted with its responsibility, that it be able to bring forward a timetable for the disposition of a disputed bill or bills, and that this timetable be subject to debate and to decision by the house.
Again I point out that this procedure in its essence is very similar to that used at Westminster.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The czar of the House of Commons.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Finally, the fourth report recommends changes in standing order 26. The recommendations of your committee follow almost exactly those of the sixth report of the committee which reported to the last parliament. The purpose of the change is to provide for a proper and more effective use of the standing order. I think all hon. members realize this is the standing order which provides for the adjournment of the house to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance.
No one will be surprised by my assertion that as matters now stand this standing order is looked upon askance by many hon. members because of what might be called the bootlegging debate that takes place on the substance of a proposal under the guise of a discussion on whether or not it is a definite matter of urgent public importance. Your committee recommends that a member seeking to make a motion for the adjournment of proceedings under this standing order should file with Mr. Speaker, at least two hours before the opening of the sitting, a statement of the matter of urgency. The member would be permitted to read his statement to the house but not to argue his case. The Speaker would make his decision-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of the house that the hon. member's time has expired. Has he leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks to hon. members and I will try not to transgress too much.


An hon. Member:: You did not allocate your own time too well, did you, Gordon?


Duncan Gordon Blair: I was dealing with standing order 26 and had made the point that a member would not be permitted a further argument in support of the statement submitted to Mr. Speaker. The Speaker would then give his decision but would not be required to give reasons for his decision unless he wished to do so.
Should the Speaker find that the matter raised was, in the terms of the new standing order, a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, on ordinary days debate would be fixed to start at 8 p.m. in the evening. I should think that there will be general agreement with this proposal, but there may be some doubts about the desirability of not requiring the Speaker to give reasons for his decision. It should be noted that in order to prevent their parallel standing orders from accumulating a burden of precedents that would restrict Mr. Speaker in his judgment, the British house specifically prohibits the Speaker from stating his reasons.
I think that this abbreviated description of the matters covered in this report will serve to indicate the scope of the work which the house assigned to the committee and the importance of the recommendations the committee has decided to make to the house.
At all times the aim of the committee was to enhance the importance and the effectiveness of parliament. Its aim was to give a greater opportunity for participation to individual private members of parliament on both sides of the house, to provide better scrutiny for bills and for estimates, to provide a basic timetable which would enable hon. members, both private and ministerial, to plan their days and years so they could meet necessary obligations here and in their constituencies, to place the government in a position where it could only reasonably bring before parliament a legislative program which it was capable of enacting, to give the government the assurance of knowing that at certain stated intervals decisions would be made for or against its requests for supply. The final and I think the most important purpose of these recommendations is to give the opposition in parliament an ample opportunity to bring on debate on the issues they deem


important to the nation. This they do not possess at the present time.
Therefore I have the honour of moving, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), that the fourth report of the special committee on proceedings of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking the mover of the motion for the moderate manner of his presentation, and I trust he realizes now that there may be different standards of judgment as to what is a waste of time and as to how long a member should have the opportunity to speak in the house.
I was struck by the continual emphasis the hon. gentleman placed upon British tradition. I also admire the British tradition, but I thought that hon. members opposite as well as most Canadians were anxious to develop our own traditions in Canada suited to our own conditions. I was a little surprised to find that whenever my hon. friend found the going somewhat heavy he fell back upon the practice at Westminster and on British tradition.
This debate may be a long one. I hope it will not because I hope the government will see reason before we spend too much time in this process, but whether the debate be long or short I hope it will be restrained and reasonable in tone.
We on this side of the house in more than one party believe that a fundamental issue is at stake-perhaps the fundamental issue. I refer to the right of parliament to control itself and thereby to control the government. This question has arisen before and we know it is an issue over which passions can be aroused on both sides of the house. It is also, in the context of this country at this time, an issue which can become obscured and partisan and, indeed, the subject of passionate debate.
All hon. members know that legislatures do not today everywhere enjoy the high repute in which we would like to see legislatures held. There is now a popular impression in some quarters that legislatures are an obstacle to good government. That impression offers to those who genuinely seek reform the natural temptation to change more than is needed and a temptation to change the purpose of parliament in the name of improving its procedures. This impatience with legislature, therefore, requires special vigilance on the
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
part of defenders and friends of parliament. I assume that all of us, being here, would support and defend the purposes of parliament.
It is not a simple task, in an age impressed by urgency and efficiency, to defend an institution whose purpose is to deter legislation that is bad, sometimes to delay, and sometimes indeed to oppose to the end bad legislation. It is not easy to make Canadians, who are accustomed to their freedoms, aware when these freedoms are under threat. I would hope that no one on either side of the house would use the weaknesses of legislatures in the public esteem to weaken parliament further.
The great majority of the members of this house know that if parliament becomes a rubber stamp it becomes useless. That is the main reason for being here, and one weapon we possess is our ability on occasion to compel the government to reassess its measures and force it to change or even to halt a course of action which we believe to be inadequate or wrong. If that were not necessary parliament would not be necessary. But governments make mistakes, even governments with computers. A government which knows it must face an effective opposition will take more care than will a government which has the power under its rules to disarm the opposition. Members of a government are not perfect. Lord Acton, a brilliant man, a man I believe admired by the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau), said in the course of a well known quotation:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
Members of a government are subject to fault like the rest of us. The function of the opposition is by our probing to reveal and correct those faults, by our presence and by our powers to make the government more careful, to make the government more compassionate, to make the government more responsive to the needs of the people of this country.
There are some facts to establish about parliament and about parliamentary reform. The first is that the problems that frustrate Canada were not created here in parliament, and they will not be solved by a mere amendment of the rules of parliament. It was not the rules of parliament that caused inflation, created a crisis in housing, or slowed the sales of grain. It is not the reform of parliament which will produce a satisfactory foreign policy, bring growth to our economy,
DEBATES	3757
Motion for Concurrence in Report reduce unemployment, end the alienation of the young or reduce the strains within confederation. Parliament is not the cause of these frustrations, and parliament ought not to be the victim or the scapegoat of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The second fact is related to the first. It is that changes in the rules will not radically or suddenly increase the quantity or the quality of the output of this parliament. There will be improvements, I would hope, but there is no magic in procedure, no magic that will cause the government to draft more and better laws quickly, above all, no magic that will produce policies and solutions where there have been none produced to date.
If this government had no opposition at all to face it would still be behind. It would still face a backlog of things it should be doing and problems it has not been able to solve. That, after all, is the fate of governments in a changing and complex time, in a changing and complex country. We are not going to transform the capacity of this government simply by amending the rules of parliament. There is no magic wand, and there should be no attempt to suggest that these or any other changes to the rules will suddenly and as if by magic make the government efficient.
The third fact is that the purpose of parliamentary reform is not simply to serve efficiency, as the hon. member who introduced the motion seemed to believe, important though efficiency naturally is. The purpose, rather, is to work out a process of debate and legislation which is consistent with the democratic values of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I emphasize that. We do not simply need a procedure which passes laws. We need a procedure which also passes the demanding test of free and adequate debate. It is not enough to be concerned merely with the efficiency of the process. I would assume that the legislative process in the Soviet Union is very efficient. But we are a different kind of country and the rules of our parliamentary debate must reflect and protect that difference. We must not demean the importance of debate. Of course, there must be reasonable limits upon the time parliament spends in discussion. But there must also be time for adequate discussion here. The right of discussion and debate, the associated right
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report of inquiry and the consequent capacity to arouse and inform public opinion, is the single most important safeguard the country has against arbitrary, secret or unresponsive government. This is the place in Canada where grievances can be raised with most effect. To arbitrarily limit the right of members to speak is to limit the capacity of the government to understand and respond to the problems of Canadians.
I suggest we must remember that this is the only national forum in which spokesmen for all parts of Canada can speak and expect to be heard. I need not remind the house that different regions of the country have specific problems and points of view. Discussion in a national forum helps to knit the regions into a whole nation and to build a stronger unity. It seems likely that one of the serious casualties of any major limitation upon the time of debate would be the right of spokesmen to be adequately heard on the problems of the regions. I suggest that national unity would suffer.
When considering our constitution we take it for granted that we must consider the nature of our country. It seems equally obvious to me that when considering the rules of our House of Commons we must consider the nature of our country. Members of the opposition generally, as I understand it, approve and support the vast majority of the changes proposed in this report. Indeed, spokesmen for the opposition parties suggested many of these changes. We recognize that in some cases the traditional powers of opposition parties and private members are withdrawn or reduced, and we are prepared to accept this to the extent it is necessary to improve and strengthen parliament.
I will not dwell at length upon the obvious, but it is important to assert that the contest in this house is not a contest between reformers and intransigents. We on this side of the house have supported and proposed extensive reforms, all of which we believe will make parliament more effective, government more responsive and the private member a more useful part of the work of the house. We in this party, indeed, have additional reforms that we would like to see incorporated. We believe that government has the right and responsibility to govern. The rules of parliament should help the government to govern well. We support the reform of parliament. We support it enthusiastically and out of conviction. But we draw the line at certain fundamental and unnecessary changes which


would deform parliament and make it ineffective. We draw the line at proposals which would put parliament in the hands of the government because that, we believe, would reverse the appropriate relation. Parliament must not be made subservient to the government. Parliament must continue to be responsible to the people through parliament. That is a parliamentary tradition and we defend it today, not because it is an old tradition or even because it is a British tradition but because it is a good tradition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and the best safeguard we have against arbitrary government. It is, in the final analysis, the only safeguard we have. At various stages we will have changes and improvements to suggest to the proposals made by the special committee. We shall have certain reforms to suggest on our part. I say in passing that whether the arrangements suggested by the committee for written amendments at the report stage are practical, you may, Mr. Speaker, find yourself flooded with amendments proposed in respect of important legislation with which you may find it very difficult to cope.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We will certainly be interested in the amendments and suggestions made by hon. members from all parts of the house and we will consider them carefully. Any proposal that seems to us to be likely to improve the effectiveness of parliament and the contribution of its members will be welcomed. Our attitude in this regard will continue to be constructive and co-operative.
But, sir, there is not the slightest chance that we will ever accept the proposal that the government majority should have the power to impose allocation of time in advance on any number of items on the order paper or before standing committees before a word has been uttered in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should make a slight correction, Mr. Speaker. We would be allowed two hours to protest and then we would be crushed by the juggernaut of the just society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One must be frank. This is a vicious proposal, unnecessary, excessive and brutal in its potential impact on parliament
December 10, 1968

and those whom parliament is sworn to protect. I repeat, we will never accept it.
What is being proposed here? It is proposed that there be a proceedings committee, to be composed probably of the various house leaders, to help arrange the introduction and orderly consideration of the business of the house. So far, so good. We agree that upon the unanimous agreement of the house leaders, subject to the considerations noted in the proposed standing order, the allocation of time for a specific item before the house becomes an order of the house. This is in itself a major departure. It is a considerable convenience for the government, but we do not oppose it. It is founded upon the consent of the various house leaders, and we would be bound by their consent.
Members of the house should be reminded that we have not had any machinery for authorizing house leaders to make effective agreements as to the allocation of time binding on the house. A house leader today has ordinarily not been able to commit his party to terminate a debate within a given time because he could not prevent debate from continuing beyond the time in question. If the rules were changed to translate agreements between house leaders into house orders, as is suggested, the vast majority of the difficulties of the house regarding length of debate would thereby be eliminated. The hon. member himself said there is no reason to believe that house leaders would not co-operate. I suggest we stop there. That in itself would enable a solution of a vast majority of the problems of the house with regard to the orderly arrangement of debates.
But the government is not satisfied with this. What happens if the house leaders have not reached agreement? First of all, there is the convenient provision that would allow the government house leader, sitting alone all by himself, to constitute a quorum. We are told that this is inserted to prevent the other house leaders from boycotting his meetings. But he could very easily end up by having his meetings in the shower at home in the morning.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And then he may boycott himself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This provision that a quorum may consist of the government house leader, the President of the Privy Council and hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), has to go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely I do not have to elaborate on the point. There is not an impartial observer anywhere who knows anything about this parliament who would not agree that for the sake of parliament and the parliamentary process the present government house leader is one who has to be kept on a very short leash.
But what is much more destructive of parliament is that we are told now to accept that, in the absence of agreement among the house leaders, the government house leader can determine in advance how much consideration any given government measure or batch of measures requires. If I were to employ a form of argument enjoyed apparently by the right hon. Prime Minister, by reductio ad absurdum it would be possible for the government house leader, with the support of the majority, to put a whole batch of bills before the house and to insist that they be dealt with at the rate of about ten minutes apiece. There is certainly nothing in the rules to prevent it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't put ideas into his head.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think the house leader needs any tutoring from anybody on this subject. The house leader could determine this for a whole collection of items before a word had been uttered in the house. He could include in his order anything that was on the order paper or before a standing committee and give the house two hours to protest, following which his majority would ram it through the house.
I say this is vicious and absurd. It is a perversion of the parliamentary process to say that the government should be able in advance to decide how much time a batch of bills requires for consideration by this house, how much time is required for clause by clause examination in a standing committee, and how much time is required for debate or discussion before a batch of bills is passed.
It is the natural instinct of every government that has a difficult, unpopular or controversial measure to get it through with as little fuss as possible. A government house leader is the last person in the world to have in effect the power to decide unilaterally and in advance how much consideration should be given to various items of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The rule of closure is still on the books. The hon. member who made the
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report motion suggested that unless this rule is adopted debate could go on endlessly. But the truth is that on any specific item of legislation, if the government feels that the right to debate is being abused or that the public interest is suffering by not having a particular law passed, if the government feels it can justify the use of closure in that instance, it can invoke closure. It does so, accepting the responsibility for it before the people of Canada and relating it to a particular case.
But what is proposed today goes far beyond the present rule of closure. It would permit the government house leader to decide a week or more in advance to apply closure to all stages of all measures on the order paper or before standing committees before any consideration had been given to any of them. He would determine. He would be the dictator. The government majority in the house would give his dictate the stamp of approval, and parliament would be bent to his will.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government house leader or others on his behalf may assure us that he will use this power moderately and responsibly. He can keep his assurances. They are worth nothing in this parliament and less than nothing to any future parliament. The government has more than enough power to act under the present closure rule. If in a given case the government feels the right to debate is being abused and if it feels it can justify cutting it off, why does it want this new power? Why does it want it, except to apply closure in advance to a whole parcel of legislation? The only reason for having this added power is to use it, and use it it would.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Now, why this added power? A majority government does not need this power unless it wants or intends to be authoritarian. This power would be of no use to a minority government because only a government with a majority to ram through the will of the house leader can make any use of this particular rule. The intention is clear, to make closure the routine rather than the exception. The assumption contained in this proposal is that the minority is always irresponsible and always wrong, the majority is always responsible and always right. Pass this proposal, and the volumes that have been written by the Prime Minister over 20 years on the rights of the minority will be categorized as sanctimonious hypocrisy. I say to the Prime Minister through you, sir, that if he insists


