1968-11-15

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1968-69

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1969, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform hon. members that the Canadian Wheat Board, following negotiations in Canton, has succeeded in concluding a sales contract with the People's Republic of China to provide for the export of 1.5 million long tons, 5 per cent more or less, of wheat to be shipped between December 1968 and July 1969 principally from Pacific coast ports.
This contract is under the provisions of the third long term agreement with China and consists of No. 4 northern and No. 5 wheat and limited quantities of Garnet and winter wheat.
Assuming that full tolerance is taken, the sale amounts to 58.5 million bushels.
Including the contract covered by this announcement, total sales under the third long term agreement amount to 6.3 million tons or approximately 235 million bushels. The long term agreement provides for a minimum of 168 million bushels and a maximum of 280 million bushels over the three year period commencing August 1, 1966, with the amounts for each year to be negotiated separately.
As in the previous contracts, payment terms for sales under the long term agreement are 25 per cent cash when each vessel is loaded, and the balance of 75 per cent in 18 months with interest. The deferred payment provision is made possible by a guarantee to the Canadian Wheat Board by the government of Canada.
29180-176f
I extend to the Canadian Wheat Board my sincere congratulations on this successful sales effort.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who I believe has just returned from South America and I welcome him back. I think all hon. members would join me in saying we are very happy to hear that a new deal has been made with China. I think it should be emphasized and understood that, to quote from the statement of the minister which I received a second ago, the deal, including the contract covered by this announcement involves total sales under the third long term agreement amounting to 6.3 million tons or approximately 235 million bushels spread over a period of three years. So, if I understood the minister correctly, the contract provides for a maximum sale of 280 million bushels spread over a period of three years. Is that correct?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must make his statement. This is not the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I did not want to misquote the minister. However, I believe what I said is correct. One thing I should like to say is that I am very happy that the deal was made, because the government is now following the policy which was established by a previous government. There has been a lot of discussion-
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There has been a lot of discussion with regard to the selling of grain to the communist countries. It was not so much a question of selling grain as it was a question of supplying credit to communist China. I am quite surprised to find that members opposite are endeavouring to shout me down when I am replying to a statement of this nature which is so important to western farmers. I want to repeat that the sales of grain to communist countries resulted from
2780	COMMONS
Wheat Sales Contract to China credit being made available by the former Conservative government. This practice has now been adopted by the Liberal government, although the Liberals criticized it at the time, and that has permitted this deal to be consummated. I want to congratulate the government and the minister for that.
There is one other point I should like to mention in connection with the statement that was made today. At the present time western farmers are in need of cash. There is a shortage of box cars at all elevator points in western Canada. If these box cars could be supplied the farmers could deliver cash crops other than wheat, thus obtaining much needed cash. I trust that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, now that the wheat board has consummated the deal, will have a discussion with the Minister of Transport with a view to making box cars available at the various elevator points in Saskatchewan and Alberta so that cash crops can be delivered and cash put into the hands of the farmers to assist them in this particularly difficult time which results from difficult climatic conditions.


Mr. Hees:: And Manitoba, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, in Manitoba and all the other provinces. I am glad my colleague mentioned Manitoba because I was not sure they were short of box cars in that province, since most of my mail has come from Saskatchewan and Alberta.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. At the present time the farmers are on a 3 bushel quota, but they are not able to deliver that quota because of this problem in connection with box cars. This is a situation which seems to arise every fall. I trust that now it has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport he will have discussions with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the wheat board and the railway companies, with a view to remedying this situation immediately.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, certainly the farmers in western Canada will be happy to hear this news. It means that we will have continuing sales to China, and will give the farmers hope that these sales will increase. I hope these sales will help the government to increase its efforts in moving toward recognition of the Peoples' Republic of China so that our trading position can be made more normal, and so we can look toward an expansion of trade with

DEBATES	November 15, 1968
that country. If we hope to have an expansion of trade we will have to move toward making our relations with that country more normal for the people with whom we are expecting to do business.
I should point out at this time that the situation in western Canada is serious with regard to the sale and movement of grain. I just returned from there yesterday and the farmers who are threshing flax cannot get it into the dryers. If damp flax is not dried properly it will spoil in a very short period of time. In the area where I farm, between Rosetown and Biggar, the information I was given was that at both points, which are heavy delivery points, although there is a 3 bushel quota for shipping out damp grain the cars are just not available to move the grain out, and the elevators are filling up with out of condition grain which cannot be moved. I suggest there is not much point in having a quota if you cannot move the product. This is part of the whole picture, a very important part, and every effort has to be made to solve the problem.
Again I congratulate the minister and the government on being able to announce this sale. But let us not think, Mr. Speaker, that we have solved the problem, because we have not; the problem is still there.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he wishes to congratulate warmly the Canadian Wheat Board on having successfully made such a wonderful sale.
I do believe that this sale will help the western wheat farmer. It is important to note that the sale is for No. 4 and No. 5 northern wheat. The farmers will undoubtedly have to produce higher quality wheat while receiving a price for lower quality wheat.
Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that the Canadian Wheat Board made a fine sale, but I should also like to know at what price we have sold this wheat. Have we sold it at a loss? I am in the automobile business, and if a car sells for $5,000, I know I could double or triple my sales by selling the car at halfprice. I could then say that these are fine sales, but they would certainly not be profitable.
The minister still takes great care not to tell us for what price that wheat was sold. Will the government again have to pay subsidies to make up the difference between the
November 15, 1968

price paid by China and the cost price to western farmers?
In any event, we have to dispose of this wheat, but not at a loss. Indeed, we should be able to dispose of it, because Canada is recognized throughout the world as the country that produces wheat of just about the best quality. In such circumstances, a good salesman sells the quality of his product and manages to operate not at a loss but at a profit; so, we should be able to find a way for the producers and the Canadian people to benefit therefrom.



PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-129, to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act (fructus aequitur labori).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Latin you have just read, fructus aequitur labori, indicates the essence of the bill. That phrase means "Let the remuneration equal the work." Our parliamentary secretaries have had some of their functions restricted by the Prime Minister's announcement that we are to have a system of ministers, acting ministers and second acting ministers. As a consequence the position of parliamentary secretary becomes more honorary than actual. The position of committee chairman is far more exacting. I therefore submit that we now ought to remove from the Parliamentary Secretaries Act the provision that there shall be paid an additional $4,000 per annum to parliamentary secretaries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister say whether the Minister of National Defence was stating government policy when he said, as reported from Brussels, that Canada will maintain at present strength Canadian forces in Europe assigned to NATO and defer indefinitely the reduction in size of our Canadian European air division?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: On the first part, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. On the second part, I do not know if the minister used the word "indefinitely". I doubt whether he did. If he did he meant "for a non-definite period" which might be short or long.	.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister commit Canada to assign to NATO four modern antisubmarine destroyers equipped with helicopters?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is that these ships have been commissioned for quite a while. This is not a new assignment. As the house knows, under an arrangement with NATO these ships, built for the Canadian navy, are assigned automatically to NATO. This is not a new commitment; it is something which was decided by a previous government. It is merely a restatement of something that was done and announced before.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that this commitment is not subject to the review the government is presently conducting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. All our NATO, defence and external policies in the area I have indicated are under review, including this one. These particular ships involve commitments which have been made before. There is nothing new here. The Minister of National Defence has anhounced that we are not going to decide to cut back on those orders until we decide it is necessary, if that is the case, as a result of our review.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to judge then, from what the Prime Minister has said, that this is not actually a commitment that has been made to NATO but something that is subject to review.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not a new commitment, Mr. Speaker. That is what the conclusion is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. I just want a simple answer if I can get it, Mr. Speaker. Does the government regard itself as having committed itself to providing these ships to NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answer could not be more simple. We have a certain number of commitments with NATO-land troops, air troops and ships-which have been made in the
2782	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry past, and the position of our delegation is that we are not drastically reducing or increasing these-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: "Drastically".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -until the review has been finished.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Can
I ask the Prime Minister to clarify the situation at this point? We gather from the press that there is an additional commitment of four ASW destroyers with helicopters. Does this mean the conversion of ships which are already under NATO command, or does it mean the new ones which were let by contract this year and which will not be ready for two or three years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, this is not a new commitment. These are ships which are under construction, or whose construction is to begin. The commitment has been made previously.


Mr. Forreslall:: Get yourself straightened out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps you can help me.


J. Michael Forrestall: Anyone who knows what is going on in the maritime command could help you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: I certainly understand now why there is uncertainty with regard to this question, because now is confusion compounded. The Prime Minister has said that these are vessels now on order or under construction. They will not be available for three years. Does this mean that the review is over and that we are now committed three years ahead to the extent of four new ASW destroyers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course not, no more than the troops or aircraft which are there now commit us for four years ahead. We can withdraw from NATO during the course of 1969 if we so decide; and the ships which have been committed to NATO, as in the case of the ground troops or the air troops, will follow the policy decision which is then made.


An hon. Member:: Like medicare.


Mr. Benson:: Did you vote against it?


Harold Edward Winch: Will the right hon. Prime Minister explain whether the information in the newspapers is correct that this is for one

DEBATES	November 15. 1968
year only, and if so, what is the meaning of an additional four ASW in the next year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not additional to any commitment which has been made previously, Mr. Speaker. It is a repetition of commitments already existing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was about to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the answer he has not given me, whether it is the view of this government that the minister of national defence in Britain was correct in saying that all members of NATO except France and Iceland had increased their commitments to NATO.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether these four destroyer escorts are not simply replacements for other ships which have become obsolete and have been taken out of commission. Are they not designed really to restore our commitment to NATO rather than to increase it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot give the answer to that, Mr. Speaker. I do know, once again, that these new ships are part of a previous commitment. They may be to replace former ships and they may be an addition which was agreed to in the past and to which we are committed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the precise confusion that has been created as a result of the statement today by the Prime Minister and the anomalous statement that was made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence in Paris, would the Prime Minister agree to set aside a day on the return of the minister so that we in this house could find out once and for all which direction the government is going, if any?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can see there is some confusion in the mind of my right hon. friend when he talks about Paris. He should know that NATO moved from Paris to Brussels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a debate proper we can of course call the estimates-
November 15, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Nesbitt:: You didn't even know we hadn't an embassy in Taiwan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -we could call the estimates covering that subject next week, if that is the arrangement among the house leaders.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should mention that a slip of the tongue is something that never happens to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister arises from this morning's news reports that the NATO defence committee has proposed demonstrative nuclear explosions. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this kind of strange proposition has the concurrence of the Canadian government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I did not understand the context of these strange nuclear explosions.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is important enough to bear repetition. This morning's news reports indicate that the NATO defence committee has proposed that there be, and I quote, "demonstrative nuclear explosions" within the territory under NATO command. Has this kind of proposition the concurrence of the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot take issue with this because I know of no such decision by NATO. I have grave reasons to doubt that any such statement has in fact been made. I shall inquire.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister not agree that perhaps the Canadian people would be justified in feeling there are two policies of the government, one adopted in presentations to NATO and one adopted by the Prime Minister when speaking in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that the question is argumentative.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a Janus policy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement today. Has the Canadian government made any new commitments with respect to NATO? He talked about past commitments, and fulfilling
DEBATES	2783
Inquiries of the Ministry them. Are there any new commitments over and above those already made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the context of the discussions of NATO there have been no new commitments but, as concerns our relations with communist countries, we have increased our wheat sales.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I do so in view of his acceptance of responsibility in regard to standing committees. In view of the fact that the defence estimates have now been referred to the standing committee on external affairs and defence, and in view of the importance of the recent NATO meeting, would the Prime Minister take under consideration, on the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, their reporting to the standing committee in order to bring it up to date on any governmental commitments made at the recent NATO meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the estimates are in the standing committee now, and hon. members can address the questions they wish to the ministers.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The estimates are before us, but it requires the consent of the Prime Minister and of the ministers to have them appear before us on this matter. I am asking whether the Prime Minister will take under advisement recommending to his ministers that they appear before our committee and bring the committee up to date.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will change the subject somewhat, but before asking my question I wish to raise a point of order.
For over 15 minutes now supplementary questions have been allowed, which means that an hon. member or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) have been able to ask seven or eight supplementary questions, when other hon. members who wish to ask questions cannot do so. Since the question
November 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry period is limited to 40 minutes today, I think that we should be given a chance to ask questions not only about NATO but about other matters as well, and it seems to me that some hon. members should limit the number of their supplementary questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I now come to my question, which is not a supplementary question. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce informed us this morning of a very interesting sale of wheat to China and I would like to ask him whether he could exert some pressure so that the surplus of a million pounds of Beauce maple syrup might be exported, even to China, if the Chinese want to eat good maple syrup?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the maple syrup situation in that area is somewhat difficult due to circumstances which the hon. member for Temiscamingue knows very well. There have been difficulties, and a certain quantity of maple syrup has to be reconditioned. I am assured that this product will be offered for sale afterwards.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister which is based on a report compiled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that unemployment in October reached the level of 3.6 per cent or a seasonally adjusted rate of 5.1 per cent. In view of the fact that even the lower of these two figures is above what has been considered an acceptable level, and in view of the menace of this kind of thing to our society, can the Prime Minister say what steps the government is taking or what stepped up programs it is undertaking to combat unemployment in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows that from time to time I have taken exception to questions which would require ministers to answer in a rather lengthy way. The difficulty I have always had is not so much regarding the question but regarding the answer. When hon. members ask general questions they receive lengthy answers which