that these changes be passed he will deny and betray what he says he has stood for.
We will be told by the government in the course of this debate that no government would really abuse this power because they would be turned out of office by the voters at a general election. This argument is nonsense. If we follow that line of reasoning, we might as well pack up parliament and all go home. The people could go on electing governments every four years or so, they could defeat governments, change their political complexion and the personalities that compose them, and we would continue to call it a democracy. It would be no democracy at all if in the meantime the government could use parliament as a rubberstamp.
The government is not satisfied with the changes that have been largely accepted by members of the opposition. They are not satisfied with our willingness to be committed by the agreement of house leaders to a given time. They are not satisfied with having a recourse to closure in extreme cases where they are willing to accept the responsibility and think they can justify it to the people. They are not satisfied with any of this. They are determined that parliament will be programmed, and programmed by them, by the government and the government majority. The reference to programming of business recurs three times on one page in the third report of the special committee.
Let me put it in the most direct way possible. No hon. member of this house, least of all the minority in this house, has been elected to parliament so that we can be programmed by the government. You can computerize the Prime Minister if you like. You can make automatons of your cabinet ministers if they are docile enough to allow it. You can put ministerial activities on a flow-chart and program the Prime Minister's political and social life, if that is the way you want it. However, you should take the word back to those industrious gentlemen in the east block that the computer stops here.
What is the context in which this unnecessary power is being demanded? First, it is being demanded within the context of a majority government, a government with a comfortable majority in this house. As I have said, a majority government does not need this power, and wants it so that it can permit itself the excesses that this power allows. Second, the power is demanded within the context of an opposition that has proven itself to be responsible. We cut off, that is, all parties on this side of the house, the throne
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
speech debate early. We suggested the reference of the Biafra issue to a standing committee and used one of our own opposition days to debate the report of that committee. We tried to have the postal bill referred to a standing committee. This procedure would have saved several days of time in the house. We tried to have one of the farm bills passed in all its stages at one sitting. We agreed to sit extra time to pass bills, and so on.
Third, this excessive power is being sought when we have already obviously gone a very considerable distance in our willingness to accept so many of the recommendations of the committee that impose limitations on members of opposition parties in this house. But none of this is enough for this government. Apparently they want absolute control of the house. Throughout these recommendations there is a continuing emphasis on the value of study by standing committees. There are, of course, many advantages in the use of standing committees. But we are now in a position where two-thirds of the estimates go to standing committees. There is plenty in the existing state of our standing committees to give all of us concern about how much more we should turn over to them. I am not making any comment now upon the merits of the discussion earlier in the afternoon. The third report of the procedure committee itself reflects some doubt about the manner in which committees are presided over.
If I may say so without flattering, Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference between the conduct of our procedures under yourself or the Deputy Speaker of this chamber and being at the tender mercies of some 20 members of the government party who, with all the good will in the world, do not have necessarily the training or competence of yourself or your deputy.
This report would require all the estimates to be referred to committees. Furthermore, this report would have all legislation referred to standing committees, except the very few instances in which the hon. member indicated use might be made of the committee of the whole house on bills. This use of standing committees under these circumstances is proposed without any effort to give expert assistance to the committees.
The Prime Minister did a very constructive thing earlier in the session when he made additional help available to the opposition parties. This was a constructive measure, and one upon which I have no hesitation in complimenting him again. The committees, Mr. DEBATES	3761
Motion jor Concurrence in Report Speaker, are in no condition today, I suggest, to receive the vast amount of work that this change proposes be turned over to them. All of this would occur at a time when we have many committees meeting at the same time. As I say, we must recognize the limitations and traditions of those committees, to put it as tactfully as I can.
We should ask what would have happened in a situation such as prevailed here in this house between 1958 and 1962 when the combined opposition numbered 60 or less? The opposition would never have been able to man these committees effectively. The close examination of government spending and legislative proposals would be a farce. The consideration of these matters would be far less effective than if it took place here in this chamber, either in the house or in committee of the whole.
Even now, Mr. Speaker, when this government has its comfortable majority, it does not seem able to man these committees properly. Having been defeated on a motion in the transport committee and having decided on a new chairman last Friday, they apparently could not muster enough members to elect him. I think perhaps the government should bear this in mind when they are considering the views and difficulties smaller parties might have in adequately manning committees which are considering important measures. I must say I also wish to congratulate the government whip because apparently nobody would ever be able to program him.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Why should the government and its supporters in the house insist on abolishing the committee of supply at this time and sending all departmental estimates and in addition virtually all bills to standing committees for consideration? We recognize that the standing committees are a good place for the consideration of the estimates of most departments of government, but I have mentioned the weaknesses of the committees and the unsatisfactory traditions surrounding chairmen. I have already referred to the overloading of committees, which in turn is having an effect on attendance in the house.
We in this party want the right to have some departmental estimates considered in the committee of the whole house, and this is a right that we want recognized. We are suggesting that roughly one-third of the departments be considered here and that we have some choice as to which departments they are to be. Surely this is a perfectly reasonable
3762	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report suggestion, and I should like to know why this is something that my hon. friends opposite will not allow the opposition to decide. Why do they insist on jamming their views down our throats in regard to what is the role of the opposition?
This proposal would not involve extra time. Not one additional minute is involved in what I am suggesting. The government does not save one minute by doing what it is proposing compared with what we want done. When members of the government stand in this house and purport to be putting this proposal forward on the ground that it would help the opposition, then I do not think one is being too skeptical if one does wonder a little about this.
I do not want to be offensive about this, but obviously no time is saved by the government as a result of what it is proposing. In addition, it is contrary to the way that we who have the main responsibility for examining estimates want to see them examined. There is really only one belief possible for us to hold, and that is that the government wants to weaken the role of the opposition in examining estimates. If that is not the intention of the government, then let it simply indicate that it is prepared to accept the views of the opposition in regard to retaining about one-third of the departmental estimates for consideration in the house. Let us be the judge of that and it will not cost the government one additional day as far as its business schedule is concerned.
These proposals should not be viewed in isolation from other developments which together have the ominous effect of building the power of government at the expense of the individual citizen. It is important to ask the question: What kind of system are we building here? The office of the Prime Minister of Canada already involves enormous power, especially when the Prime Minister controls a majority government. The office of the Prime Minister of this country controls more power than the President of the United States in his sphere, because none of the checks and balances of the United States system are built into our constitution. All the checks and balances there have ever been in our parliamentary system have been built in here in parliament; yet this is a function that my hon. friends now wish to remove.
Indeed, it can be argued that the Prime Minister of Canada has more power in his sphere than the Prime Minister of Great Britain, even if my hon. friends wish to rely

DEBATES	December 10, 1968
entirely on the argument relating to the British tradition, because in our parliament we do not have the degree of independence in our parties that is evident in Britain where frequently a large slice of a particular party votes independently of the view of the party leader or party caucus.
All of this is occurring at a time when government and society are growing more complex and the feeling of effectiveness of the individual citizen is growing smaller and smaller. The Prime Minister himself has recognized this social and psychological problem and has spoken contagiously of the prospects of involvement and participation. I must say in all frankness that these words have a hollow ring against the background of a guillotine which will even further weaken the control Canadians have over their government today.
Speaking briefly on television the other night when he was addressing the human rights conference here, the Prime Minister affirmed his belief that government must serve and protect individual citizens, and I assume the Prime Minister includes parliament in this context. Certainly that is our conviction. Other agencies exist in a free society to protect the individual against the state-the courts, the free press and some other forums. But none has the ultimate strength or sanction of parliament. And parliament has that strength only because, when the chips are down, parliament can force a government at least to delay. This proposal would deprive us of that power.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these gentlemen would deform parliament, not reform it. Therefore I am going to propose an amendment and I would ask the Prime Minister and the supporters of the government in this house to consider carefully our position, to consider the fact that it is so easy to destroy and to weaken and so difficult to restore and to strengthen this institution. I assure the members of this house that we on this side are anxious to co-operate in genuine reform and in measures that go to the improvement of the country. But we are not prepared to see parliament weakened. So I call upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues to consider very carefully what they are doing and also to consider very carefully the suggestions we are making.

Seconded by Mr. Baldwin, I move:
That the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house be not now concurred
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be less than fair if I did not say to the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) that I congratulate him on that part of his speech, and it was the greater part, in which he described the changes that are proposed in the various reports our special committee is making to the House of Commons. No doubt he will recognize that I disagree with him in his interpretation of one or two significant provisions, but he made an excellent statement of the total picture that has been presented to parliament. To these remarks I must add my warm congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on the important speech he has just made. My colleagues and I wish to associate ourselves with his defence of the rights of this free institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like others, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I believe that the rules of this house must be improved. We stand for parliamentary reform. Like the Leader of the Opposition, we do not think that improved rules are the final answer. We think in the long run that what really counts is the quality of debate, the nature of the legislation that is placed before us and the motives of those who take part in the work of this institution. If we are here to make a shambles of it we can do it no matter how good the rules are. If we are here to do the business of the people of Canada we can do that even if the rules are not as good as they might be. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we think that there are reforms that must be made.
In a brief aside in my remarks yesterday I possibly indicated the area in which we have to work the hardest. I said I found it interesting to read the words, reported back in 1876, of an hon. member who complained that the special committee on procedure of that year had not gone far enough. He said, "If we do not do something the sessions will get out of hand. Instead of our getting along with two month sessions they are going to last three months." That was back in 1876. Now our
DEBATES	3763
Motion for Concurrence in Report concern is to get 15 or 18 months of work done in the course of 12 calendar months. In other words, the area about which we have to concern ourselves most so far as reform is concerned is the area of time, how we use the 12 months of the year or how we use the time of the year that is available to us. Speeches I have made both inside and outside the House of Commons and articles I have written for newspapers and periodicals have concentrated on this issue. I know I am speaking for my colleagues in saying that one of the most important things we must accomplish in any revision of the rules of this house is the provision of machinery by which we can make the best use of our time. We are no longer a parliament concerned only with post offices, roads, customs tariffs and a few things like that. We are concerned with everything that affects our people from the cradle to the grave. We are concerned with problems from under the sea to outer space. The year is only 12 months long and we must cope with the problem of time.
Having said that I am advocate of parliamentary reform and having admitted that I think the major area where we must work is with respect to time, that seems to put me foursquare alongside the changes that our committee has recommended, since many of those changes are directed to solving the problems confronting us because there are only 12 months in the year. That is true. I am on the side of the most of the changes in the rules in the various reports that were presented to the house on Friday of last week. But when I recognize in those reports just one rule-never mind some of the others about which there might be some minor questions- which I regard as dangerous to the freedom of speech, as dangerous to the character of debate in this house and as dangerous to this institution itself, I have no option but to take the same stand that has been taken by the Leader of the Opposition. This rule must not be written into the standing orders of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
us, in our concern about planning the year and organizing our debates, not get the notion that somehow debate is a sin. Debate is not a sin, a mistake, an error or something to be put up with in parliament. Debate is the essence of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
37G4
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report


Stanley Howard Knowles: Debate is the means whereby we bring into focus the problems, opinions and thoughts of the people of Canada whom we represent. Yes, I agree with the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton-perhaps he was quoting me -that the most insidious form of closure is unlimited time spent on one or two measures so that there is no time left to deal with other matters. I am very clear in my mind where I stand. We must have reforms that cope with the problem of time. But you do not cope with the problem of time in a democratic state by giving all the power over parliament to a dictator-which is what the new rule 16-A would do.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred to this report as the report of our committee. He was correct in saying once or twice that certain things were passed by the majority. That is true. Indeed, when it came to proposed standing order 16-A, all the Liberals voted for it and all the members from all opposition parties voted against it. We were not only against it in committee; we are against it here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although I am opposed to proposed standing order 16-A I think it is only fair to the house and, I think, fair to myself that I take a few minutes to express my approval of most of what is in the fourth report and practically all that is in the fifth report that we shall be dealing with later. Many of the items in those reports are items we have been proposing for a number of years. I like what we have done. For example, we have decided to cut out what some new members in particular have felt to be a ridiculous duplication of debate. We have done that by saying that it is not necessary to debate money bills at the resolution stage, at the second reading stage, in committee of the whole and at the third reading stage. We decided to cut out one of the stages of debate, namely the resolution stage, and we recommended that in our report. We have also taken the view that it is hardly a good use of our time to have a thorough debate on a bill in a standing committee so far as its clauses are concerned, only to have that debate all over again on the floor of the house. We decided that we should have one or the other but not both debates. We made a similar decision with respect to the budget. We noted that the budget went through several stages. There is the six day debate with


Mr. Speaker in the chair, debate on the resolutions, debate on second reading, debate in committee of the whole and so on. We decided to cut out the stage of debate on the resolutions.
These things, Mr. Speaker, I regard not as something we have consented to begrudgingly but as improvements that are long overdue. We are pleased to support them. But I draw attention to the fact that all these items are means by which we have tried to cope with the problem of time. We have tried to contract the time to be used on certain stages so that we can have more time for more pieces of legislation.
We have done some other things, too. We met requests put to us by the government, and I have no hesitation in saying that we agreed to those requests. For example, hon. members who have been here for a while will recall that there have been times when the government wanted to deal with urgent matters but was not able to bring them before parliament because of the requirement that 48 hours notice must be given, and so on. There have been occasions when the whole house has been prepared to deal with something but one hon. member-let us think of one who is not here any more; he used to sit across the way-said, no. As a result, parliament was frustrated. We have therefore provided for rules which enable notice to be given of urgent legislation during the period of prorogation or during the period between a general election and the first meeting of parliament. We have also made a provision under which a government can ask for an extension of time through the supper hour or at the end of the day. It is true we have surrounded this with certain precautions, we have made it possible for ten members to prevent this happening and in this way to prevent abuses. Generally speaking, however, the whole tenor of our recommendations has been to try to eliminate duplication of debate and to facilitate the possibility of the nation's business getting before parliament and being dealt with.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think it is true to say that these general recommendations meet with the approval of all of us. The new members who, after coming here, felt we were wasting a certain amount of time are delighted with them, and I believe the old members feel the same way about them. I also approve of the trial we propose to make of the new arrangements concerning the business of supply. If there is
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
a slight difference of opinion between the Leader of the Opposition and me over this, maybe we could reconcile it behind the curtain. I deeply share his concern whether or not the reference of all the estimates to standing committees will work. I feel concern for the same reason as he does.
First of all, our committees do not perform in the same way as does the House of Commons in this place. If we load the committees with an abundance of estimates and other work as well, if we fail to accept the recommendation that there be times when the house should adjourn in order that more committees may meet, and if we fail to provide the committees with adequate staff, the system will break down. Nevertheless, I think the proposal is worth a trial if only for the reason that the present system is not working. In support of that last statement I need only refer to what happened at the end of last evening. Hon. members who were present witnessed the approval without question of estimates amounting to billions of dollars in the space of a few minutes. Apart from this, the 19 days we spent in committee of supply on estimates were frustrating. Take this session. Never were we able to pin a minister down and get a satisfactory answer. Never were we able to say: we will not let your estimates through until we get a satisfactory reply. After all, the minister had only to sit tight and count on the efflux of time. The present system is so unsatisfactory that it becomes worth while to try something else. I think that what the committee has recommended is a workable proposal, and it is worth trying.
Some hon. members may ask: are you not aware that if this report is accepted these rules will become permanent and will not apply on an experimental basis? That is true, but in the fifth report we recommended that a committee on procedure and organization be made a permanent committee of the house. We have been given an assurance by the leader of the house that the government itself will give an undertaking during the course of this debate that at the next session of parliament a term of reference will be given to that committee enabling it to review the working of these rules at this session, should they be approved. So there is an element of experiment left, and I think this is what we should do in terms of supply.
Perhaps I have now spent enough time on the things in the report which are good. I thought I owed it to the house to say what I have said and that I also owed it to myself to
DEBATES	3765
Motion for Concurrence in Report say that 90 or 95 per cent of this report-I do not know how one measures these things mathematically-is good, good not only because it means change but good because it tries to cope with the main problem facing us, that is to say, the proper use of our time.
Having got all these things in the special committee-and I am referring now both to ourselves and to the government side-the government was not satisfied. I would point out that chronologically speaking we did not get this proposed standing order 16A until we had agreed to most of the rest of these proposals. It might be thrown back at me that we could not agree earlier in the meetings of the committee on a programming arrangement, so it was put off until the end. But the fact of the matter is that after we had agreed to a scheme which abolishes the committees of supply and ways and means, after we had agreed to cutting out the debate on the resolution stage of all bills, after we had agreed to cutting out debate on the resolution stage of the budget, after we had agreed to give the government special powers to bring in emergency measures and so on, the leader of the house came before the committee with the proposed standing order 16A and the suggestion that a committee on procedure be formed and given the powers outlined in the wording which is now before us.
One of the reasons some of us feel annoyed about this is that it seems to us our own words are being prostituted. Time and time again I have argued for the planning of the parliamentary year. I have used the word "calendarizing" to describe the process we ought to follow. It is being done, in part, in the proposed arrangements for supply. But the fact that we have argued for the planning of the parliamentary year does not give the government the right to come along with a proposal which completely takes away the rights of members of parliament and then try to tell us that the government is simply implementing our own ideas.
What does standing order 16A do? The Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I go over some of the ground he has covered, but no doubt it will be covered again a few times until the government recognizes the validity of our argument and realizes that this report, at least so far as 16A is concerned, ought to be turned back to the special committee for review and for change. Standing order 16-A proposes that there be a committee on procedure, presumably made up of the four party house leaders, which would meet
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report usually on Mondays and Wednesdays but in any case at the call of the Chair.
This piece about the quorum is really most interesting. The quorum is to consist of the member or members who happen to be present. Mr. Speaker, we met in camera, I know, but once the meetings are all over surely what is in the minutes of the committee becomes public property. I must say that when I saw the first draft it read that the members present should constitute a quorum. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said he wanted it to read "member or members". I confess that I laughed. I thought he was joking. But he was serious. He said he wanted it written in that way in order that members of the opposition parties could not make this committee ineffective by boycotting its meetings. But the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton stood up this afternoon and said it was inconceivable that opposition house leaders would not co-operate in this new regime. He said it was inconceivable that any opposition house leader would not come to these meetings and try to work things out. If it is so inconceivable, why cast this reflection on opposition house leaders by suggesting that some of them are going to boycott this whole affair and that the proceedings of parliament will bog down?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I suggest that this provision simply cannot stay there. I would like to see the whole of 16-A thrown out, but if it is going to stay some changes will have to be made. One is this business about the quorum consisting of the member or members who happen to be present. The Leader of the Opposition said that the President of the Privy Council could hold a meeting in the morning while he was taking a shower.