consume five or ten minutes, and members will complain that the question period is being taken up with lengthy answers. I think questions which invite policy statements should be limited to asking a minister whether he proposes to make a statement on motions. I would hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could ask his question along those lines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: would be glad to ask it that way, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of this matter will the Prime Minister say that an early statement will be made to indicate what stepped up programs the government is undertaking to combat unemployment?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we had quite lengthy statements on this matter during the budget debate, and we will have a chance to make others on the estimates next week. As you prophesy, I could make a lengthy answer to this question to indicate that this increase in labour force unemployment is due to many factors, and to indicate what we are doing. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have a lengthy answer here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the urgency of this matter I wonder would the house agree to let the Prime Minister return to motions and give us this statement today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Some members agree, others don't, so we will go on to the next question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who
are the others?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. Has the decentralization study of the National Harbours Board, mentioned by the Minister of Transport when he was in Vancouver recently, been completed? If not, when will it be?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that this is not a study by the National
November IS, 1968

Harbours Board. It is a study which was done hy a group of officials from the department and from the Canadian Transportation Commission, and with an input from the National Harbours Board, acting independently. The answer is that the report is completed. The hon. gentleman will be pleased to know that this is at least two or three weeks ahead of schedule, which I think is very commendable with respect to the gentlemen who were involved in it. I am hoping to read it over the week end and then perhaps to recommend it to the consideration of the standing committee on transport. This is something I would like to think about over the week end and then report to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister how the gentlemen from the department to whom he refers can act independently. If they have, have they done so at their own expense or has the department underwritten that expense?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They were directed to put into the report their own views without consideration for present departmental policies, past departmental policies or what they might believe to be future departmental policies. They were in that sense acting independently. The reason for this of course was so we would have their unrestricted personal views after looking at the evidence placed before them as a basis for consideration concerning what might be the best policy for the future.


Donald MacInnis: Can the minister explain how they can be directed and act independently at the same time.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be short and I think the answer likewise will be short. The question I wish to pose is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he refer the official languages bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling concerning its validity before proceeding further with it in this house, in view of the submissions made to him by J. T. Thorson, former president of the Exchequer Court of Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have referred this letter to the Minister of Justice. If the hon. member will take note of a certain system that was instituted a little while ago he will realize that the Minister of Justice will be in the house on Monday.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and say how happy we are to have him in the house two days in a row. We are very complimented indeed.
Is the government giving consideration to assisting the province of Nova Scotia and the port of Halifax in their plans to provide a first class through freight container service from overseas ports to the centre of this continent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated that the estimates of the Department of Transport will be called later today. I think this might be a better time to discuss something as interesting and important as the future of containerization.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked the minister whether the government is giving consideration to this. All I require is a yes or no answer. It will not take more than two seconds.


J. Michael Forrestall: have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether he could assure the house that he will make some sensible statement when the estimates are introduced and in that statement refer in some depth to the containerization program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do feel that this question should be asked when we are in committee.



RETURN OF CANADIAN BOX CARS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mention already has been made of the fact that even though the quota is only 3 bushels to the acre there is a terrific shortage of box cars. I should like to ask the minister
November 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry whether he would today communicate with officials of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. and ask them to do their part in bringing back from the United States the very considerable number of box cars which are in that country and which belong to the Canadian railways, so they could be used at this time for the purpose of moving wheat.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have never been able to refuse anything to my right hon. friend. This afternoon I will phone the officials of the railways and the Canadian Wheat Board to make sure that his request is given attention.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question supplementary to the one asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. When the minister is in touch with the railway companies would he ask them to do their best to supply box cars to areas in the northern part of Alberta, where the situation is desperate, and in doing so hopefully compensate for the failure of the government to provide early passage of the farm credit legislation and fix the interest rates under that legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADDITIONAL FERRIES ON BORDEN-TORMENTINE SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether his department is in the process of acquiring two additional ferries for use on the Borden-Tormentine service?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think I am in a position to advise the hon. member in this regard, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, the whole subject of transportation to and from the island is under very active consideration. I think it might only complicate or confuse the issue even further than it is at the moment if I were to answer part of the question without answering many other questions.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the ever increasing toll of traffic accidents. Are talks under way between the federal and provincial authorities concerning the setting up of the public safety board which was announced in this field about this time last year?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt whether the question is of sufficient urgency to warrant it being asked at this time, but I shall allow the minister to reply.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I asked the chairman of the meeting which I believe was held in Regina a few days ago to place this on the agenda. I have not had an opportunity as yet to obtain information concerning the results of their consideration. I will try to do that and have the information available for my hon. friend this afternoon.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon.
Minister of Transport.
Can a decision be expected in the near future with regard to the proposed site of the international airport which, according to certain rumours, would be built in Quebec?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I should like to know whether certain sites which had been suggested to the government with regard to the planning of the international airport have been excluded?


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be placed on the order paper.
November 15, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	2787
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English]	ago I replied to a question along the same
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	line directed to me by the hon. Leader of the
INQUIRY AS TO DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF Opposition.