An hon. Member:: And throw the baby out with the bath water.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody says, "and throw the baby out with the bath water," but it was a shower that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about.
There is another item in that rule that will require a little more consideration. Farther on there is a reference to the distinction between reports made unanimously and reports that are not unanimous. Mr. Speaker, can you not see an interesting point of order arising some day if this recommendation goes through?
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
The government house leader comes in and says: "This motion is made pursuant to a unanimous decision of the committee." We, the other three house leaders, get up and say, "Oh, unanimous? We weren't there." But he says he was there, he was the quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
will have no corroborative evidence, but he will ask us to believe that he agreed with himself. So we have a unanimous report brought in by one member of a four member committee and whatever he proposes has to be decided immediately without debate. The only possible delay there can be is that if ten of us stand up and object we can have a recorded vote. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this way of dealing with the business of a free parliament goes even beyond the ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has a nice way with words. You know, Mr. Speaker, when he got to this point today wasn't it lovely the way he put it? He said: If there is a breakdown, a disagreement among party leaders, then of course the government must be confronted with its responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
can't beat it, Mr. Speaker. What he was really saying was that in the final analysis they control parliament, in the final analysis they are the masters of the house, in the final analysis they over there have the complete say and the opposition can go jump in the lake.
The rest of this proposed standing order 16-A is quite clear. The house leaders meet. If there are occasions when they are in agreement then under this rule, of course, their report is brought in on a Thursday and there can be no debate. The house decides on it right away. We accept that. If there is agreement we think this is the way it ought to be done.
One of the things lacking in recent years is that it has been possible for the house leaders to reach agreement among themselves but there has been no way to give effect to that agreement so far as the business of the house is concerned unless that agreement has been made an order of the house by unanimous consent. As a house leader I recognize the responsibility that will go with that position when a recommendation of this kind is going
December 10. 1968	COMMONS
through. All of us holding the position of house leader will have to know pretty well the thinking among the members of our parties, and we will have to do some arguing with the members of our parties as to the things we think should be agreed to. We are prepared to accept that responsibility but, Mr. Speaker, that is the way parliament ought to be run, by all of our members through their representations, the house leaders, accepting the responsibility of organizing the work of parliament. Parliament should not be run by one man supported by a majority over there saying how things should be done.
The Leader of the Opposition made a reference to the fact that assurances might be given that this rule would not be used in its extreme. I am afraid these assurances will not have any value so far as I am concerned. You see, Mr. Speaker, during the course of our committee proceedings a proposal that was made at one time was that all second reading debates be limited to one day, and at another time the proposal was made that all third readings be decided without any debate. When you have people with that frame of mind toward parliament you do not put a rule like this in their hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One
of these days a complicated, omnibus bill will be coming forward from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). Under the new rules it would have a second reading debate, go to a standing committee, and come back to the house for a report stage debate and third reading. It is a contentious bill and you know, Mr. Speaker, that lots of things can happen. I imagine that at the report stage of that bill there may be 40 amendments for Your Honour to sort out, select, and so on. Let us say that the government house leader thinks that too much of this sin called debate is going to take place. I am going to the extreme, Mr. Speaker. I am going to the re-ductio ad absurdum, but it can happen with this government. He can bring in one of these unanimous reports if he has met alone, or in the event that the rest of us are not in agreement with him, and then we can have a two hours debate on his recommendation. He recommends a one day debate on second reading of this omnibus bill and that it go to committee, that the committee have two days or three days, that the report stage last for one hour, and that third reading take half an 29180-239
DEBATES	3767
Motion for Concurrence in Report hour. The one hour on the report stage will save Your Honour the problem of sorting out the 40 amendments.
I know I have stated this in ridiculous terms, but that is possible under this proposed rule, and in that same motion based on his unanimous recommendation the government house leader could make proposals for every other item appearing on the order paper.
I do not suppose we will get to this omnibus bill until after the Christmas recess, if we have a Christmas recess, but by that time there may be a measure on the order paper to sell Air Canada to C.P.A., and that could be covered in the government house leader's motion, giving us no real opportunity to fight it. By that time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) may have completed his review of social legislation and we may have legislation on the order paper concerning old age security and family allowances. These can be included in the government house leader's motion also, and all we have is the right to debate it for two hours, with speeches limited to 20 minutes, and then the vote is put.
This is a rule that we cannot stand for. 1 hope that the government will listen to reason and will agree that it has to be changed. We do not enter this debate with any desire to keep it going forever and ever, to prevent our getting out of here for Christmas week and that sort of thing. We are not starting a filibuster. We are not daring the government to bring on closure. We are making this protest because we believe debate in parliament is valid, and if we can make our case for the deletion of the proposed standing order 16-A, or its improvement, we hope the government will give consideration to it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we in this party support the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
I have some suggestions I want to make about standing order 16-A as to ways in which improvements can be made, but perhaps I can keep Your Honour guessing until eight o'clock as to what those suggestions are.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform the house that

December 10, 1968
Canada Trust Company the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)-External aid-Increased aid to French-speaking countries; the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins)-C.B.C.-Protest against program respecting Algonquin Park; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Broadcasting-Inquiry as to request for tapes of news broadcasts.
It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Duncan Gordon Blair: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, respecting the Canada Trust Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Trust Company is a well known Canadian financial institution. It was incorporated in 1894 by an act of the parliament of Canada. Its original capital was set at a maximum of $500,000. In the year 1899 this company became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. The amount of authorized capital was increased at that time to its present maximum of $5 million, all of which has been issued and outstanding for some time. The company was given the additional power to receive money on deposit by an act of parliament in 1922.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The growth of the role of trust companies generally in Canada's economy has been accelerating by almost geometrical progression, and the growth of the Canada Trust Company has been keeping pace. When the parent company, the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation, reached its 100th birthday in the spring of 1964, the total assets under the administration of the Canada Trust-Huron and Erie organization passed the $1 billion mark. This year, as a result of internal growth and acquisitions, the total assets under administration will pass the $2 billion mark.
One of the major functions of the company is the acceptance of money in trust through guaranteed trust certificates, or guaranteed deposit certificates, for investment. At present the Trust Companies Act limits the amount that may be borrowed by any trust company, together with moneys entrusted to it for investment the repayment of which is
[Mr. Speaker.)
guaranteed by that trust company, to a maximum of 15 times the excess of the assets of the trust company over its liabilities. Notwithstanding a conservative policy of retention of a substantial portion of its annual earnings for growth purposes, the company anticipates that this internal generation of reserves will not be sufficient to provide for the expected growth in borrowing and acceptance of public money for investment arising from its expanding business, and the company finds itself in a position where all the existing capital has been subscribed for and issued for many years, while at the same time it is faced with a need for increased capital by the issuance of further shares.
The expansion of the services of the Canada Trust Company, with 56 branches and being licensed to carry on business in eight of the provinces of Canada and in the Yukon territory, has been accomplished partly by acquisitions and partly by internal growth, and while no further acquisitions are contemplated at the present time it is clear that additional capital is presently and will in the future be required to enable the company to play its full part in the growth of the economy. For these reasons the Canada Trust Company is seeking the present legislation to increase its authorized capital to $20 million.
I do not wish to infringe on the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, but it will be noted that on the order paper the next bill to be presented is one to amend the charter of the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. In view of the interest that has been expressed by hon. members of this house in the ownership of financial institutions, perhaps I might be permitted to make one comment about the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation which, as I said earlier, is the parent of Canada Trust. The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation is a company which is almost 100 per cent owned and controlled by Canadian shareholders. As it is the sole owner of Canada Trust, it can be said that the Canada Trust Company is a wholly owned Canadian corporation.
I hope it will be possible for hon. members to accord rapid passage at the second reading stage of this bill and the one relating to the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. The officers of these companies would then be able to appear before the appropriate committee of this house to give full answers to questions that may be asked and further explanations of the matters which I have raised during my brief remarks.
December 10, 1968


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciated the remarks of the sponsor of this bill, particularly in view of the fact this company is, as he stated, a Canadian-owned company operated by Canadians. Many things have been said in the past few months regarding private corporations in Canada and the fact that Canadian capital is not available in our financial community to develop corporations. It has been said on many occasions that it has been necessary for hon. members to sponsor foreign-owned companies. Therefore the history of this company is exceptional and the state of its financial report would indicate that it has had absolutely no difficulty in finding money and no need to ask parliament to allow it to increase its capitalization. It is now asking parliament for authority to increase its capitalization by almost four times.
I went to the library to find out who owned this company and its genetic background. I was surprised to learn that this was a rather exceptional company, or at least an exception to the general rule, in that the mortgage company owns the trust company. The situation is almost always the other way round. Usually the trust company owns the mortgage company and in many cases has numerous other companies under its control. There is probably some significance in this fact although it escapes me, not being very skilled in the field of economics.
It was interesting to note in looking up the genetic background of this company that it started from a mortgage company rather than a trust company. I am interested in what appears to be a phenomenon in this regard. It appears to have been highly successful for a century in a field in which many other companies have failed. A number of companies have gone bankrupt and, between you and me, Mr. Speaker, it is fortunate that this company was not among them.
This company has the name "Canada Trust Company". This name may carry a certain amount of prestige or an intimation of government support, at least in the minds of the public, because of the word "Canada ". One might guess that this company was owned by General Finance, Avco, the Delta Corporation or any other major financial corporation which used the name "Canada" to its advantage but our detriment.
I was surprised when reading the reports from the other place to note the interest of senators in the ownership of this organization.
Canada Trust Company I was surprised to find that certain senators questioned the legitimacy of this company expanding its financial position, mainly because it was not known whether it was foreign owned. Mr. Humphrys was quite definite in his understanding that there was no foreign control of this trust company.
We are all familiar with the pattern of the history of these companies. It seems to me that the history of this company in comparison with other companies is reversed. It seems to have wanted to establish a bank to obtain the financial resources that would allow it to lend money through the finance company rather than the bank itself. The method being used at that time is probably not necessary now because of the increased bank rate of interest which in some cases surpasses that of the finance companies in their lending programs. On a number of occasions finance corporations have come to parliament to establish banks. Therefore I fail to see the significance of bank ownership of this trust company. I think the fact this corporation is owned by a mortgage company would further complicate the matter.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The company is seeking to increase its capitalization from $5 million, as it has been since the turn of the century, to $20 million. The company, of course, started out with a smaller capitalization in 1894. At that time it was only $500,000. I think this is an indication that there is a role for Canadian owned trust companies. It is a role legitimately being played by this company. It has been supported to the extent of increasing its capitalization tenfold and it is now asking for it to be increased by $15 million.
The sponsor of the bill has pointed out that borrowings are limited by law to 15 times the excess of assets over the liabilities. I presume the relationship between assets and liabilities will vary not necessarily in relation to the capitalization of the corporation but according to the type of loans it makes and the call made on particular mortgage fields. To some extent it will also vary according to the portfolios the company holds. I suggest that the portfolios held by Canada Trust Company are very significant. They have total demand notes as of December 31, 1967, of $1,296,333. Changes since 1966 amounted to $1,153,667. This indicates a very large turnover. In addition they hold a great number of shares in many corporations. I am sure those interested in accumulated investments of one type or

December 10, 1968
Canada Trust Company another or mutual funds would, after looking at this list of portfolios, consider they had made a very good investment. I am surprised at the stability this company has had in the portfolios they hold. For instance, they hold
10.000	shares of the Bank of Montreal. There was no change in this portfolio. This is just one stock. The same thing applies to the other stocks held by the company.
I figured it out the other day for my own satisfaction. I think this is a very wise way to play the stock market. If I had bought Bank of Montreal stock a couple of years ago to the tune of 100 shares at $75 each, I would have invested $7,500. I calculated that with the split of that bank's stock and the dividend they have paid, which was about $1.50 a share last year, and multiplying by five times to cover the five shares for one, a person would in one year have made about $4,600 on a $7,500 investment. That is not bad business when you are playing with bank stock.
I point this out to illustrate that with this type of portfolio the assets have increased so rapidly over the liabilities that the balance of 15 to 1 is probably providing them with even more than the amount mentioned by the sponsor of the bill. I gather that in 1964 the assets amounted to $1 billion and in 1968 they amounted to $2 billion. When you consider just one item you realize that 10,000 shares would amount to about-well, Mr. Speaker, it is a very large amount of money in any event. It is not really the kind of calculation I make when I am pretending that I have bought some stock on the market.
This company holds a portfolio of 25,000 shares in Seagrams distillery. They increased the holding by 15,000 shares last year. They hold 30,000 shares in John Labatt. That is not bad stock, either. In Hiram Walker they hold
20.000	shares. That is not bad, if the government does not start playing around with the liquor tax. The company sold their 3,000 shares in Canada Cement. That was probably good business because the monopoly in the cement field seems to be disappearing. In respect of chemicals they bought an additional
3.000	shares in Du Pont of Canada, and now hold 6,000 shares in this corporation. They hold 5,000 shares in Union Carbide. In the field of finance they hold 15,000 shares in Industrial Acceptance Corporation. In regard to food they have some 9,000 shares in Canada Packers and 10,000 shares in Maple Leaf. In the field of heavy industry they hold 15,000 shares in Algoma Steel, 25.000 shares in Dominion Foundries, and 25,000 in the Steel Company of Canada.
fMr. Peters.]
Reading this list hon. members will also be surprised, as I am, by the number of shares they have bought in Canadian corporations. I could read the names of the board of directors and probably find a reason for this. This company has also bought shares in the mining fields, in Cassiar Asbestos, Cominco, Falcon-bridge Nickel, Hollinger Consolidated Gold, International Nickel, Kerr Addison, Noranda Mines, Pine Point and Rio Algom. These companies, including International Nickel now, are mainly Canadian owned and pretty well Canadian controlled.
Canada Trust holds shares in B.A. Oil, Canadian Superior Oil, Dome Petroleum, Hudson's Bay Oil, Imperial Oil and Texaco. In the field of public utilities they hold shares in the old, reliable Bell Telephone Company, which Bell will tell you is Canadian owned and controlled. Incidentally, Bell Telephone is asking for an increase in the amount paid by subscribers for the service, and I suppose that will give this company a little more to bid on. The company also holds shares in Calgary Power, Consumers' Gas and International Utilities. In the field of pulp and paper they hold shares in Abitibi Paper, B.C. Forest Products and MacMillan-Bloedel. Under the heading "Miscellaneous" they hold shares in the C.P.R., Dominion Textile, Moore Corporation, Southam Company and Westcoast Transmission. In American equity funds, they have 341,461 shares in U.S. Equity. This would strike me as being an American-owned company, but the main reason for my impression is the fact that the name indicates it is American. If you look at all the companies that are called Canadian but are owned by Americans you realize that this does not mean much.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
On reading this list I am impressed by the fact that most of the companies are Canadian owned. I think this makes our point. We have been saying for a long time that in Canada there is money for investment in a reasonable company, and there is money available for investment by these companies. We have been saying that a company owned and controlled by Canadians normally resident in Canada will in turn invest in other Canadian companies. I suggest that those who have been so willing to support U.S. companies because, as they have said, we need U.S. capital, should look at this company and take an interest in it. It seems to me that this is the kind of company that we should support. It is owned and controlled by Canadians and
December 10. 1968



it will invest in the Canadian scene. I suggest it is a good company.
Whether or not this company needs to be expanded, I am not really qualified to say. If it were a U.S. company I would say we should not let it expand, but since it is a Canadian company I cannot say for sure. I was interested in hearing the remarks of the superintendent of insurance, for whom I have great respect. His report seems to indicate that the control of this company remains stable and that no effort seems to have been made to change that control. He also indicated that the only purpose of this bill is to allow for the expansion of the company. He really has no objection to the Huron and Erie Mortgage Company owning this company. He assured the committee that they are paying income tax separately and that there is no hanky-panky between the two companies so far as the Canadian government and the insurance branch are concerned. Therefore we can give it a fairly clean bill of health.
I am in favour of this type of company. As we have been trying to convince hon. members for a long time, this is the kind of company which would bring about progress in the investment field. It is a fact that there is more money available from Canada for investment in the United States than there is coming the other way, and the fact that this company has been able to raise its assets from the original capital of $500,000 to $5 million is an indication that we in Canada have the necessary financial ability and backing and that we are capable of developing along the proper line. With a slight amount of assistance from the government there is the necessary capital in this country to do this type of development in other Canadian enterprises.
I have listed some of the companies in the primary industries of Canada such as banks, breweries, construction, chemicals, food industry, merchandising, mining, public utilities, oils and the pulp and paper industry. We have been able to contribute to these industries through the purchase of their stock. By accumulating this kind of Canadian asset we have been able to do business as does a trust company in making loans.
While we wish to use this company at the present time for the purpose of convincing other companies interested in developing and expanding in Canada, it is our hope that this company will eventually be able to make the changes it desires and that after being established in Canada for 100 years it will be able
Canada Trust Company to continue its business and to convince other Canadians in other fields that to own and operate a Canadian company in the field of mortgages and loans is a worth-while and lucrative proposition.