MAINLAND CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Inasmuch as Canada has just concluded a new wheat sale to communist China, will Canada now consider the immediate establishment of diplomatic relations with that country?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The subject is under consideration, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he make arrangements so the standing committee on transport and communications may resume its interrupted hearings in the Atlantic provinces on the subject of the specialized matters that were coming before that committee in that area? I ask this question in view of the fact that the committee does not have permission to resume its hearings in that area at the present time, and because government members on that committee are making every effort to frustrate other members of the committee in making such a request.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister giving any consideration to the formulation of a uniform set of laws governing the sale of securities in this country?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is actively considering this matter. I should like to have the question directed to him.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, two days



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the concern expressed by Newfoundland fishermen with regard to the very low prices being offered in the proposed purchase by his department of five million pounds of salt cod, can the minister advise whether he is aware of this situation and what steps are his department taking to ensure the payment of fair prices.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes; the minister is aware of the situation. I should also like to point out that the government has taken off the hands of salt cod fishermen in Newfoundland the equivalent of roughly 20 per cent of a year's catch for delivery to the International Red Cross.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the government in a position to announce the setting up of a marketing board for salt codfish, as indicated yesterday in St. John's by the Minister of Defence Production?


John (Jack) Davis: This is an interesting proposal, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the government will be prepared to consider it. But it is not an item of government policy at the moment.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us whether he has received any tenders for the purchase of the five million pounds of high protein food in question?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure a number of tenders have been received. The deadline, however, has been extended to November 18 to ensure that we take up all the five million pounds of fish required for Nigeria and Biafra.
November 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with reference to his statement of today regarding the sale of wheat to China. Was this in reference to a former commitment or agreement, or was it a brand new deal; and if it was a new deal, how many bushels did it involve?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it was very clearly stated in the announcement I made that the long term agreement provides for a minimum of 168 million bushels and a maximum of 280 million bushels. So this is within that agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Then it is really under the old, existing agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, sir.



REPORTED SALES NOT UNDER WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On October 29 a question was taken as notice by the minister's parliamentary secretary, I believe. The question is this. What action, if any, is this government taking to investigate the persistent allegations that there is wholesale violation of Canadian Wheat Board regulations by feed mills in western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer was given later, Mr. Speaker, that the wheat board has been looking into this matter. As soon as I receive a report from the board, I will be glad to report to the house.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as it is now two weeks since this matter was made the subject of investigation, can the minister say whether any conclusions have been reached?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with the chairman of the wheat board yesterday on this very subject. He demon-

strated without any particular effort how complicated this matter is and that it involves questions of policy. In the old days the wheat board had the right to take over the whole wheat production. Now farmers are entitled to move wheat within the province. He told me at quite some length how complicated it was to control movement between provinces. He said they were doing their best to do so. The report is being produced now, and again as soon as I have it I will report to the house and try to devise a system whereby control can be improved.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Have the regulations subsequent to the amendment of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act now been approved by cabinet, as hoped for by the minister last Wednesday; and when will cash advances be available to farmers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was done last night, Mr. Speaker. The regulations are now to be signed by a number of ministers, and I am going to make sure that it is done; I am informed it has been! Consequently the wheat board will now be in a position to implement these regulations in the coming hours, or at least next week. Let us give them a chance to relax after making the wheat sales to China.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Are organizations exerting pressure on the government in order to promote the passing of the omnibus bill?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, some organizations are probably exerting pressure but this is done with the Minister of Justice rather than the Prime Minister.
November 15, 1968



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance state whether consideration of increasing pensions for superannuated civil servants has proceeded to the point where they can expect some good news before Christmas?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO PATROL BOATS IN DISTRICT 7B On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. I ask the minister whether it is his intention to reduce the number of fishery patrol boats presently operating in district 7B.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question should be placed on the order paper. If there is an urgency that is not apparent to the Chair the hon. member can discuss the question at the time of adjournment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Since it was mentioned a while ago that there are 300,000 unemployed in the country, 150,000 of whom are in the province of Quebec, does the government intend to re-establish winter works in Quebec?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker.
fEnglish]

INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED NATIONAL COUNCIL On the orders of the day:


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Agriculture when he will announce the composition of the national grains council, and when he expects it to become functional.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture hope to have all the letters from interested parties within a very few days. As soon as we have had a chance to look at the replies from interested groups in the industry I think we will be able to make an announcement about the formation of the council. I hope we will be able to make such an announcement very soon after that. I hope the council will be functional, again, very quickly after that point.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can you advise whether the agriculture ministers of the three prairie provinces have been consulted as to the formation of the grains council?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to
remind the hon. member that questions should be directed to the Chair.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister acting for either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, whichever has jurisdiction relating to human rights and the R.C.M. Police. I ask whether the attention of the government has been drawn to a recent statement by Mr. Allan Bate, a Prince George lawyer, to the effect that in court cases involving native Indian people the R.C.M. Police take sides against the native people and thus put them in the position of not being able effectively to obtain justice in the courts in that area. I ask also whether an inquiry was made into this matter.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question.

November 15, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house whether he has received any request for an appeal from or review of the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission permitting Canadian National Railways to discontinue its rail passenger service in Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows it is not sufficient at this time to merely ask whether representations have been made to or received by a minister.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the strong representations made by the Newfoundland people with regard to the decision of the Canadian National Railways to abandon rail passenger service in that province, will the government reconsider the decision of the C.N.R. in this respect?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which representations my hon. friend is referring to. There is a method of appeal which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been pursued. As I explained to the house some weeks ago, this is a problem which faces not just the people of Newfoundland but the people of Canada and not just the people of Canada but the people of other parts of the world where road and air transportation are displacing transportation of passengers by rail in many instances. In many cases there is just not sufficient traffic to justify the continuation of services.
Under the circumstances I am sure my hon. friend would agree that unless a formal appeal were launched the government would really be very reluctant to interfere in a decision which is based on providing the greatest economy to the Canadian people and the best value for the taxpayers' dollars.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has now expired.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Transport has given us a lengthy lecture and has done an 

excellent job of making a political speech in the house in reply to a very simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for the floor on a question of privilege, so he must be prepared to submit a question of privilege that is genuine and in accordance with the rules of the house. The point he is making now is not a question of privilege in any possible way and I cannot allow him to continue.
I have to remind hon. members again that the question period has expired.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bechard in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The house again in committee of supply, revised estimates of legislature for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found on page 286 of the blue book and the details on page 288.