Mr. Mongrain:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I do so for the sake of the record of the proceedings of the house. I should like to point out that there is not one Conservative member in the house and in fact there has not been for the past half hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that there is not a great number of members in the house at present, but when I look across the floor and around me I realize at this time that quality is stressed rather than quantity.
When I heard the opening remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) I was very impressed with his presentation. I might say that although he made a very eloquent presentation this afternoon it was not very persuasive.
To return to the point about quality, may I say that on looking across the way I see a banker. Since bankers are always interested in trust companies, I have no doubt that the hon. member, with his banking experience in the past, will rise and make some remarks with regard to trust companies because of the relationship that has prevailed between trust companies and banks. On looking across I also see the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) who is a minister and a theologian. As well as having been quite successful in the election on June 25 he has a deep knowledge of mortgage and trust companies since so many churches have mortgages-on them and it is usually a trust or a mortgage company which holds them. I am sure that when he realizes the high percentage paid on mortgages he is made aware of the close relationship between banks and churches. I am certain he would like to rise and tell us about the close relationship that prevails between the two.
I also note the presence in the house of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) who comes from a province which has had a spate of different churches moving in. They have done an excellent job with regard to education and have assumed an educational role which the province at one time was not prepared to accept. The minister has

December 10, 1968
Canada Trust Company made quite a name for himself in the communications field and he wrote an excellent hook, part of which I happened to read and with which I was quite impressed. He certainly has made an excellent impression on the house and he does a good job in his field although he is restricted. I am glad to see he is here. Again I must say that it is the quality of the members of the house present that impresses me this evening.
Having prefaced my remarks I will now turn directly to Bill S-6 respecting the Canada Trust Company. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, it is a Siamese twin, and the other twin is the Huron and Erie Mortgage Company. The explanatory note in the bill reads as follows:
The authorized capital of the corporation, the Canada Trust Company, and, in French, La Compa-gnie de Trust Canada, is presently limited to an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 divided into 250,000 shares of the par value of $20, all of which shares have been allotted and issued as fully paid and non-assessable. The corporation now desires to have additional capital available for issuance.
As I said, one could not help but be impressed with the opening remarks of the sponsor of this bill when he said that the company was incorporated in 1894 with a capitalization of $500,000 and in 1899 it became a fully owned subsidiary of the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. The assets of this concern have been accelerating in geometric progression. This is an excellent phrase which could apply to the economic and financial progress of this company.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Then, he said that in 1964 the assets amounted to $1 billion and between 1964 and 1968 they increased to $2 billion. This business of the corporation embraces the issuance of guaranteed trust certificates, a general deposit service and other matters. At the moment the problem is that the internal generation of earnings is not sufficient to meet present day commitments in the capital field. They have 56 branches operating in eight provinces. More capital is required, and they would like their capital to be $20 million. As the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said, he was more than delighted to know that this company was a Canadian company because the burden of our message since the commencement of this session has been the amount of ownership by United States companies that prevails here in Canada.
One would think that when a company such as the Canada Trust Company is applying for an increase in capitalization the

members of the other place would take a very keen interest. I noticed, as a result of reading the proceedings that occurred there when this bill was presented on October 16, that the proceedings covered less than two pages. This does indicate that there could not have been too much interest by the members of the other place in this very serious business of increasing the authorized capital of this company. Some of the questions that were asked seemed to be rather simple ones concerning the relationship of the company with the banks. No one really gets into the nub of the matter because really the crux of the situation is the need for a thorough understanding of the activities of trust companies, and their relationships with banks.
During the last session, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being a member of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. At that time we had representatives from the banks and the trust companies appearing before us in connection with the proposed changes in the Bank Act. It was at that time I realized there are two types of trust companies. There are what are known as senior trust companies and junior trust companies. If I recall rightly, the attack by the officials from the banks was on these near banks. They said these trust companies were invading the jurisdiction of the banks, so the banks had to have some protection against them. The banks were convincing in their representations, first of all to the minister of finance of that time, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and then to the members of the committee, so that they were successful in having the 6 per cent ceiling in the Bank Act lifted. The result of this move was disclosed last week when the banks revealed that their earnings and profits for this year exceeded a maximum of 48 per cent, for the Royal Bank of Canada, and went down to about 20 per cent for the junior banks.
One would think that the junior and senior trust companies would demand an immediate inquiry because at that time the villain in the piece was the banks. Now, it is quite true that trust companies have made a modest record with regard to their earnings, but it does not compare for a moment with the earnings of the banks. Another more important issue relates to the activities of trust companies. When we think of trust companies, we think of a company or group of men who look after the estates of people and also perform corporate duties. They issue investment certificates. They also issue debentures
December 10, 1963

for the purpose of raising capital. In this battle between trust companies and banks, there has been a continuing friction with regard to the cashing of cheques; the competition has been very keen. Many trust companies refuse to cash cheques that are issued by banks, but more important some banks are refusing to cash cheques that have been issued by trust companies. This indicates the stress and strain of competition between these two major institutions. This is why I must say that I would have hoped the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), rather than sponsoring these bills, would have impressed upon the Minister of Finance the necessity of bringing these financial institutions back to parliament for a review of their activities. This is the important feature. When it comes to the economic affairs of the country, it is the financial institutions that form the basis of the economic activity in Canada.
When 1 heard the impressive investment portfolio of this company set forth by the hon. member for Timiskaming, I realized that it is not only bank shares, but it is the shares they have in some of the other important companies in Canada. This capital that has been accumulated by the people of Canada and entrusted to these financial institutions forms the economic basis for the economic growth of Canada. I say therefore that we need a constant review of our financial institutions in Canada. I was hoping that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would really direct his remarks to the Minister of Finance and ask for the reconvening of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs so that the officials of banks and trust companies could be brought before that committee again in order to review their activities in the light of the changes that were made in the Bank Act. It is possible that the trust companies may be in a worse position than the banks. I think the trust companies do perform a function in this society, and although I may not agree with it, I think it is very necessary. When one realizes that the banks are able to increase their credit by eight and a half times the amount of deposits they have on hand, it becomes apparent that the trust companies may now be in a worse position than the banks.
Having said that, I would point out that there was a very interesting debate in the committee with regard to the expansion of money. Our friends from the Ralliement Creditiste put forth a very impressive argument with regard to the many services of the
Canada Trust Company banks and the expansion of credit. We heard the members of the Ralliement Creditiste state that Canadian banks had expanded money eight and a half times, and this is not true of the trust companies. Again, this is partly the result of the restriction imposed on their credit. I say therefore that the trust companies should not be in any worse position than the banks. I think in the near future banks will be carrying out corporate duties and doing what the trust companies are doing now in regard to setting up trusts and financing various matters. They will be issuing debentures. In fact the banks were given authority to issue debentures for the purpose of increasing their financings. In all probability banks will be administering estates. So having criticized the banks for their preferred position in regard to expanding credit, I feel that in future banks and trust companies will be on an equal footing and that both will administer estates, carry out corporate duties and issue income certificates and debentures.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Having laid the groundwork for establishing equality between these two types of institution, it behooves me to say that there must be common regulations applying to both. Although I should like to support the bill that is being presented, which seeks permission for the development of this particular company, I am reluctant to do so because I feel a review of these financial institutions should be carried out.
It this regard perhaps I should relate a few experiences that I have had with trust companies. The Canada Trust Company, which has as its parent the Huron and Erie Mortgage Company, does a fair amount of mortgage financing. Many people in the area in which I live, which is Toronto, have approached the Huron and Erie and the Canada Trust for mortgages. Canada Trust is like every other trust company in that it is interested in increasing its profit. At the moment the prevailing rate on mortgages charged by Canada Trust, I would think, is between 9 and 9| per cent.
I might also point out that this company has placed quite a few mortgages on church buildings. If a church has to pay an interest rate of 9 per cent on a mortgage, which might be as high as $50,000, then this is an illustration of the financial burden that falls on church members who wish to build a new church.
But more important than this, Mr. Speaker, my concern is with the percentage of the

December 10, 1968
Canada Trust Company company's investment portfolio that is devoted to mortgages. When I became aware of the diversity of common shares and equities in which the Canada Trust Company invests, I thought I would receive some information in this regard. The housing crisis in Canada today can be laid at the doorstep of financial institutions that by and large have directed their investment moneys to equities, rather than assuming responsibility for supplying mortgage money in Canada.
I should like to say to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that if this particular company would increase the percentage of its investment portfolio that is directed into the mortgage field, then I would be very impressed.


Mr. Benjamin:: And lower the rate of interest.


John Gilbert: 
Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to ask the hon. member a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I wonder whether the hon. member has been able to ascertain to his satisfaction that rates of 4 and 5 per cent are indeed paid on deposits and that rates of 9 or 10 per cent, that I believe he quoted, are indeed charged on mortgages. Would he not agree with me that perhaps these are questions which could be better explored in committee with the officials of the company?


John Gilbert: I should like to thank the hon. member for asking that question because I would not want to mislead him, or indeed any member of the house. I just wanted to indicate that such interest rates are charged. I know that the rate on guaranteed income certificates has been ranging between 5 and 6 per cent. Due to the enormous increase in rates generally, it is very difficult to keep interest rates on mortgages down. I think earlier I mentioned rates of between 9 and 92 per cent, because those rates have been charged in my experience. But my main point concerns the direction given moneys that are received from Canadians it is what these

companies do with such moneys that causes me anxiety. That completes my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the house I should like to say that so far this debate has been most illuminating and extremely fascinating to me. All of us need to explore this whole field of finance a great deal further since over the past few years there has been a number of crises which were financial in nature, not only at the national but also at the international level. I think that on any occasion when a bill of this nature comes before the house we should do all in our power to have not only a debate of quality, as pointed out by my colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-and I agree with him that in this case the quality has been high-but also a debate that has more quantity.
I disagree with him when he says that there are sufficient people present in the chamber. I did not make a point of this earlier, Mr. Speaker, because I did not want to raise this issue while we were discussing this most important matter, but there were at one stage fewer members present than the number required for a quorum in the house. I think that if the general public were to learn that a matter of such importance as this interests so few members, they would express concern.
A little while ago, assisted by one of my colleagues more able in arithmetic than I, I took a count and ascertained the percentage of the members of the New Democratic party who were present for this debate. Compared with the other parties in the house, our percentage was the highest. This party had 24 per cent of its members present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I do not think the remarks of the hon. member are pertinent to this debate.


Mark Willson Rose: With respect, sir, if I may be allowed to complete my point, the N.D.P. had 24 per cent of its members present, the Liberals 8 per cent, the Creditistes 12 per cent, and less than 1 per cent of the members of the official opposition were present.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, I consider myself more than 1 per cent.


Mark Willson Rose: I accept the hon. member's
remark. Perhaps I rang the wrong bell, and I
December 10, 1968

apologize to him. No hon. member in this parliament ought to be considered as representing less than 1 per cent of anything, no matter where he sits in the house.
1 congratulate the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton for his detailed presentation and his diligent research into this matter. We all welcome receiving this kind of information; I think it behooves all of us to learn more about the companies operating in Canada. This firm is known as the Canada Trust Company. There is something warm and contorting about the word "trust". It encourages trust, something we need in all business dealings. On the other hand I notice that this company is to have dealings with the Huron and Erie corporation, and the word "eery" is not nearly as comforting as "trust". Be that as it may, I should be obliged if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, whose background in mathematics seems a lot broader than mine, could elaborate on the differences between geometric and arithmetic progressions, since those terms sounded very formidable to my ears.
I notice that the assets of the company in the past four years have grown by $1 billion. I think its directors are to be congratulated. As a Canadian owned company it merits the support of hon. members of the house, especially if its business is of benefit to the people of Canada. Although trust companies by the very nature of things must pursue profits, there is no reason why their activities should not be in the best interests of our people in developing a stronger Canada. They do much worth-while work as executors of many estates, and acting as trustees for beneficiaries. I think that there ought to be no doubt about their integrity, acceptability or sincerity so far as business dealings are concerned.
These qualities have not always been present. For example, in recent years a number of companies, among which British Mortgage loomed large, did not act in a manner that was in the best interests of Canadians. I receive letters regularly from a constituent of mine who is a beneficiary of an estate held or administered by the Royal Trust Company in Montreal. Her major complaint is the interminable delay she is experiencing in having this company settle a rather complicated estate. She and her husband are elderly, and she feels that the company is not acting in her best interests. Apart from instituting legal action there is little she can do to solve her problem.
Canada Trust Company
Current newspaper articles reflect the concern people feel about our financial institutions. In this regard I wish to quote from an article printed in the Financial Times News Service. It is headed "Corporations protest investment regulations", and was written by Judith McMahon. The body of the article says in part:
The government has at least introduced legislation to protect the public from losses created by the collapse of overextended financial empires like Atlantic Acceptance Corporation.
But the sweeping powers to inspect and regulate investment companies proposed in the government bill have stirred up a howl of protest in the business community.
Bill S-17, quietly introduced in the Senate weeks ago, is intended to prevent recurrences of financial collapses like Atlantic and Prudential Finance Corporation, which between them caused $75,000,000 in savings to be wiped out, a few years ago.
But many corporate executives claim that the legislation reaches far beyond what is necessary to safeguard the public against such financial failures. It would give a federal official, the superintendent of insurance, the power to oversee and investigate the operations of any company which borrows money from the public and invests 25 per cent or more of its assets in stocks, bonds or other debts.
It appears to me, sir, that this is the kind of thing this company is asking permission to do in its expansion program. I continue quoting:
The act is aimed primarily at the finance and acceptance companies which up to now have not been regulated by the government. But the definition of investment company goes far beyond the finance industry. It would include many industrial and commercial companies with large investments. It is thought it would apply to conglomerate companies and to holding companies.
In conclusion may I say that I was most impressed by the number of distinguished Canadians on the company's board of directors. I wanted to read out the list but have no time for that. Instead I wish to ask several questions.
Apparently about 1,400 shareholders have contributed toward a capitalization of $2 billion. If this bill is allowed to pass, who will be able to buy shares in this company? What is the extra capitalization to be used for? More particularly, will it be possible for foreign owned firms to buy into this expansion?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 10, 1988

Motion for Concurrence in Report


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the following motion (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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In
my remarks prior to six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had endeavoured to make it clear that we in this party are strongly in favour of procedural reform, and in particular that we think the major area in which we need to deal with our rules is that which concerns the use of time. We support most of the proposals which have been made in the reports of our special committee, because for the most part they are directed to that very problem. I hope I also made it clear that we are not entering upon this debate as though it were so much fun and games, but rather that we want almost all of the proposed rule reforms to become part of the standing orders of this house.
I made it equally clear that there is one proposal in the fourth report which we regard as iniquitous, inasmuch as it is inimical to the whole parliamentary process and that, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), we are determined that standing order 16-A in its present form at least shall not find a place in the rules of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: might take a moment longer to say there are certain specific objections to this rule. First of all the whole idea that a committee of four can function with the attendance of only one
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
person is opposed to every concept of the democratic process. Likewise, the suggestion that in a committee of four the will of one, even though the other three are opposed, can be brought forward as a report from that committee is unthinkable. If there is nothing else to be said about it, that is contrary to the spirit of the section in the British North America Act which says that decisions of the House of Commons are reached by a majority of the voices, not by a minority of one.
We are also opposed to the way in which standing order 16-A would work, because placed in the hands of the government house leader it could amount to closure in advance. I want to make it clear that we do not object to the planning in advance of the business of the house, when that planning is done by agreement, and particularly when it is done by unanimous agreement. But there is all the difference in the world between advance planning by way of agreement as to the use of time, and the right of the government house leader to bring in a proposal which imposes a limitation of time in advance applicable to all members of the house. If this rule goes through, there is certainly no point in retaining standing order 33, the old closure rule which was imposed on parliament back in 1913, because it will be tiddlywinks compared with the authority the government house leader will possess.
I should like to point out also that if this change is put into effect it must be for a purpose. And I know what that purpose is. It is to shorten the debates which take place on the floor of the House of Commons. The government's hand has been shown. The government believes in short debates-one day debates-and this is something the extension of which I believe we ought not to stand for in this House of Commons. Better have no debate at all than any more of these one day debates which amount to nothing more than a round of statements by party leaders or front bench spokesmen. As for the backbenchers on both sides of the house, they might as well go home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to this process of thinking, all the backbenchers need to do is give power of attorney to the front benchers to vote on their behalf from time to time to approve the government's programs.
I believe there is still something to the concept of debate. I hope we shall put it into
December 10, 1968

practice in this very debate-that it will not be just a case of attrition, or the use of closure. I hope the government will be responsive to the arguments put forward. I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself intends to take part in the debate tonight, and I hope he will demonstrate that he has listened to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed that he has listened to mine. I thank him for the courtesy he has extended to each of us in staying through these speeches this afternoon and this evening. My point is that if this proposed change in the rules makes for a series of one day debates it will have destroyed the whole character of parliament as a forum where matters are thrashed out in the cut and thrust of discussion.
There is another point. No government which is in power for four years, however large its majority, has the right to change the basic nature of this institution. If I may put it in the simple terms I used half an hour ago when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and I shared the spotlight on a television program, the present government has been put in charge of the store by the people of Canada for four years. But they do not own the store; they do not have the right to change its basic nature.
This house is basically a debating institution. The government is still the executive; the government still proposes the legislation. But we have the right, by debate, to decide whether or not that legislation should be put into effect. I urge the government to realize that it does not have the right to change rules which are fundamental. Most of the revisions of the kind we have dealt with in our reports are not, but this proposition concerns something basic, namely, the right of the majority to say to backbenchers on either side: You will get your right to represent your constituents only when the government house leader thinks there is time for you in the schedule he dictates.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
So, Mr. Speaker, I go along with the proposition that there is an obligation on the part of all of us to organize and plan our time. That means that there are responsibilities on the opposition side as well as on the government side. But I deny absolutely the right of the government, just because it is a majority government, just because it says it has a mandate, to deny to members on either side the right to exercise the thing that is basic to all who come here, namely the right of free