LEGISLATURE

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
1. Allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the Senate, $3,000.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Chairman, there is not much to be said about that except that we are trying to give shape to a wish we have often expressed to increase the efficiency of parliament and enable it to do more work with the best possible results.
As hon. members know, we are planning to reform the rules of the house and the committees entrusted with those studies will report at the beginning of December. But the item under consideration deals with the assistance we have deemed appropriate to give the leaders of the opposition parties in order to make easier their task which is demanding and has to do with examining the bills as well as the measures introduced by the government.
The opposition, as we know, does not always have enough time to examine closely the legislation or bills submitted for its consideration, and that item is meant to help it in that respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if the Prime Minister will forgive me, may I rise on a friendly point of order. I realize that he is about to discuss the supplementary item which was tabled this morning.
November 15, 1968

However, item No. 1 which the Chair has called deals with the allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the Senate. Since we are discussing matters related to the House of Commons I wonder whether it would not be advisable to let item No. 1 stand and call the item on which the Prime Minister is speaking?


Albert Béchard: Order, please. It has always been the custom in the committee to have a general discussion on item No. 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: realize that, Mr. Chairman, but a general discussion on vote No. 1 would allow hon. members to wander all over the place, and the next member to speak could go on to another subject. If we are going to have a discussion now on the question which the Prime Minister is raising, would it not be a good idea to call the particular item which would keep the discussion to that subject matter?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I gather it would meet the convenience of certain hon. members if we could deal with that subject now. Under the rules we could deal with it in general terms under item No. 1; but if the hon. member insists, we could stand item No. 1 and call the supplementary estimates at this point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This could be done by agreement, Mr. Chairman, without in any way prejudicing the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Chairman, so long as I am not committed to voting money for the Senate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, as I said, the intent of this measure is to enable leaders of the opposition parties to avail themselves of some technical facilities, to resort to the services of economists, sociologists, jurists, and to alleviate their difficult duty in criticizing the government's legislative measures. As everyone knows, these pieces of legislation are usually excellent, so that the task of criticizing them is even more difficult. It,is time that we realize the necessity of taking the utmost advantage of the time available to us.
For many decades, we have been realizing that the business of the house is ever increasing. The number of session days has had to be increased with the years, but we have now reached the limit of this possibility. It is
Supply-Legislature
necessary to be more efficient in the use of these days, and it is obvious that, in our parliamentary system, the opposition has an important part to play and that it is in the national interest to make public funds available to them in order that they may discharge their duty with full knowledge of the facts.

For these reasons we have examined a number of different methods of assisting the leaders of the opposition parties. We examined, for example, a suggestion submitted by an hon. member of an opposition party that a sum of money be allocated to each caucus based on the number of members of that caucus. This is an interesting idea. It would, of course, be very helpful to the government party because our caucus comprises a great number of members. However, we felt that the first step in the expenditure of public funds was not to assist the caucus members but to assist the leaders. As hon. members know, research facilities are already provided to the backbenchers by the parliamentary library staff. These facilities have been used frequently by a certain number of members. I feel that if the time comes when more demand is put on these research staffs we may have to consider increasing their size, but for the time being the system is working well. Backbenchers in all parties may call upon the members of the parliamentary library staff for assistance in their research and even to do some writing for them.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The intent in this particular item is to help the leaders of the parties in view of the fact that the opposition parties have a distinct role to play under our parliamentary system. We have decided to do this by allotting a substantial amount of money to the Leader of the Opposition and a lesser amount to the leaders of the other parties which are recognized under the rules and regulations of the house, that is, those parties which have more than 12 members.
The intention is, of course, not that these funds be employed for political organization or narrow partisan purposes but that they be employed directly as an aid to parliamentary work. For this reason, an agreement has been reached between myself and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the leaders of the other parties, whereby funds would be allocated to them. Under this item research personnel will be hired by the Speaker of the house or by the clerk on the recommendation

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
of the leaders of these parties. It is intended that certain positions will be established. In this way there will be some minimum basis on which this house can discuss these estimates when they come up in succeeding years, and ensure that the funds are employed for this particular, agreed purpose.
I should go on to say that I have had very helpful co-operation from the Leader of the Opposition and from the leaders of the other parties. We have arrived at this plan without too much discussion. This step can be viewed as a first step in assisting the opposition parties and members of parliament generally to discharge their duties. This step, we felt, was the most urgent one and since it entails the expenditure of public funds we wanted to begin with this step before considering other methods.
I have one final word, Mr. Chairman, and that is to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties for their cooperation in this matter. I should like to express the hope that the result will be, not more informed debate because the opposition debaters are always informed, but that the information will come to the fore sooner in the debate so that they will be in a position to perhaps shorten the length of time which is spent on one bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the right hon. Prime Minister for what I think we all must regard happily as a very constructive measure taken by the Prime Minister and his government to assist the opposition parties in their role which is, from year to year, growing more and more complex. I express the hope that as the opposition becomes more informed it will not follow what is sometimes the tendency of those who become full of learning, that is, to speak at even greater length. I hope this will not be the result; indeed, I am sure it will not be. It is clear, I think, that the scope of government operations is becoming broader and broader from year to year as governments, one way and another, seem to become more and more involved in more and more of the affairs of the citizen and of the community. It is clear that if the opposition parties are to meet the government in this house on anything approaching equal terms so far as information is concerned, facilities must be provided in addition to those that prevail today. The government has at its disposal, of course, an excellent public service and can also consult

those who are well informed outside the ranks of the public service.
The Prime Minister referred to the excellence of the legislation and therefore the need of the opposition perhaps becoming even more urgent. He will forgive me if I say to him that in view of the various positions of the government this session I have not so far felt the need of any additional assistance of this sort, but I am sure that time will come and the assistance therefore is timely. It is obviously impossible for members of the opposition parties to be well informed on all the matters that come before the house. I would say also that it would be impossible for our caucus, for example, to be well informed simply with the assistance of the staff that we will now be able to provide. Although the provision is generous, nevertheless the staff will be small and the caucus will be unable to make itself well informed on all matters on which the government is involved, such as estimates and the various other matters the government is likely to bring before the house.
This staff must serve the leader, the caucus and the members of the caucus in their work. While members of the caucus can get assistance from the parliamentary library on matters that concern them individually, the members and the caucus are also concerned with caucus positions on matters that come before the house. This staff, therefore, in this sense must serve the caucus and serve the members of the caucus.
I say this now so there will be no possibility of misunderstanding. The Prime Minister referred to this fund and the staff being used directly in the legislative work. He, I am sure, will be among the first to recognize that if I and my caucus are to be well informed in depth on various matters about which the government is concerned we will also have to utilize well informed people outside of the house and outside of this staff because this will be a relatively small staff to be informed in depth on all matters. There will of necessity, therefore, need to be some liaison between this staff and perhaps an advisory committee outside the confines of parliament so that the staff cap draw upon the informed opinions of those outside the house. I trust that this would not be regarded as a type of partisan liaison beyond the scope of the arrangement described by the Prime Minister.
The task of such a group is obviously a complex one which obviously requires a competent structure of organization. The
November 15, 1968

success of this staff will, of course, depend in particular upon the calibre of the head of the research team. As I have indicated, he will have to serve not only myself but also the caucus collectively and the caucus individually along the lines I have indicated. We will proceed as rapidly as we can but our aim, of course, will be to provide a staff high in quality, and this may take a little time.
I rise, Mr. Chairman, in particular to express my personal thanks and the thanks of this party for the constructive measures that the Prime Minister has taken in this regard.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, Hansard will indicate that we are discussing an item having to do with the residence of the Speaker of the Senate, but as we are all now aware we are in fact discussing a supplementary item that was tabled this morning by the President of the Treasury Board which provides an extra sum of money for the general administration of the House of Commons, in particular that section of the administration that comes under the authority of the Clerk.
I regret very much that other commitments and responsibilities have made it impossible for the parliamentary leader of this group, the hon. member for York South, to be here on this occasion, and I know that he too will regret very much that he was not able to be here for this discussion. It puts me, Mr. Chairman, in the position of not only having to speak for him but of trying to say the things that he would want said at this time.
I think the first thing that I have to say on his behalf, Mr. Chairman, is that he welcomes the attention that the Prime Minister has given to his request that something be done in this area. Naturally he and all of us in this party welcome any first step that is being taken. However, I think I would have to say that the agreement that the Prime Minister said was arrived at between him and the parliamentary leader of this party was not, at least so far as the hon. member for York South was concerned of the happiest kind.
I believe that while the negotiations were being carried on he continued to urge upon the Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council and others that there be certain modifications in the proposal that is now before us. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the hon. member for York South to speak for himself on this particular aspect, but I felt that I should on his behalf enter
Supply-Legislature
this caveat. I see the Prime Minister is nodding his head. In other words, I am saying yes, there was an agreement, but the hon. member for York South agreed only because the Prime Minister would not go any farther.
At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I think that the house in general should take this opportunity to express its approval of the action of the government in calling upon parliament to devote a certain portion of public funds to this kind of purpose. After all, it does not make sense to elect 264 people to the job that is ours in parliament, to pay us $12,000 a year to do the job, and then to be skimpy when it comes to providing the kind of assistance and service that we need in order to do our job effectively. Maybe some of us have got along for a good many years without this kind of assistance, but the job is getting that much more complicated and we do think it could be done better if research and other kinds of assistance were made available not just to the leaders of the various parties but to members of the house generally.
The Prime Minister said that one of the opposition party leaders had suggested a different approach. It is no secret that that suggestion was made by the hon. member for York South. It was that this kind of assistance should be provided not just to party leaders but to all members of parliament as such. The way we operate in this house, Mr. Chairman, this means the members of the various parties in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister will recall that when the hon. member for York South first made his proposal to the Prime Minister-indeed, Mr. Chairman, I was with the hon. member at the time-the suggestion was made that this kind of assistance should be made available to members of all parties, including those on the government side of the house. I recognize the validity of the Prime Minister's statement that there are a lot of members over there; in fact, there is no doubt that there are too many. But if this kind of assistance is not made available to them, it does leave the notion that somehow they have access to the public service, to government sources, that is not available to those on this side of the house. That is not really true. I find that the public service generally is just as responsive to my requests for information as it could possibly be to the request of anybody else. However, if I were a backbench Liberal I think I would be complaining bitterly about a proposal that provides extra assistance to

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
members of opposition parties but no assistance as such to members on the government side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope that the "hear, hears" and the loud applause at this point, particularly from the backbenchers on the government side, is recorded in Hansard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am willing to say that that is a good idea, but it does cost more money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then that is fine; the response is almost unanimous, Mr. Chairman.
We are now spending a lot of money on the running of the House of Commons, some $15 million. That does not include the $3 million to run the Senate of which I do not approve. But if we are spending that much money and electing presumably capable, efficient and skilled people to do the biggest piece of work that has to be done in this country, namely, the job of running the country itself, then I do not think it is unreasonable or irresponsible to spend whatever few more dollars are necessary to enable such people to keep up with the kind of tasks that have to be tackled here in parliament. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, while expressing to the government the formal thanks of the hon. member for York South and of this group for taking this step, may I say that if my deskmate were here he would be speaking pretty strongly about this matter, insisting that this is really only a gesture and that the government ought to be going a great deal farther.
Perhaps the Prime Minister's defence will be that this is a beginning, but I did not like the way in which he placed so much emphasis on the provision being of assistance just to the leaders of the other parties. The Leader of the Opposition stated the obvious, namely, that the assistants that he will employ will not be just for his use but for the group as a whole. I know that we in our party have the same intention. Our leader has no thought of just using whatever money is made available to him to increase the staff in the leader's office. He is determined that any money that is made available will be used to hire research people to assist the members of this party as a whole. So why not put it on that basis, Mr. Chairman, and provide this assistance for all our members, for all the Conservatives, for all the Creditistes and for all the Liberals?