Motion for Concurrence in Report speech on behalf of the constituents whom they represent.
Lest my time run out before I get to the suggestions which at six o'clock I said I would make, perhaps I had better come to them now. I indicated earlier that we of the New Democratic party will support the amendment that was proposed this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but I hope that he will not feel that two or three suggestions I am going to make are contrary to the spirit of that amendment. I hope that amendment will be accepted by the government so that this matter can go back to the special committee for further consideration.
Now I am going to suggest one or two other ways that this problem might be solved. I do not move them as a subamendment. I do not put them forward in any firm way but as points of negotiation. If we can be reasonable and responsible about this, I wish to say there are three main things that are wrong with the proposed standing order 16-A-if we are going to have it at all.
The first is the notion that one man out of four is a quorum. Surely nobody can defend that. The second is that one man, although overruled by three, can still put forward his motion as though it were the report of the committee. I know that the standing order is worded to imply that he can do one of two things. He can either bring in a report of the committee, or a motion after there has been consultation with the committee; but, in spirit, what that part of the new rule permits is for one man to be overruled by three and yet come ahead with his recommendation.
The other thing wrong with the rule is the permission contained in it for the government house leader, in one motion, to make any arrangement he wishes covering the time to be allocated to or the disposition of any item or items of the business of the house or any of its standing committees. Mr. Speaker, if I may borrow the word used by the Leader of the Opposition, that is the most horrendous part of it all.
The government house leader tells us it is the government's plan to get to the point where at the start of a session all its legislation will appear on the order paper right away. That did not happen this session, although we were given a list of proposed items. But look at what could happen. The government could put on the order paper 15, 25 or 50 items of legislation and on the first Thursday of the first full week's sitting the
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report government could bring in, in one motion, a provision regarding the time for each and every one of the 15, 25 or 50 items on the order paper.
Before you know it there could be a motion providing one day for each second reading, or providing one hour for each of five items in one day. It could provide for time in standing committees, that that time would be one day each, or even less than that. It could provide for report stage and third reading to be one hour each. Oh, this is efficiency, Mr. Speaker, efficiency gone mad; but it is possible under this provision. I say that the most horrendous part of it all is this right to include any kind of arrangement having to do with the disposition or allocation of time to any item or items of the business of the house or any of the committees of the house. Surely that has to be altered.
I suggest that there are some things which might be negotiated if we get this matter back to the special committee, if the government tonight decides that it will accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. In the first place I think it should be made clear in the order that a quorum shall be a majority of the members of the committee. Let me come in a moment to the question of what should be the composition of the committee and how you determine a majority.
In the second place I think it should be made clear that no report can be made from that committee unless it is at least a majority report. In the third place I would be prepared to make this suggestion: that there be only two kinds of reports and that they be treated differently.
On the one hand if a report is unanimous, then it should be possible for that report to include two, three or four items. Maybe we should specify the number of items, but certainly it could be more than one, and if the report is unanimous it should be decided by the house without debate. But if it is a report that is only a majority one-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member in the middle of a sentence, but I would like to ask the house whether the hon. member has leave to go beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: thank Your Honour and the house and I shall be very brief. I was saying that if the committee brings in a report that is not unanimous but only a majority report, then it

should cover only one item of business, not the omnibus Criminal Code bill, the sale of Air Canada, and three or four other things at the same time; and in that case there should be reasonable debate. Maybe the two hours suggested is enough, maybe it should be a bit more. That can be negotiated.
I was speaking a moment ago about the majority. At the present time the committee consists of four members. I would settle for a majority of the four. In other words, that would be three. But if the government thinks that is too high and wants to negotiate it, maybe we could enlarge the committee by putting two government members on it and three opposition members, and then have provision for a majority to be three out of five. In that case in order to win its point the government would have to win the support of at least one of the opposition parties.
I have not told the other opposition parties that I was going to make these suggestions, Mr. Speaker. That is one reason I do not put them forward as a subamendment but rather as negotiable propositions. But I think surely among reasonable men, people who believe in democracy, who believe in section 49 of the British North America Act, who believe in the rule of the majority, who believe in negotiating and compromising, surely among people of that kind we can arrive at an acceptable formula for a proceedings committee that will plan the business of the house: And I mean, plan it.
This proposed standing order is not an order for planning the business of the house. This is a standing order for muzzling the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a standing order which gives the government house leader the right to impose limitations that no free parliament could possibly accept.
As I said earlier, I am glad to hear that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going to take part in this debate tonight after my hon. friend from the Creditiste party makes his speech. I hope he will indicate that he has been listening earnestly to the proposals made from this side of the house. I say to him again that this is not fun and games. We are not trying to develop a lengthy debate. We are not trying to keep the house in session Christmas week, although if necessary we certainly will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 10, 1968


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we consider that this is a very serious matter. We firmly believe that our rules need to be reformed. We think that the special committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member, has done a very good job. We think by and large that this package should be accepted, but we firmly believe that with this one single requirement in it the package is no good at all. It would so completely change the character of parliament that the institution would not be the same, and so, Mr. Speaker, we have to stand against it.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we are not reformers against non-reformers. So, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the reform we all believe in, and in the belief that we are all reasonable people who can work things out, I hope that the Prime Minister and the government tonight will indicate that they are prepared to accept the amendment, or one like it, so that this report can be sent back to the special committee where this standing order can be improved. If we can do that I think we will come up with a package that will make the performance of this house in this session, and in the sessions that lie ahead, the better performance that we all want it to be.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks will be to congratulate most of all those who spoke before me and had the opportunity to express their views on the motion asking that the report of the committee on procedure of the house be concurred in.
I would like to congratulate in particular the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who certainly enlightened the committee during the discussions, as well as the government house leader (Mr. Macdonald) and the chairman of the committee with whom we had fruitful and satisfactory discussions.
There is no doubt that in this corner of the house and like the other house leaders, we are in favour of parliamentary reform and have proved it. In fact, when they came to the house in 1962, the members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste soon noticed that Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms was in English only, and they badgered to government to obtain a French translation of the procedures of the house.
Several of our predecessors said that the procedures were archaic, outmoded and
Motion for Concurrence in Report antiquated, but when we came here, we found that they were not available in French and we were the first to ask for a French version of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. But after getting the French translation of Beauchesne, we had to work towards the improvement of the rules of the house. That is why I say this committee is extremely important, because what comes out of our discussions will be approved by the house and the new procedure that we will adopt, even if we hope that other amendments or changes will be made to it, will regulate the proceedings of the house.
We need not criticize the old procedure, since we are all agreed on rejuvenating it and we all admit that it is archaic and obsolete. I feel that it is imperative that we should change our parliamentary procedure this year in order to give the public a better image of the Canadian parliament. For several years- not only in the last ten years but even before that-the standing orders of the house gave the Canadian public the impression, on many occasions, that parliament had become a joke, because of the extent and slowness of discussions and the time it took to make decisions.
We must reform our parliament for another reason: because of the duties which are ours. Our responsibilities and the importance of parliament itself should keep us from reaching decisions lightly, especially taking into account the fact that the whole Canadian economy will depend on the legislation we will pass.
However, one must not think that parliamentary reform will solve at once the economic problem of Canadians. A better parliamentary procedure does not necessarily mean a better government, because a government is not judged merely by the value of the measures it adopts. We can have a better procedure and pass legislation more rapidly but, if the opposition is governed by a mediocre procedure, it can hardly do much better. This means that the government must introduce legislation that will meet the needs of the Canadian people.
Furthermore, parliamentary reform must not contradict democracy, and because we may have had archaic rules in the past, because we may have suffered from them, we must not, adopt an extremist attitude. If we modify the procedure in such a way as to allow other abuses, the house will suffer from them in the future. To my mind, parliamentary reform must, first of all, reinforce the role of members in this house, in this way that a member who is elected by the people- there are 264 of us-must be able to express
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report himself more easily and personally with regard to the decisions the government should reach. Indeed, parliament is the national forum of public opinion and if debates must be limited to a bare minimum on important legislation, we may reach a point where parliament will become again what it was formerly, that is a joke, from several points of view.
We accept most of the changes put forward today because they have been discussed by the majority of the house leaders. We accept, for instance, the one concerning the distribution of the time of the house. In fact, we must admit, as the chairman of the committee on procedure said this afternoon, that we only have at our disposal about 165 sitting days a year, including 8 for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, 6 for the budget, 28 for estimates and about 123 for legislation in general.
So the time of the house must be allotted; it was the primary objective of the committee on procedure. For that, we must shorten certain debates so as to divide the session into quarters, ending respectively on December 10, March 10 and June 30. We approve these changes, because they provide for an intelligent and logical allotment of time. They will enable parliament to know where it stands, but procedure will have to undergo other changes.
We are also in favour of eliminating the duplication of debates, that is for instance, to hear three speeches on the same subject, simply because our procedure authorizes it. In the past, it was possible to make a speech at the resolution stage, another on the motion for second reading and a third on the motion for third reading, which was a useless repetition of debates. We admit today that we have agreed to these proposals for the elimination of these repetitions so that the house would have more time for the study of legislation.
It is not our intention to review all the items in the report which was tabled by the chairman of the committee this afternoon. We have discussed this report together and we have accepted it. However, we were most surprised by the changes which had been kept until the end and which we do not accept, namely standing order 16A where, on the one hand, the co-operation of house leaders is requested and, on the other hand, their agreement is compulsory, otherwise the decision of the government will be forced upon them and the quorum required to enforce that decision is "me, myself and I." It is said that this committee will consist of

three members when, in fact, it will always: be the same person.
Mr. Speaker, such practice singularly exceeds the legislative power of a member of the house who, in this instance, could decide the time allotted for the consideration of such and such legislation. If the time to be alloted for the study of a bill is set by one man only, the house leader could shout "closure", just as General de Gaulle could have shouted: Long live free Canada, and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): Long live a just society. Yet, I could say that this is a just society only for fun, because the government house leader, under standing order 16A could very well convene us on Mondays and Wednesdays, at the time of his choice, in the way he chooses, since this is not mentioned.
The practice always observed in the past amongst house leaders, the discussion and the agreement, are scorned. From here on, no discussion; one man will decide and the government will vote.
In my opinion, this procedure is not only undemocratic but also arrogant. As pointed out by the honorable member for Winnipeg North Centre what can the backbenchers do in this house with such a procedure? If one day, the house leader decides that one hour will be allocated for a debate on some legislation, that the spokesman of the government will be allotted 30 minutes and a spokesman of the opposition 30 additional minutes, the hour will be over. No representative of the New Democratic party nor of the Ralliement Creditiste will have the opportunity to speak on that legislation, while in Great Britain, they have reached a point where some members even vote against their own leader.
In Canada at the present time, under standing order 16A, the opposition is threatened with being deprived of its freedom of speech and with being unable to do anything in parliament, which amounts to this: You will accept, otherwise we will show the mailed first. We will therefore have to defer to the will of just one man.
I hope the government will revise its decision, because once standing order 16A is passed, it will become a weapon in its hands, the first victim of which will be, I am sure, democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Prime Minister, who advocated parliamentary reform, should see to it that standing order 16A disappears, so that in the future parliament can give a better image of itself and, above all, while saving face, save democracy also.
December 10, 1968

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

High! Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the members of this house have been entrusted with many heavy responsibilities by the people of Canada, but none is more far reaching in its results than our responsibility for the conduct of this house. All that we try to do is shaped, either helped or hindered, by the procedures of this house. If we, the members, cannot deal with the business of the House of Commons in an orderly fashion, surely we will undermine public confidence in our ability to deal with the business of the nation.
As members we take part in the life of parliament for a brief span of years; but parliament itself carries on over the centuries. We have inherited an institution that has grown through the years. This institution has incorporated the experience and wisdom of countless men and women. I am sure all hon. members will agree that in its general structure the parliamentary system of government corresponds better than any alternative to both the traditions and needs of Canadians.
Over the years our predecessors have adapted this system to the requirements of their times. We, in our turn, must not shrink from the contemporary changes of our society. We must not refuse to make the necessary adjustments and improvements in our institutions. For it is true that parliament and each of its component parts are, like living organisms, subject to the universal law of life: adapt or wither away. It is not sufficient for us merely to cherish this heritage as if it were a relic, of interest only to historians. We must reform it so that in our time it will serve us well. We must revitalize it so that our successors will receive from us, not an outdated, moribund survival from an earlier age, but a vital and responsive institution of democratic government.

In certain periods of time, the House of Commons changes imperceptibly either through gradual changes in social conditions or because of the personality and outlook of the parliamentarians themselves. From time to time, the standing orders are amended slightly to improve a procedure or correct an abuse. But the time comes when it might be necessary to make a complete review of our work methods and to arrive, in accordance with the findings of that study, at major changes in our standing orders.

Motion for Concurrence in Report
For a good ten years now the standing orders of the house have not been satisfactory. Several parliamentarians have often complained about that. Newspapermen, university professors have written articles about it, so much so that the public is now aware of the situation. During the last election campaign, the matter was even discussed openly: the candidates of all parties committed themselves in fact to parliamentary reform. Whatever party we represent in this house, we have, as elected representatives of the people, a clear and specific mandate to reform our methods of work. It is obvious that the Canadian people expect that their members do something about parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the face of the discontent expressed in a thousand and one ways, we must reply with a coherent and vigorous over-all reform of our rules, based on a thorough study of the present duties and program of the house.

In the last few years knowledgeable critics both inside and outside this house have raised many serious questions about our proceedings. Let us consider a few of them. In the first place, is the house keeping pace with the legislative requirements of the nation; or is it true that all too often laws are made or amended years too late? In a single session do we have an opportunity to examine systematically a full legislative program? In view of the irregularities of our sessions, can the members, the ministers or the civil servants who advise the government plan their work sufficiently in advance?
Second, does the opposition enjoy adequate opportunities throughout the session to bring on debates about the great issues of our public life? One of the principal functions of this house should be to hold such debates; members of the other parties have been saying so again today. Whatever party is in power, these debates should often be brought on by the opposition. They have suggested this, and I agree with it. An opposition, under the present situation, has some control over the topics discussed during the debates on the throne speech and the budget; but these debates normally occur only twice a year.
In addition, of course, there are the supply motions; but they are often concentrated in one or two short periods. In an orderly calendar for the session the opposition should have
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report regular opportunities to debate the issues of its choice.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Thirdly, is the house giving enough careful attention to the spending estimates? Or is it true that for the most part the house has abandoned the task of controlling departmental expenditures to the Treasury Board, and that members use the estimates debate mainly to show their constituents that they have demanded new expenditures on their behalf, and this generally without any real hope that those expenditures will be made? Everybody knows that politicians must not forget their constituents. But my question remains: Under our procedures are the estimates examined with sufficient care?
Fourthly, what about the bills that we do pass? Are they examined thoroughly? Or do we spend our time on the politically exciting parts, and for the rest rely on civil servants and draftsmen?
We are all here as party politicians; yet we have a more fundamental responsibility to this house and to the people. I ask myself if our present procedures do not encourage even the most conscientious members to be good politicians first, and good members of the House of Commons in a secondary way. To all of these questions I fear anyone familiar with our present system would have to give negative answers.
Reform in our rules should aim toward certain goals:
First, a regular legislative session with opportunity to examine systematically an entire legislative program;
Second, regular opportunities throughout the session for the opposition to debate the issues of its choice; and
Third, thorough examination of all the estimates and of each public bill.
This is certainly not the first time that these questions have been considered by members of this house. It is not the first time that these goals have been set up. Members will have noticed a close resemblance, for example, between the recommendations in the present reports and those of the special committee on procedure established during the last session. Those reports were produced and adopted after careful study which included an examination of current practices in the United Kingdom parliament.
Last September the government was prepared to propose to the house changes based on the work done by that committee and
[Mr. Trudeau.J
other committees in previous years. We considered, however, that the whole problem should be referred once again to a committee of the house. The house appointed a committee on September 24. That committee has gone into the problem intensively and it has now reported back to the house.
Before turning to the reports themselves I should like to mention some general considerations which must govern any set of rules we can devise. "Had we but world enough and time", mused Andrew Marvell. Although he was a member of the English house of commons he probably did not have his mind on his parliamentary duties when he wrote that line; but some imperatives apply to legislators as well as to lovers.
Obviously, there are limits to the number of days and hours available for the sittings of this house in any year. Each year the pressures of more business, of increasingly complex business, push harder against those limits. As members, we are faced with a double challenge: We must get through a larger volume of business, and we must examine the individual items in greater detail.
It is easy to agree that the situation demands better planning and a more systematic apportionment of our time. It is more difficult, it may often be impossible in a healthy democratic legislature, to obtain agreement on how the time should be apportioned. We cannot expect every member of the house to decide at the same moment that the time has come to stop talking and to start voting. Nor is this problem peculiar to the Canadian House of Commons. Every democratic assembly requires some procedure for turning discussion into decision. In the parliaments of Australia, New Zealand and India, for example, there are procedures for bringing on decisions on bills. As long ago as 1932 Lord Campion wrote:
Most modern legislatures have found it necessary to adopt rules for limiting debate, whether by providing for the termination of debate at the will of the majority, or by laying down the time limit in advance, or by limiting the duration of speeches, or by some similar device. The closure is perhaps the commonest of these devices, and it is a serviceable instrument. But it does not generally stand alone. Most parliamentary bodies, certainly the British house of commons, find that for certain kinds of business other methods of restricting debate are necessary.
There are the sins of omission. These are commission; there is business that is slighted or prevented when discussions by the house are delayed. Consider the present situation. Bills often get priority, not because of their
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
great importance or complexity, but because of their urgency. Sometimes a deadline must be met. Interest rate provisions may have to be changed to keep an act in operation. We may have an international obligation to change a law by a particular date. The result is that instrinsically more important bills are dealt with hastily in the waning days of the session, and, what is worse, some important proposals may never even become bills at all.
Something similar often happens during the various stages of debate of a bill. Days are consumed on the second reading debate and on the first few clauses. Then interest lags, and the tough and technical clauses, the ones that need intensive study, slide by untested.
There are the sins of omission. These are the cruelest closures: Closure by neglect and closure by exclusion.
It is not even possible under our present system to assign full responsibility for these omissions. We spend a great deal of time in this house blaming each other for them. Surely it would be an improvement to assign responsibility for the use of time and to know whom to blame for its misuse.
Under our system, responsibility for the content of legislation clearly rests with the government. In case of disagreement among the parties, the responsibility for making a proposal on proceedings to the house must also rest with the government. The proposed rules would make this equally clear.
To recognize that the government has a right to make a proposal to the house on its proceedings must not be thought to reduce the dependence of the government on the house. Nor does it diminish the right of those in opposition to test, and test again, the attitude of the house to the government. The proposals before us would allow the government, when there is no voluntary agreement among the parties, to propose a timetable to ensure adequate discussion of all parts of a bill. This timetable would itself be submitted to a vote in the house; and let us not forget that the proposed rules would also provide the opposition with better opportunities throughout each session to bring on votes of no confidence in the government. The proposals would maintain a balance at all times between the government's legitimate desire to meet its responsibilities to the country, and the opposition's legitimate desire to test the support for the government in this house.
This balance is assured in proposed standing order 56 which sets a timetable for the annual session. The special committee has
DEBATES	3783
Motion for Concurrence in Report suggested that, if the house is to do its financial and legislative work during a regular annual cycle, the sessions normally should start in September or October. This would enable the government to complete its legislative program during the summer months. By the time the house convenes, a substantial number of bills would be ready for first reading. The bulk of the legislative work would be undertaken in the autumn and early winter. The house would be able to concentrate on the main financial work in the spring and to complete it before a summer adjournment. During each of three periods of the proposed annual session a fixed number of days would be set aside for the opposition. These are the days allotted for the business of supply.
As members know, we now divide the business of supply into two parts. One part is debate on supply motions. The other is the examination of the estimates by the committee of supply. A supply motion is for the Speaker to leave the chair so that the house may go into committee of supply. Amendments of which no notice is given, are moved, and these regularly entail the question of confidence of the house in the ministry. The standing orders in effect in 1962 provided for six debatable supply motions. The standing orders in effect provisionally in 1967-68 provided for four debatable supply motions.
The use of supply motions as the main opportunity for the opposition to show the shortcomings of the government-apart from the debates on the throne speech and on the budget-has been criticized on three grounds:
First, because under this system the opposition can initiate debates on only four or six topics chosen by itself during an annual session;
Second, because in a normal session these debates tend to be concentrated into one or two short periods; and,
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Third, the two day supply motion debates are not used economically due to the lack of notice and the early hour of the division on the second day. To meet these criticisms, the opposition should be given better opportunities than the supply motion debates, either to raise important subjects for debate or to reveal the alleged errors of the minister. These are provided by the provisions of the proposed standing order 56, to which I will refer in a moment.
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
First, let me talk about the other part of the business of supply, that is, the examination of the spending estimates of the various departments by the committee of supply. This committee, as we all know, consists of 263 members of the house. Under the provisional orders a total of 30 days was provided for the consideration of the estimates in committee of supply. The use of the committee of supply as the forum for the examination of the estimates has been found unsatisfactory for many reasons. First, the committee tends to move at a leisurely pace early in its work and then, whether or not there is a prescribed time limit, with great haste toward the end. Second, the proceedings take place on the floor of the house, so members tend to make speeches rather than to probe for information. Third, ministers, too, for the same reason tend to make speeches instead of providing detailed answers. Fourth, the committee includes almost all the members although some sets of estimates command the interest, and therefore the attendance, of only a few members. Fifth, the estimates often are examined and passed months after the money has been spent. Obviously an examination which takes place before the money has been spent would be far more meaningful and effective as a deterrent to waste and extravagance than one that merely confirms what already has taken place.
To meet these five criticisms, Mr. Speaker, the committee proposes that the examination of the estimates be assigned to the standing committees. This, of course, is not a new suggestion. Over a quarter of a century ago it was recommended at Westminster in the following words:
I agree that after (the estimates) have been presented to parliament their consideration should take place by committees dealing with each branch, military, civil and so forth, and that those committees should apply the scrutiny which the public imagine is applied on the supply days, but which has fallen into very great disuse. I should be in favour of the estimates for the current year going up to be criticized and examined in a series of committees-quite small committees too-and those committees would report to the house. They would make a report, for instance, on the army estimates or on the naval estimates or the civil service estimates-they would make a report and the estimates would come before the house with a report drawing attention to all the weak points or scandals that had come to light, or any means of making revisions would be placed before the house before the subject is debated on any supply day.
This was the view of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, as expressed on March 6, 1931, when testifying before a select committee on procedure of the British House of

Commons. This is exactly the view adopted by the special committee in recommending the new standing order 56. For purposes of supply business, the committee proposes that the annual session be divided into three periods. On five days between the opening of the session and December 10, the opposition would select the business of the house with complete freedom. It would have seven more days before the end of March. There would be 13 or 16 opposition days before the end of June.
During March, April and May the main estimates would be under study in the standing committees. By late May and June, the opposition probably would want to bring on debates in the house centred upon, and I quote Sir Winston, "The weak points or scandals that had come to light". This is why the number of days in the third period is considerably larger than in the earlier two periods. Instead of eight days of supply motions and 30 days on the estimates, the proposed rules would provide at least 25 opposition days in the house and a substantial number of days in each of over a dozen committees.
I believe that by adopting the arrangement set out in the proposed new standing order 56 we will achieve at least three important results. First, we will have provided ourselves with a basic time-table for annual sessions, beginning and ending at reasonable dates. Second, we will have provided the house with occasions distributed throughout each annual session for real debate on the great issues of our country's public life. Third, we will have made it possible for members to examine thoroughly the spending estimates and to do this early enough so that their scrutiny can be influential.
Now, I want to comment on the proposed new standing order 16-A. This deals with the planning of the work of the house. As hon. members know, the British house has used guillotine time-tables for bills since 1881. All parties have introduced guillotine time-tables for bills. Indeed, Sir Ivor Jennings, who is generally recognized as a leading authority on the British constitution, has written:
The guillotine, whether formal or informal is ... the essential-[DOT]
I am sorry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read better.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Listen.


An hon. Member:: Read it properly.
December 10, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are quite right; I am reading too rapidly and perhaps I should slow down.


David Lewis: Sir Ivor Jennings knows what he is talking about.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right, and I want some members to know, too.
I quote again:
The guillotine, whether formal or informal is ... essential if highly controversial bills are to be passed through strenuous opposition in a reasonable time.


David Lewis: Who will say what is a reasonable time, that is the point?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Reasonable men.


David Lewis: On the treasury benches only.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The proposed new standing order 16-A makes provision for two kinds of bills; those that are not highly controversial and those on which there is a fundamental disagreement. The proceedings committee to be established under the standing order would include one member from each party. The proposal is designed to encourage participation and co-operation. It puts pressure on both the government and opposition parties to attend, and to strive for a unanimous recommendation from the committee to the house. My hope is that in most cases all the members of the committee would agree on such a recommendation.
But perhaps, Mr. Speaker, there is no point in being naive. There are bills, and there will be bills, on which the opposition will believe the government is fundamentally wrong and on which the government will believe that it cannot procrastinate. On such bills it would be unfair and unreasonable to insist that the opposition ought to co-operate. After all, the opposition, too, has its responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I have not said it was always responsible, Mr. Speaker. When the opposition believes a government bill is fundamentally wrong, it should not be coerced by cries for co-operation. In such situations the opposition has a right to say to the government: "We think you are wrong. We hope that you will reconsider. If you won't change your mind, don't ask us to conspire against our principles. You are the elected government. If you think you must go ahead with

Motion for Concurrence in Report your plans, don't ask us to subscribe to them".


David Lewis: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Virgil.


David Lewis: That is right, Virgil. Don't be so nice to us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The proposed standing order 16-A is meant to be nice to you; it anticipates being nice to you.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: Even the Prime Minister smiles.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I smile even when I am serious.
This standing order would permit the government to present to the house a plan for dealing with a controversial bill, and it would permit the House of Commons to decide whether or not to accept that plan.
A good deal has been said by some members about reliance on full co-operation. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite have read the testimony on this very point given by Right Hon. Herbert Morrison in 1958.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Somebody Ivor Jennings
knew. The complaint had been made that the debates on the motion to set up a guillotine timetable were always predictable and dull, and lasted an entire day. Better methods of planning the work had been sought. Mr. Morrison was asked if a voluntary timetable could be adopted for all bills. His reply was emphatically negative. When leader of the house he said this:
I was genuine about wanting a voluntary timetable, and I would have been not ungenerous about agreeing time with the opposition, but the opposition took the view-and I understood their point of view-that this was a fight to the death, so to speak, and that therefore if they made a voluntary timetable, then at any rate the death element in the fight would be eliminated and in the eyes of their supporters inside and outside the house they would, so to speak, have compromised in the spirit of the battle against a bill which they regarded as a very bad bill and which we regarded as a very good bill. So the tendency was for the opposition not to agree to a voluntary timetable on such bills. But I do not see why we should not try a voluntary timetable over as wide a field as we can. It may enable the house to deal more expeditiously but nevertheless adequately with legislation: but I think you must have a provision whereby the opposition is not bound to agree to a timetable and even that it would prefer to be guillotined by the government-
December 10. 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report
Naturally, as Prime Minister, I hope cooperation can be achieved in planning most of our business. But only in a totalitarian regime would it be demanded that all disagreements be merged into ostensible unanimity. There will be times when any opposition in the name of its principles will have to refuse to co-operate, and when the government, conscious of its responsibility as the government, will have to refuse to yield to the will of the minority. This is entirely normal and healthy in a parliamentary democracy. The proposed order provides a systematic method of dealing with such situations.
I have been dealing with the committee's proposal to establish a proceedings committee to plan the work of the house. Obviously, it would be with government bills that this committee would be chiefly concerned. The special committee makes important recommendations in relation to the procedures for dealing with such bills. These are set forth in the proposed standing orders 77 and 78.
Under our present rules we often spend days debating the second reading motion, but I, for one, have yet to see a government bill stopped by a defeat at that stage, and I doubt that any other member of this house has. In many cases the time that might be used for a thorough study of the clauses of the bill during the committee stage is consumed by the debate on second reading. In its recommendations the committee has sought to play down the importance of the second reading stage and to shift the emphasis to the later stages in the legislative process.
The committee recommends that most bills undergo clause by clause examination in the standing committees, not in a committee of the whole house. This would allow the committee stage to be conducted in a workmanlike way. It would have the additional benefit that more than one bill could be in progress at any time in different committees.
Under the proposal the house itself is to have an opportunity to deal directly with the bill when the report of the committee is under consideration. The debate on the report is not to be a repetition of the work already done by the committee; rather the house will move from proposed amendment to proposed amendment.
The requirement of notice of a proposed amendment is important, for the house ought not to be taken by surprise. The new power to be given to the Speaker to permit him to marshal proposed amendments and to select those that best permit the house to express its


views will help to focus and to improve debate. If adopted, this will be one of the first instances in which the house has made use of the Speaker's new status in order to improve its own procedures. It is consistent with the proposal to eliminate appeals from the Speaker's rulings.
I have dealt with only a few of the constructive recommendations put forward by the special committee. Many of the proposed changes will be supported generally throughout the house. It would be surprising, however, if on a subject such as this there were complete agreement on every point. Indeed it has been reported that there are those who have announced a filibuster to force the government to impose closure.
Back in 1919 when he was explaining the changes that the ministry was advocating in the rules of the British house, Mr. Bonar Law commented that-
-there has never been any change in the procedure of this house which has not been held by the opposition and by a large number of private members to be the end of the House of Commons and to mean that everything was going to pieces ... We must not look at questions from that point of view. We have to look at it from the point of view that the thing has got to be done; and looking at it from that point of view I am disappointed at the reception that has been given to our proposals.
I hope we have a good debate. Procedure is a complex subject; and this is the most important reform of its procedures ever considered by this house. Such a debate may help all of us to understand better the changes proposed by the committee.
Nobody should misunderstand the situation. The opposition has stated repeatedly that it believes in debate. We too believe in debate, and we agree that the essence of the House of Commons is debate. But we have not prejudged this issue. We like the recommendations of the committee; but if valid arguments for modifying the proposals are made in the debate, we will not feel bound to adhere strictly to those recommendations. We will consider any reasonable proposals put forward for consideration. I hope that those who do not like the recommendations of the committee will adopt the same approach.
We should let debate have its effect, and then the house should decide.
If it is true that there are members who have prejudged the case, members who have robbed the debate of its purpose by announcing before the debate has started they intend to conduct a filibuster to force closure, I ask them to reconsider.
December 10, 1968



If there are valid arguments against the proposed reforms, let them be expressed clearly for the greater benefit of the members and the Canadian public. Once the pros and cons of the matter have been expressed and debated, the matter must be settled rapidly by the vote of the representatives of the people.
If obstruction is made solely for the sake of obstruction, if it is decided to delay the vote for political ends, the very foundation of parliament stands in danger of being undermined. Of course, it is the duty of parliament to see to it that the opposition can express its point of view. But no one should forget that parliament can only fulfil its role by reaching decisions within a reasonably short lapse of time, even in controversial matters.

Worse still, those who would extend the present debate indefinitely have misjudged the temper of the Canadian people.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I know, Mr. Speaker, that no hon. member will claim his constituents have elected him to frustrate the work of parliament, to stall, to obstruct, and to bring this institution into disrepute.
Surely the members of all parties must agree that if parliament is to play an effective role in the contemporary world we can no longer afford a repetitious filibuster of five or six months on a single issue. In this session we have already allowed three months to go by and only passed nine measures. We should not spend a substantial part of this session wrangling fruitlessly over rules of procedure.
Some hon. members of the opposition have talked of closure. A filibuster is a form of closure. It is a device for invoking the closure of neglect on some measures which must be dealt with later in this session, and the closure of exclusion on others which we may never reach.
If we learned a single lesson from the election, it is that the Canadian people are impatient for reform.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not only are they impatient for reform in the legislation of this house, Mr. Speaker, but they are impatient for the reform of this parliament and of this house. They did not elect us to take part in a marathon of oratorical endurance; they expect us
Motion for Concurrence in Report to revise our rules with all deliberate speed and to get on with the business of this house. Mr. Speaker, if we respect the will of the people, if we value the institution of parliament, we must debate these proposals fully, and, having done so, make our decision on them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we learned something else during the last election. About 55 per cent of the people of this country took a good look at the right hon. gentleman, heard what he and his colleagues had to say, decided they did not like what they heard, and called for hon. members on this side of the house to speak for them. And we intend to speak for them.
As the right hon. gentleman has said-and we on this side of the house agree with him; my leader has indicated he agrees, as have the hon. gentlemen for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-this is indeed an important issue, probably the most important which will come before this house this session, or even before this parliament. But who is there in this house who, speaking honestly, would not say that if proposed standing order 16-A had been in effect when this session commenced we should now be facing a limited period of debate to deal with this serious measure which is now before us? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in proposing the adoption of the standing order is such that, if the standing order had been previously adopted, the time we would have had to deal with this matter would indeed have been extremely limited.
The right hon. gentleman suggested that a filibuster has been indicated by hon. members on this side of the house. I reject that imputation out of hand. We have indicated that we understand and accept the seriousness of the issue; we accept the responsibility of our position and are prepared to debate it. We are so adamantly opposed to this measure that we intend to fight it because it should not, must not and cannot be imposed on this house as a rational measure of debate from now on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: When we talk of responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind that the government has an international obligation which will compel it to pass an antidumping measure before the new year. In a sly and surreptitious way it has been postponed until the end of this debate in order
December 10, 1368

Motion for Concurrence in Report that the government may attempt to bring unfair pressure upon hon. members of this house to pass, or bring to an earlier decision than need normally be the case, the debate on this important matter now before the house. I suggest that has been done deliberately in order to bring undue pressure on hon. members of this house.
There is one area in this debate where, respectfully, I disagree with my leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. They considered with horror the idea of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) sitting by himself and considering various measures. I think that might be very useful; it might be an improvement. Sitting by himself the hon. member might argue with himself and question the soundness of some of his own decisions. He might even be persuaded to bring in both a minority and majority report, all on his own. More than that, he might infect some of his colleagues, including the one sitting right in front of him, with good sense, and they might be persuaded to have some doubts about their own infallibility.
The debate has been useful for another reason. We have had produced before our wondering eyes large batches of ministers- ministers who normally would be in their offices working hard to execute their duties.