The Prime Minister made reference to the research division of the Parliamentary Library and to the assistance that we are able to get there. I join with him and others in paying tribute to the assistance we have received from that division. However, Mr. Chairman, I point out that cabinet ministers do not rely just on impartial, objective people like librarians to brief them on the matters upon which they have to make decisions. That service is available to them, but they also have a whole host of executive assistants, special assistants, research people and advisers to work with them as a government, to think in their terms and to help ministers make the decisions that they must make on matters of policy.
I think that this also applies to the rest of us, Mr. Chairman. We are all entitled to the objective, impartial kind of research material that we can get from the library. But we are also entitled to have people in the research field working with us in our various groups, understanding our approach, looking for the kind of things that will help us solve problems, that will help us come to decisions in the light of the particular philosophies that the members of the various parties in this house have. That is not contrary to the Prime Minister's suggestion.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I think we all agree that this money must not be used for party purposes; it must not be used for the organizational work of the parties outside the house. I am sure he will agree with me 100 per cent that inside the house our parties and the cut and thrust of debate between the parties form the very essence of parliament. We need, therefore, that kind of research which will inform and strengthen us along the lines of the positions we in the various parties take.
I am pleading, although no doubt the hon. member for York South would be doing so in more biting language, for that change which we hope will come some time in the future. I shall have to settle for the Prime Minister's assurance that this is but the beginning, that once this kind of money shows up in the estimates it will be possible to enlarge the estimates and go farther in future years.
There is a particular angle to this matter that concerns me, concerns my leader and concerns most hon. members. We are concerned that the amount of money being provided is so small that unless something is done about the Joe staff, if I may put it that way,
November 15, 1968

in our leader's office and unless something is done to help our leader to cope with his ordinary day to day work, this money may be used to cover just that situation. For a good many years my office has been opposite my party leader's office, and I have a pretty good idea of what goes on in that office. I have seen it operating under two or three different leaders. It seems that it is the nature of the leader's office, and no doubt the Prime Minister is discovering this, that a particularly heavy work load comes into it. The correspondence is unimaginably heavy. A great deal of mail comes to the leader of the party, and that it is impossible for one person and one secretary to handle it is incontrovertible.
What must our leader do, Mr. Chairman. He has to persuade good people, people with university degrees and with experience who could get jobs elsewhere at higher pay, to come and work for him in that office, either at minimal rates of pay that the party provides from the outside or at rates of pay that are below those provided for executive assistants. As a result our leader has quite a few helpers, it is true; some of them are volunteers and some of them are from the outside. But he needs these people just to do the day to day Joe work. There is a very real danger that this money, which I understand in a full year would be only $35,000, much less than that for this year, will be absorbed to cover our leader's Joe work and that we shall not obtain from it what is wanted, namely, research work to assist hon. members to be better informed. That danger exists in a very real way and will continue to exist until this other problem has been dealt with satisfactorily.
I shall spend no further time on this matter, since it is still being negotiated. The leader of our party was greatly concerned when the proposal came from the Prime Minister. He was led to believe that this money was to be used to pay the salaries of people who would be capable of doing active research work. It ought not to be used merely to pay for the day to day work in the leader's office. We are all to be covered by this small amount of money. Hon. members who sit in the second, third, fourth and fifth rows and who need research assistance of the kind the Prime Minister is talking about just will not obtain it. I therefore think that the Prime Minister's initial gesture might have been considerably expanded.
I think hon. members ought to be told how much money is being spent on each of the
Supply-Legislature
smaller parties, how much is being spent on the official opposition, how much is being spent in enlarging the Prime Minister's office staff and the staff that is looking after his Joe work, his research work and all the rest of it. If we have that information we may better judge how generous is this gesture toward the third and fourth parties in this house.
In addition to the ordinary work load hon. members have as such because of matters that come to their offices, the steady run of human problems, and in addition to the ordinary correspondence they must deal with, they are often asked to help in other ways. I suppose I have helped to write hundreds of graduate theses in the quarter century I have been here. Every week young people approach me with requests of that kind. I think this is a legitimate request for students across this country to make of their members of parliament. That is part of the job.
On top of all this work there is our work in committees. I agree with the proposal that we make more use of our committees. I think we must consider attaching some kind of research staff to the committees themselves. I do not say we must go to the extent they have in the United States. All those who have been down there know how lavish they are with money for research purposes. The point is that when we are asking for all these things we are not asking for public funds to be squandered. We are trying to make sure that we get better value for the money we already spend on the institution known as parliament and on having members of parliament here.
We are all terribly aware of the work load that goes with parliament. I will not be divulging caucus secrets when I say that some time ago, at one of our caucuses, we had an outsider in who pleaded for something to be done. The retort was made, "Why don't you get yourself elected to parliament?". One of our new members who felt overworked already immediately replied, "The job isn't what it's cracked up to be."
I believe a good many new hon. members are finding the work load heavy. But we are here because we like it. We like what we are able to do. Some of us like it so much that we hope to stay here forever-if we are allowed to. We have an important job to do for the people of Canada and it is by no means a mistake to ask for public funds to be used to support that work and see it is done well.

November 15, 1368
Supply-Legislature
We shall certainly vote for item 20a, the item we are in effect now discussing. We hope that this is only a beginning toward the provision of proper and adequate assistance to members of parliament generally.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for having fulfilled a promise made in the Speech from the Throne, to the effect that the Opposition parties would receive some help from the government in order to reach maximum efficiency.
The Prime Minister has just repeated that, to ensure maximum efficiency to the opposition parties and their leaders, supplementary estimates are presented today, which will help them considerably to fulfil their duties more actively and more efficiently than in the past.
I note in passing that this initiative of the government, probably conceived by the Prime Minister himself is due to the fact that, having for such a long time himself opposed any government in Canada, he has understood the importance of an active opposition. I knew him when he was active. In 1944-quite some time ago-he went around for the C.C.F. with Mrs. Therese Casgrain. He even came to Rouyn-Noranda and I went to hear him speak during the provincial elections of 1944.
The Prime Minister, therefore, knows what he is talking about when he speaks of the important role the opposition can play in a democratic parliament.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the amounts the Prime Minister or the government suggests should be paid the leaders of the parties of the opposition to organize a research department, we must also consider the matter brought up by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that those amounts are not made available only to the leaders of the parties, although the leaders are formally mentioned.
The fact is that, in any political party, there is some form of discipline and I believe the leader is the one who represents the whole party. Just as the Prime Minister represents the whole Liberal party, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) represents Conservative members as a group, and the leader in parliament of the New Democratic party represents the socialist members