An hon. Member:: They were ordered out of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are ministers, as we have every reason to believe, who have not been coming into the house as often as they wished. They are here now-I do not mean to drive any of them away-and that is one worthy contribution the Prime Minister has made in this debate. Having spoken here tonight the Prime Minister, so to speak, produced these ministers before our wondering eyes.


An hon. Member:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be willing to allow 15 minutes of the time available to me to be used for the question period-if that is the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
In his discussion the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said a good many things with which most of us can agree. In his professorial remarks he said things which are consistent with what the committee suggested, with what my leader suggested and with what the

hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and ShefEord suggested. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with those particular areas.
The institutions of democracy throughout the world have all been open to varying measures of criticism over the last few years, and certainly with some justification. Certainly all representative groups must conduct their business in the light of today's conditions and the conditions likely to prevail tomorrow.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There is much to be done, much to change, much to alter. As a matter of fact it is no secret that many of the proposals which are reflected today in the committee report have been suggested by hon. member of this house in past years, some by members of the opposition parties in and out of this chamber, in the procedure committees of last year and of previous years. For example, the proposal with relation to the elimination of financial resolutions, the proposal to place more emphasis on standing committees, the proposal to attach less importance to second reading, the suggestion that unanimous decisions by the proceedings committee concerning the allotment of time for individual items should be bringing, the idea that there should be regular sittings of the house-as one goes through the litany of proposals contained in the fourth and fifth reports he finds many proposals and ideas which have been advanced from this side of the house, and, as has been said, we have really no quarrel with the majority of the recommendations. We might disagree with some of them in detail but, basically, we do not quarrel with all of them.
Mention has been made of the committee which went to England. I agree with my hon. friend who leads this party that the kind of procedures we want in this house are those which are native to our institutions, native to this country and adapted to the fact that we have a federal system. They should take into account that as individual members we represent areas which are distinctive from geographic, ethnographic and economic points of view. What may be good for the United Kingdom is not necessarily good for Canada, and I think this should be made clear. We did find some practices in the United Kingdom which appeared to be reasonable and we dealt with certain of these in the report which was made last year, part of which was carried over. But we were careful to include in that report a statement which has not been
December 10, 1968

mentioned as yet, namely that many of the private members of the house of Westminster, the mother of parliaments, were most concerned over the fact that the mad rush toward efficiency and expedition had destroyed some of the values of the democratic process which they had keenly desired to retain. Nor had they gained any real alternative.
This caveat was filed by the committee last year and it appears in the report. We also suggested that in approaching this whole subject, Canadian conditions and practice must be kept in mind. Efficiency and expedition are all very well. Mussolini said he had made the trains run on time. But he did a great many other things, in the country over which he ruled as dictator for so many years, which were most repugnant to us, and still are.
In our analysis of the proposals before us we must be careful not to be carried away by the wild winds of expedition, efficiency, processing, computerization. Those are fine words, but they contain within them the essence of great danger to the process of democracy. Every year more countries have, in the sacred name of efficiency, scrapped or altered their parliamentary institutions so that they are no longer able to reflect honestly and effectively the views of the people of the land. Each year we find the countries which possess truly democratic institutions, dwindling in number. It is not enough for the government to come to us and say: We like this, or that, recommendation because it guarantees that in the course of a year we shall be able to program what we feel is essential for the government of this country. Mr. Speaker, no government is entitled to say that it is a reservoir of all that is good, wise and intelligent. Merely because it has access to the sprawling bureaucracy which inhabits this country and can produce a program of legislation is no reason at all for the government to suppose that we in this house, members of opposition parties and private members on the government side alike, should refrain from challenging, examining and scrutinizing its proposals free of the inhibitions which, for example, the proposed rule 16-A would inflict upon them.
I wish to deal for a minute or so with the advantages, in terms of parliamentary time, which are likely to result from the proposals made by the committee. It is my submission that, quite apart from the proposed rule 16-A, the proposals as a whole would provide for the use of the government and the house approximately 50 days more per session than
Motion for Concurrence in Report are now available. As a result of the elimination of the financial resolution I would say that in an average year 20 days additional debating time would be gained. The elimination of the budgetary resolutions would save another five or six days. Thirteen days have been cut from the total of 38 days which were available for supply. In addition, the fact that less emphasis is being placed on second reading would, in normal circumstances, make available an additional eight or ten days. No longer will it be necessary for members of this house considering second reading of a bill to say that, having accepted the principle on second reading, they are bound by its terms and can no longer challenge the measure. Since second reading will be just another step in the legislative process, I am confident from my experience in this house that at least 10 or 12 days will be saved in each session. Thus, as a result of these proposals, many of them emanating from this side of the house, approximately 50 extra days will be available, in addition to those available in the past for debating government proposals and other measures with which the house might wish to deal.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
But that is not enough, apparently. The government demands more. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code. I ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and his colleagues what assessment they would make of the time required to debate this measure in the house during the legistative program of a session? It may well be, of course, that the Prime Minister, who has been trying for the last year to lead parliament out of the bedrooms of the nation, where he unfortunately feels it has spent too long, may feel that this year has been a very long year. I would of course point out to him that having introduced a measure, it led him on to greater heights, and then it languished and withered on the vine.
This year, of course, was the in year for elections. The right hon. gentleman thought this would be an excellent time to have an election, but of course this was bound to take up a good part of the year. Nevertheless, being an impatient man he might very well say, "I think this bill should be through all its stages in two days," and there is nothing to stop the government from engaging in a practice which would lead to this being done,
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report covering 80 or 90 clauses, dealing with substantive and procedural matters, a great many important issues which are especially crucial in the social and moral life of this nation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of the house, how would this measure be programmed? I suggest to you that any opposition party-and I go further-any members of the government, the private members of the government party, who are prepared to accept without challenge the type of programming envisioned in this proposed standing order 16-A, do not deserve to sit in this house. They are not justifying their responsibilities to the people who have sent them here. Mr. Speaker, this place must not become a legislative incubator.
Now, sir, some mention has been made about the practice in the United Kingdom. I challenge the implication contained in the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister. Virtually all of the arrangements which are made in the United Kingdom are worked out by virtue of agreements.
When our committee was over there last year we went to a dinner given by Mr. Speaker. I sat next to a gentleman with whom I struck up a conversation. I discovered he is what is known in England as "the usual channels." He is an official of the treasury department attached to the office of the chief government whip, and he stays in that capacity. When the government changes, this official goes as an assistant to the chief whip of the opposition party. He ranges between the parties, through constant negotiations. He is trusted as an honest broker. He shuffles from one side to the other, working out the course of the legislative program measure by measure, session by session, even section by section in order to try to develop for the benefit of the members of the house some indication of the time which will be spent on a measure and when it will come up for a vote.
As a result of that I think it is safe to say that 95 per cent of the business announced by the government house leader during the course of the week comes from these arrangements. The balance is usually contained in private members bills and private members resolutions. For what it is worth, Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the Hansard for the day I was present, containing a statement made by the Hon. Richard Crossman on the business for the week. Three of the days of that week were private members days, one was a government bill, second reading, and two were committee stages of other bills. I

had the occasion to discuss these with the government people and with opposition people. In each case there had been arrangements worked out.
Without in any way denigrating the party of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I would say that my responsibilities are a little heavier than his. Our party is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. From time to time he and I feel it is our duty to arrive at the same destination, but sometimes we think it possible to get there by different routes. This occasionally may make my task as house leader a little more difficult than that of the hon. member. But I suggest through you, sir, to the right hon. Prime Minister, to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and to all the members of the house that in virtually every one of the cases where the government sees fit to put a measure before us, with a proposal such as that contained in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), agreement would be reached. There would be negotiation. There would be bargaining. There would be the necessity of distributing the functions of the usual channels in the United Kingdom between the respective house leaders. But I suggest this would be done, and where it is not done the government would then have to put itself in precisely the same position as the government in the United Kingdom. When in the opinion of the United Kingdom government a measure has been debated to an extent which requires termination, the government moves closure. This is a weapon which is available here. All that is required is 24 hours notice under the appropriate standing order. Debate having been initiated and not being completed, the government has the option to exercise this responsibility and bring the debate to a close.
But I go beyond that, Mr. Speaker. How will it be possible for the members of this house, dealing with important, complex, difficult measures-measures dealing with economic, social and human problems-to know what is involved until debate has been commenced, until there has been an opportunity to question, to challenge, to scrutinize? This was the case in the famous pipe line debate and in the debate on the emergency measures of some years ago. After the debates had been commenced these measures were subjected to crucial examination, and only after it had become apparent to members of the opposition precisely what were the problems
December 10, 1363

involved, then and only then did the opposition say, "Here is a measure where the rights of the people of Canada are involved. We, in the exercise of our duty and our responsibility, will say no to this measure." The result in the pipe line debate was that the government imposed closure. Mr. Speaker, this is the only way it can be.
It is not possible, it cannot be possible to precut, to prepackage all of the legislative proposals which the government may see fit to put before the house at the beginning of a session. Using the reductio ad absurdum theory, why wouldn't the government make its task a great deal easier by simply attaching a schedule to the speech from the throne, with the number of days, number of hours and number of minutes opposite and say, "This is our program. This is the time available to deal with these measures"? I suggest this is the sort of thing which the government is seeking to impose upon us, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right.
Parliament, sir, must be an instrument of attack to deal with the problems which hold back the advance of progress. But parliament is also the final line of defence against tyranny, present or potential, and also against the encroachment of a vast, impersonal and sprawling bureaucracy. The average man, bewildered and overpowered by thousands of laws and regulations which press in upon him and increasingly restrict his freedom, his right to make decisions, would be left absolutely defenceless without an active parliament with the strength and vitality which it must possess.
This afternoon we had the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) telling us about his expedition into the north, and what he had done with regard to changing the situation in respect to the provision of health care for Indians. Mr. Speaker, that would not have been done if it had not been for the fact that last year in parliament members of the opposition brought this problem before the government. They raised it on the estimates. They raised it in questions. In the result, this brought a very serious and difficult situation to the attention of the government. The result is that the minister has possibly carried into effect a decision which might nave been made earlier, but which had its initial stages on the floor of this house.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Our strength here lies in the ability to debate matters and oppose the government when we feel it is wrong. We reject the idea 29180-240
Motion for Concurrence in Report that an executive branch of government represents all that is good and wise. We feel that because of our close and considered connection as members with the people we represent, and all the people of Canada, that we are very often placed in a better position than members of the government to assess and evaluate their proposals. We feel that the tremendous and accelerated zeal of the government to levy a devastating taxation burden, accompanied by the high cost of living, has such a detrimental effect to the present and future of the Canadian people that we should be entitled to challenge and scrutinize government spending proposals for an adequate time, and in an adequate way. That right is not discharged by a proposal which limits us to debating spending programs and determinations in a standing committee. We disagree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and his group of parliamentary busters, that the election has put them in the driver's seat, not only to initiate but to brush aside or minimize objectives. Here lies the fundamental difference between the government and us, and here we draw the issue, and here we will fight.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks this evening first by complimenting the leader of the opposition, and by offering my thanks to him for the compliment he gave to me. My compliment to him is, first, in relation to the uncommonly good speech, and while-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh, come now; come now.


An hon. Member:: You are getting cheeky.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let me compliment him then on his extremely good speech. While I do not agree with many of the things he has said, I regard his speech as an outstanding rhetorical performance and one of the best I have heard in parliament. I should also like to give thanks to him for the compliment he paid to me. He is looking a little nonplussed at this point, but I assure those surrounding him that he did not let them down. He made it perfectly clear that there was little in the way of godliness to commend me, but he made it clear also that there was something to be said for me on the subject of cleanliness. Perhaps I should not argue in respect of the godliness part, but the hon. member was kind enough to credit me with
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report cleanliness on a Monday morning, and at least in that respect he gave me the benefit of the doubt.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a question which, as he said, was discussed in the committee and which was central to the special committee's conclusions in respect of amendments to the standing order, which should take a permanent form. He suggested that the standing orders as we may finally put them during the debate on this resolution, should receive scrutiny within the period of the next year. I would be glad to give an undertaking on behalf of the government that after we have had experience with these suggested standing orders for the balance of this session, we would at the commencement of the next session in September or October of next year, be prepared to refer these amendments to the new committee on procedure and organization, which I trust will be established by this motion. That committee could consider these procedural changes if not within one year, within at least nine months later.
The two questions upon which the debate so far has focused have been, first, questions in respect of supply and, perhaps more particularly, in respect of the proposed standing order 16-A. The question of supply was referred to at some length by the Leader of the Opposition. After what has been said on this point in the house; on the question of supply, I think little more need be said. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rather abruptly, albeit gently, pulled out the rug from under the Leader of the Opposition in indicating that his group favour a change in the length of the supply procedures. I must say that the hon. gentleman representing Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) may be said to have pulled the rug from under the Leader of the Opposition in his support, along with other members of his party, of the fifth report of the last session which recommended that estimates should be referred to committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Subject to the caveats I referred to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Subject to the caveats to which you referred, which do not seem to have been reproduced with the recommendations in respect of supply.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have not read in the right places.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Peace River has now changed his mind on this question and I agree that is his right. It seems to us that we should continue to be persuaded by what formerly persuaded him.
A question has been raised both by the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition and, secondly by remarks made to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre- one could say privately, but also on television and repeated in his speech this evening-as to certain methods by which the proposed standing order 16A may be amended. I may say, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already said, we are open to suggestions for amendments to this proposed standing order.
I think it is fair to comment that it would have been more reasonable to have looked for and expected these suggestions to be made at the special committee itself when it was considering the proposed standing order. One wonders why the suggestions were not forthcoming then, and in fact why there was not negotiation in respect of this particular proposal similar to the negotiation the hon. member is now proposing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
was made on a take it or leave it basis.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member suggests we gave it to them on a take it or leave it basis. We were hardly presenting it on that basis in light of the fact he did not appear to be intimidated by most of the discussions, and I am surprised that he appears to be intimidated now.


Gerald William Baldwin: You can't negotiate with a bulldozer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The special
committee report would indicate that you have done pretty well on the whole.
I should like to emphasize the fact that there has been very considerable reference by speakers opposite, statesmen as they are, with respect to co-operation and respect for the parliamentary institution they so often put before us, to the fact that there will never be any need for the government or anybody else to take any particular action to arrive at an agreement as to a timetable, and that everything will from now on fall into place. I think they are just trying to put us on.
We are in politics and they too are in politics. This notion that political parties will never seek to prolong the debate on a particular matter is a trifle disingenuous. We are
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
engaged, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre once said, in the process of political warfare. Perhaps we could be spared these statements that inevitably by some kind of heaven-sent co-operation or circumstance that we will always arrive at the best decision in relation to the best dispatch of public business. I don't think anyone believes that.
Let me reply to some of the objections that have been made to the proposed standing order 16A. I think they can be summarized under three headings; the so called quorum of one argument; the so called unilateral decision of the house leader argument, and the essence of programming itself. First, let us refer to the so called quorum of one.
In essence the suggestion has been made which imputes bad faith on my part in respect of meetings with house leaders, that I will have separate unilateral meetings. It has been suggested that I myself may ultimately persuade myself to take a certain course of action. I think it is perfectly clear that I will not follow that course of action, as suggested by hon. members opposite, not only because I think it is not a moral course of action but also because it happens to be politic. The hon. member suggests that if there is a quorum of one this will automatically and necessarily take place. I do not think that the quorum of one will ever happen so long as house leaders on the opposition side do not voluntarily absent themselves from the meetings of house leaders.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In case there is a suggestion that there is anything imaginary in the concern which led us to put this particular provision in the standing order, let me remind hon. members of the time not too many years ago when the house leader of the official opposition-not the present gentleman but another one-was in effect refusing to participate in meetings of house leaders and it was not possible to call these meetings.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Tell us why he did not
participate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You tell us why he did not participate. And will it happen again? Perhaps it will.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is a new politics.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is a new politics on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
DEBATES	3793
Motion for Concurrence in Report


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We know the kind of people we are dealing with on that side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not say it in any-


Mr. Monteith:: It is the same arrogant approach.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: From the same old wagon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council has the floor.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I will not be provocative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is something new for you.


David Lewis: The President of the Privy Council is arguing with himself, no doubt. What does he think of his argument?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope the hon. member will think that the better side may just win.


David Lewis: I don't know.


Gerald William Baldwin: We are not sure yet.


David Lewis: Would it be your alter ego?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which one is my alter ego? Second, I refer to the suggestion that the decision of the government house leader will really be a single-man decision which will enforce itself on the house. I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) make some very skilful arguments in this house from time to time, but he has made no more skilful argument that the one he made on the assumption that the action by the government house leader would be contrary to section 49 of the British North America Act. Section 49 of that act says:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker-
That is exactly what we are proposing in standing order 16A. We are proposing that a recommendation should be made and the house should decide this question, as with other questions that may be before the house, and should decide it with a view to the best dispatch of public business. May I suggest
December 10, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report that there has been a lot of talk this afternoon and this evening about democracy and democratic principles but I think the fact is that on the whole the principle that ultimately has to be recognized is that imposed upon us by the British North America Act, namely that the majority should have the right, after reasonable discussion, to come to some decision. That is what we are putting forward.
Third, I deal with the programming of legislation. I am much obliged to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for having put forward a certain amount of mathematics in making his argument, because it excuses my doing the same thing. I refer hon. members to Hansard of September 12 in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) set out for the benefit of the house and the country a list of 47 legislative items which it was the government's hope might be enacted in this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have not seen most of them yet.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out that the majority of them could have been seen but for the provision of the resolutions preceding financial bills, which I am sure the hon. member agrees should be abolished. Of those 47 items, nine have been passed. Therefore there are 38 still to be dealt with. To that list two more have been added by way of the budget bills, making a total of 40 public bills to be dealt with in the remainder of the session.
Assuming that the house sits for the balance of this session from approximately January 14 until June 30, there would be 120 business days. One should deduct from that two statutory holidays, that for celebrating the Queen's birthday, and St. Jean Baptiste, and also a period of approximately 15 days assuming the house takes an Easter holiday. This leaves 103 sitting days during that period of time to deal with the existing business.
Assuming the proposals with respect to supply are adopted, from these 103 sitting days there should be deducted the 23 days allotted for the business of supply from the beginning of the year to the end of the session, leaving 80 sitting days to the house in which legislation can be considered. This is 80 sitting days in which 40 items of legislation are to be considered. This is some indication of the nature of the problem that the government faces in putting legislation before the house and, may I suggest, that the house faces in discharging its responsibility as the
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).)
parliamentary, legislative body of the federal government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Two budgets and two sets of estimates in one session.


Gerald William Baldwin: And six months off for an
election.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. members opposite are making comments, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I do not hear them. I point out that the hon. member for Peace River laid very great stress on the serious and fundamental nature of the proposed changes to the Criminal Code. I agree with him that this is a very big bill, and there are very many more-


Gerald William Baldwin: It is still changed from what it was last year.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker,
may I point out to my hon. friend that it is being changed because recommendations have come from members of the public, indeed possibly even from hon. members opposite, recommending changes to Bill C-195, and I think it is good legislative procedure to take those recommendations into account and effect the changes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, would the
minister permit a question on that point?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member can ask me questions, if he likes, at the completion of my remarks; but I would like to develop my own argument, if I might.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that it is ten o'clock.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
December 10, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	3795
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, in asking a question concerning increased help to French-speaking countries, I wanted to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a problem which exists in African countries, among others. At the present time, the average annual income in those countries is only $115, whereas in the rich countries of this same French-speaking community it is $1,714.
What strikes us, however, is that following the interparliamentary conference held in Paris, a Canadian representative assured us that the $8 million difference in Canadian help to British commonwealth countries and to French-speaking countries would disappear in 1969. We hope that this project will be carried out.
Before our departure from Africa, we had the opportunity to see what is being done by the Chevrier mission packed with money and fine promises, reminding Africans that we also speak the beautiful French language from British Columbia to Newfoundland.
I would now like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that when French-speaking countries can come into contact with the French culture, they are able to improve considerably their trading operations with other countries. In fact, what especially contributed to assure the success of the Canadian mission is that it enjoyed plenipotentiary powers. The decisions were taken on the spot. The African authorities were quite pleasantly surprised to be able to conclude in a few days agreements on 49 new projects, among which assistance to Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, The Cameroons, Ivory Coast, Niger and Senegal. However, if that assistance is to remain efficient, those people will have to be in a position to use the French telecommunications services, so that they may communicate with all those countries, because the lack of French short waves seriously hinders communications in French-speaking countries.
An enormous quantity of transistors are spreading over one third of the world at the present time. And still much more important, in five years at the most, satellites will assure long-distance communications. Now, according to technicians, there is room for not more than 72 satellites around the earth. On account of the considerable lead taken by the two space giants, the Americans and the Russians, the available wave lengths are scarce and the saturation point seems to be near.
As the unit regulations require that a country apply for its wave-lengths only two years before a satellite is launched, there is the danger that the satellites of tomorrow will be American or Russian, which would reduce to very little the cultural progress achieved by francophone countries in the last ten years, at the cost of great effort.
I have here a press release which I wrote; it proves that if it is possible to protect French culture through co-operation with all francophone countries, we have a duty to do so. In fact, in the majority of developing French-speaking countries, material which Quebec industrialists could supply is very sorely needed. That is why communications in French must become possible, for if use of that language is not maintained, considerable erosion would follow in those francophone countries.
As a result of the study we were able to make during a visit to Paris with the delegates to the interparliamentary conference, we saw that France now has at its Chantilly base-which we visited-a satellite which could guarantee all African francophone countries communications in French.
The satellite "Symphonie" could, even in Canada, broadcast from Halifax to Banff, thus reaching all the French-speaking minorities. In addition, if that satellite were located on the equator, it would be possible to broadcast French programs as far as South Africa. Besides, following those meetings, I would like to inform the house about the results of the work we did, which is greatly encouraging for all those French-speaking countries, including Canada.
It must be remembered that here, even if salaries are higher than in the African countries, Canada has 300,000 unemployed, 150,000 of them in Quebec, and if the co-operation kindly offered by France to reach all those African countries through its satellite is rejected, Canada will be responsible.
Last week the board received a message to the effect that the communications satellite from Halifax to Banff could broadcast in French not only in Canada but in all the countries of Africa, to allow for that exchange of ideas which would lead to increased trade in the future.
I will end my remarks by reading the press release issued about the opportunities for development in those French-speaking countries.
The meetings of the two ethnic groups, French and Canadian, make it possible to hope that the relations between France and Canada will increase
3796	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion while, at the same time, the relations between France and Quebec will continue, especially in the field of education which comes under the provinces.
During that meeting, it was announced that an oil refinery would come to Quebec, as well as a tire factory, since Peugeot-Renault factories are already assembling cars in Saint-Bruno. It was also said that a decision concerning the establishment of an airplane factory in Quebec would be made in January.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary
to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont) said himself, the Canadian government has considerably increased its help to French-speaking countries, particularly in the last few years.
The hon. member spoke of satellites. It is to be hoped that co-operation between France and Canada could increase in this very important field of communications by satellite.
1 should like to quote, for the benefit of the hon. member, certain figures which show the increased help the Canadian government has given to French-speaking countries.
In 1967-68, an amount of $12 million was devoted to this program as a whole; the corresponding amount for 1968-69 is $22.5 million, that is an 88 per cent increase in one year.
The hon. member will probably remember-and he referred to it earlier-that the Canadian government sent last winter a mission of co-operation headed by hon. Lionel Chevrier in a few French-speaking countries of Africa. As a result of the work carried out by that mission, the government is implementing 50 projects-I think the hon. member said 49-in seven African countries, which will account for financial commitments of about $30 million in the next three years, and $40 million for the next five years, in addition to programs and projects agreed to before.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- PROTEST AGAINST PROGRAM RESPECTING ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: For
some time now, Mr. Speaker, there has been

DEBATES	December 10, 1968
a prevailing feeling among businessmen in the forest industry, and many of their employees in the Ottawa valley, that the news media, and particularly the C.B.C., has been emphasizing the views of the Algonquin Wildlands League and their allies, who want the forest industry out of Algonquin park. At the same time the forest industry, which for years has been a tradition in eastern Ontario, has been given the short end of the stick. Proof of this can be found in the C.B.C. program "The Way It Is" which was televised a week ago Sunday night, December 1. The portion of that program which dealt with the Algonquin park issue was portrayed so that it left the impression in the minds of the viewers that the lumber industry is made up of a group of irresponsible people.
We are not discussing mediaeval methods of conservation here, but we are discussing forest management. These companies operate under licences and permits which would be cancelled if they violated any of the regulations contained therein. They pay a considerable sum of money for these privileges and pay for fire protection as well. Any company that does not obey the regulations should be disciplined by the Ontario department of lands and forests and not by an emotional and irrational television film presentation.
I should like now to emphasize the importance of jobs for the residents of the upper Ottawa. A week ago last night on "The Way It Is" the employees in the woods operation were portrayed as a group of lumberjacks who did not deserve very much consideration. No serious thought was given to the real economic issue which will be created by a major cut-back in timber operations in Algonquin park or if this industry is phased out in that locality. Let us take a hard look at the person who built up the case against the lumbering industry on "The Way It Is". At the same time, let us remember that this telecast was paid for with public funds. The man who built up the case against the lumber industry was one John Livingston, who I have been told by the C.B.C. was a former employee of the C.B.C., but is now a freelance reporter.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
A further investigation has elicited the fact that this same man is a former managing director of the Audubon Society, and as such would naturally be a strong supporter of the Algonquin Wildlands League, and others who are going all out to put pressure on the department of lands and forests of Ontario to reduce greatly or eveD phase out all timber
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
operations in the park. The issue that was emphasized was the destruction of the forest, when in fact discussion about forest management was literally cut off.
With this evidence to back up my suspicion and the suspicion of others, there can be little doubt that public funds have been used to pay for the kind of publicity that will in turn mould the public opinion or support that would be needed to create a large scale decline in the forest industry and mass unemployment in the upper Ottawa valley.
As anyone who has some knowledge of forest management knows, there is a big difference between the mediaeval idea of conservation, which is exemplified by no cutting of trees at all, and the modern day conservation concept, which is exemplified by forest management. Timber that is not harvested when it is ripe simply rots and decays and is a lost natural resource. We who live in and around the area of Algonquin park are in favour of the multiple use of the park, and we have never thought otherwise about it.
The Algonquin Wildlands League and their friends are using the news media to confuse the general public and to work upon the emotions of the general public by trying to tell them that conservation means that man never touches the forest, when in fact conservation and forest management are one and the same thing. Those who participated on this issue of Algonquin park in the program "The Way It Is" on December 1 are guilty of this charge.
We in the Ottawa valley welcome and promote the tourist and other visitors to our area at all times but we cannot be so generous as to give up the livelihood of thousands of people without having something else to take its place. If the urban areas in the province of Ontario are so crowded and hectic that we have to destroy half the economy of a large section of this province so that others can find solitude, then I ask if it is not time that far more importance be placed on better roads, and a greater transfer of industrial development to areas that have not witnessed the kind of economic growth that has taken place in many other areas. If some of those who want to move more people from rural areas into the urban areas of Canada are already frustrated by the hectic life in urban Canada, why then is it their desire to transfer more people to an area of frustration?
Let us look at the "gut" issue that is at stake here. If mass news media such as the C.B.C., and newspapers with large circulations, in which we find uninformed and emotional letters by people who talk about an
DEBATES	3797
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Algonquin wilderness, succeed in so moulding public opinion, then many communities for miles around the park will be affected economically. This would not only affect industrial establishments in the towns and villages in the upper Ottawa valley, but would also affect other industries across the country to whom many of the forest products are sold. But then, of course, perhaps our idealists would like to see the forest industry fall into the hands of millionaire operators such as E. P. Taylor, and eventually create an even worse monopolistic system than that which is in existence today. If we are to have freedom in Canada there must be room for the smaller businessman.
These are factors that have been ruthlessly shoved aside by those who are more interested in their own selfish solitude than they are in the economy and the livelihood of the area surrounding Algonquin park. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the directors of the Algonquin Wildlands League is a canoe outfitter whose business is just outside Algonquin park. Can a man in this position be considered an unprejudiced promoter?
There is another interesting point that I would like to point out to Mr. Livingston, who seems to take delight in attacking the forest industry. Sixty-two per cent of the fires in Algonquin park are caused by recreationists, rather than by people who work in the forest industry. As we know, fires destroy large amounts of good forests annually. It is too late to start to build a road when a rampant fire is destroying hundreds of acres of inaccessible timber. Therefore those who complain about the building of roads in the park are not being constructive in their thinking, or conservation minded.
The C.B.C. has an obligation to film some of the constructive things done by the forest industry. Among these must be included visits to mills and veneer plants in order to portray a true picture to the general public. It is a sorry day when the C.B.C. will produce only the informative side of the story, after it has received over 100 letters of complaint, most of them from people who were educated in forest management, as well as several telephone calls which outlined the complete bias and emotional approach to ideas of conservation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
3798	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, in closing-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to yield some of my time to the hon. member, for him to express his complaints and interest, if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Unfortunately that is not in order in these proceedings. I think it would set a dangerous precedent.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure nothing the hon. member would say could be dangerous to this house. The hon. member, who is concerned with preserving the interests of his constituents, thinks those interests may have been threatened by what he considers a biased presentation on a public affairs program. I need not remind the hon. member that programming on the C.B.C. is completely a matter for the corporation and is in no way under the control of the government. In the past the C.B.C., by its programs, has brought to the attention of the Canadian public certain problems which are of acute interest to all Canadians. The preservation of our natural resources interests us all, as does the pollution of our atmosphere, streams, rivers and lakes.
I am informed by the corporation that an effort was made in this case to describe both sides of the question in the program referred to by the hon. member. I understand it was explained that the logging operations were conducted at a reasonable distance from the highway crossing Algonquin Park. That precautions were taken not to damage or divert streams, and that in some cases the felling of trees was of considerable benefit to surrounding trees. I also understand that the producers of the program did not intend it to be an in depth study of the question but rather they hoped to make a reasonable presentation of the problem of our diminishing forest resources.
I am aware, however, that the hon. member takes a different view of that presentation. He has expressed a contrary opinion and has made suggestions which, I can assure him, will come to the attention of the corporation and be given careful consideration.

DEBATES	December 10, 1968



BROADCASTING-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR TAPES OF NEWS BROADCASTS

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last as reported at page 3527 of Hansard I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did any member of the task force on government information services, set up by the right hon. gentleman, request the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to ask Canadian radio stations to provide tapes of their news broadcasts to the commission?
The Prime Minister replied:
Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I will gladly inquire.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The next day, on Friday, after setting forth the question, he said as reported at page 3592: "The answer is, no, Mr. Speaker."
Later that afternoon as the result of further information I acquired, I telephoned the Prime Minister's office to suggest that the answer be looked into. Still later, about two o'clock on Friday afternoon, I received actual confirmation as to the type of letter which was being sent to various broadcasters across Canada. From notes I took down, the first paragraph of the letter was to this effect:
The special task force on government information is undertaking a study of newscasts from a representative group of radio stations and has asked the C.R.T.C. to assist by suggesting appropriate sample stations and by contacting the stations to ask for recordings or preferably the scripts of all newscasts broadcast within a specified time period.
I have a motion on the order paper, No. 53, for the production of the letter concerned, and a number of questions wrapped up in one comprehensive question which is also on the order paper.
Today, at the earliest opportunity to answer me, since I was not here yesterday when motions were called, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) acknowledged that the request had in fact been made, and his answer will be found in today's Hansard.
I draw three conclusions from this. First, I think the advisors of the Prime Minister should be called into question. They should not put into the mouth of the right hon. gentleman wrong information to give to the House of Commons. I believe this has placed him in an awkward spot. I do not for a moment suggest that he intended to fall into it. He had simply been given wrong information by people in the public service. Second, it is obvious that top management of either
December 10, 1968	COMMONS
the Canadian Radio and Television Commission or of the special task force did not know what the lower levels of both groups were doing. Third, to come to the substance of the request made by this person working for the C.R.T.C., I think it is an abuse of what that organization was established to do. 1 do not think the C.R.T.C. should be tied in with what many newsmen, particularly broadcasters, consider to be attempts to strengthen the propaganda efforts of the government.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I appreciate the hon. member's courtesy in not attributing to the Prime Minister any fault in the manner in which the hon. member's question was answered. I think it has been made very clear that, in the terms in which the question was asked, it was properly answered. However, the Prime Minister has attempted to give the fullest possible information in the spirit of the question, and I hope he has done so. I shall not attempt to defend the public servants whom the hon. member has attacked. I regret he has seen fit to do so. I also regret
DEBATES	3799
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that he should have put in the mouths of unnamed journalists, particularly broadcasters, an accusation that the work of the task force is somehow activated by motives lower than those set out for it by the Prime Minister.
The hon. member must know that the C.R.T.C. has a regulation that radio stations should keep all scripts and tapes of news broadcasts for 30 days, and that such records are from time to time requested by the C.R.T.C., for examination and assessment. I understand from the C.R.T.C. that anyone who wishes to listen to these tapes here in Ottawa may do so. In fact, the C.R.T.C. would request and obtain a tape from a radio station for such a purpose. There is obviously nothing sinister or improper about this. It seems to be a normal and proper function of the C.R.T.C. and the C.R.T.C. would appear to be the proper agency to make such surveys, if they need to be made.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.28 p.m.


Wednesday, December 11, 1968