of this house, and I feel I represent the members of the Ralliement Creditiste group.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that the help we receive belongs of necessity to our respective deputations. In my case, if we increase the staff assigned to research or such work as is absolutely essential, that staff will be available to our whole party. I believe the same applies to the other parties.
Now, there is another point to which the government or the Prime Minister must give much attention, and that is office facilities. At the present time, the situation is absolutely unbearable. In my own case, for instance, four employees share a single office about the size of a handkerchief, which is hardly satisfactory. The whip of the Liberal party is looking at me and signalling that this is a serious problem. He is, in fact, fully aware of the situation in which I find myself. More space must be found for the opposition parties.
Some minister have five, six or seven offices in the centre block, even though they have huge offices in their respective department buildings. Two sets of offices are provided for the ministers and for their parliamentary secretaries, whereas the opposition parties are in a strait jacket. They find it absolutely impossible to get any co-operation from the government. The opposition parties must be given more office space.
Another point which I want to bring to the attention of the house is that the right hon. Prime Minister has mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and repeated in this house this very afternoon that the public must realise the important role of the opposition in parliament. There is rather a contrast between that and what was said before the election, for example. The public was then told: Vote for the government if you want to get anything. They are urged to vote for the party in power, but no one knows which party will be in power. We often hear that.
Today, I think this clearly demonstrates the position and the importance of an efficient opposition which will preserve our democratic principles. That means that a member of the opposition must receive the same treatment as a member of the party in power, if we really want justice to prevail in the administration of public affairs.
I think that the fine initiative of the Prime Minister confirms the importance of an efficient opposition, well informed and prepared to play its part as a critic of a responsible government. Mr. Chairman, this is an
November 15, 1968

essential condition so that the public may be aware of the importance of the opposition to the government.
Here is another point on which I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a while ago, an amount of $35,000 is allotted to the small parties of the opposition and $125,000 to the main opposition party. As for ideas, that party is smaller than the others, but it has more members than ours, I admit it.
We are bound by those recommendations which we feel constitute a first step towards helping the small parties of the opposition. Needless to say, eventually that will not be sufficient, because like every other minister or the Prime Minister himself we have more work than we can do. What staff does the Prime Minister have? A staff of 28 people: writers who prepare the speeches for the ministers and dozens of researchers, in short a numerous personnel.
Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman that although the right hon. Prime Minister indicates that it is not so, I believe he needs that staff to fulfil his duties properly and to enable the government to discharge its responsibilities. I am not criticizing the size of the staff, but I do want to point out what our situation is compared to that of the government.
The amounts we accept are just a start. They will help us, there is no doubt about it, to better fulfil our duties. They will help not only all the members of the Ralliement Creditiste, but their leader as well.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the opposition might also play an efficient role in another field. I have already called the Prime Minister's attention to that matter by writing to him personally. It deals with transport facilities for the leaders of the various parties. For instance, we are invited to go to western Canada to speak before university students about the role of a parliamentarian or any other matter of public interest, and not to play politics, although that can be done. The Prime Minister is not above doing it at times; I have the right to do it too just like the leaders of the other opposition parties.
I asked the Prime Minister that a pass valid on Air Canada flights be delivered to the four federal political leaders. So far the Prime Minister does not need a pass, because he has his private plane, that is the government plane. The Leader of the Opposition has
Supply-Legislature
a pass which enables him to travel on all Air Canada routes from the Atlantic to the Pacific, whereas the leader of the New Democratic party and the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste do not have such a pass. As far as I am concerned, I have a pass which allows me to go home to Rouyn once a week. All hon. members have one. I am not asking that a pass be delivered to all hon. members, but the fact remains that there are two political leaders of parties now represented in parliament who do not have that pass.
The management of Air Canada has not even found it appropriate to answer me when I requested one and I say that the Prime Minister did not answer me either. Yet, he has received a personal letter from me on that matter.
When we have to pay such transportation costs, it means spending a considerable amount of money which we certainly cannot always take out of our own pocket. Sometimes people invite us and send us an airplane pass, so that we have nothing to pay. It seems to me that if the leaders of the New Democratic party and the Ralliement Creditiste had a pass enabling them to travel from eastern to western Canada, when they are invited to perform official functions, when they are invited by social clubs, chambers of commerce, municipal authorities, or to attend regional conventions of various organizations, Air Canada or the Canadian government would not be poorer for that.
Mr. Chairman, I draw the Prime Minister's attention on that point, to see whether it might be possible to add to both the two small items the amounts requested by the representatives of the New Democratic party and of the Ralliement Creditiste for the leaders, so that they are provided the same facilities as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to travel across country.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, I want to thank sincerely the Prime Minister for his initiative. I commend him for having fulfilled a promise made in the Speech from the Throne. I think that the supplementary estimates will assist the members in giving a better service to their constituents, while enabling them to discharge their parliamentary duties even better. Thus the Canadian people whom we represent here in the House of Commons will be better served.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to congratulate the right, hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for this initiative which, I think, constitutes a step forward in

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
the modernization of our parliamentary system. In my opinion, it was advisable to recognize the greater work-load of the party leaders and the additional credits which will be voted will serve to increase their staff. It is a very wise move. However, I hope it will be also followed by another measure long overdue and most important which would improve the services enjoyed by the hon. members.
You will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that the role of the State, in our political society, is becoming increasingly important. We can expect it to grow apace. The complexity of public administration saddles the hon. members with new and extremely heavy obligations.
The people want their M.P. to fulfil his obligations as a legislator in Ottawa, but they also want him to be present in his riding to provide for all local needs. This is now practically impossible because of the evolution of our parliamentary system.
In view of this, it is advisable to provide members on both the government and opposition sides with services to enable them to fulfil their new responsibilities as well as their duties in the house and in their riding.
I think that, in view of these new needs, we should establish without delay secretariats in the ridings to assist each member with his work on behalf of his constituents. It is true-as pointed out earlier

that there is a staff to serve members, particularly in the library; this staff helps members in the preparation of their work and provides them with guidance in their research.
However, as a result of the evolution of parliamentary procedure-we now have to work practically 11 months a year in Ottawa. A member cannot be active here 11 months a year and make a useful contribution to the proceedings of the House of Commons, while keeping informed of the events in his constituency, in order to answer all the requests of his constituents and professional or social organizations. All that increasingly requires that a member should conduct forums, inform the public of the various political trends and attend social functions, especially those which stimulate the political activity and thought of his electors.
Now, I believe that it is extremely important that we should obtain as soon as possible some help in our constituencies, at least to enable the member, to be represented in order to assure some permanent cohesion between the aspirations of the people or the
[Mr. Ouellet.l
electors of a constituency and the policies applied and passed in Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should provide a supplementary allowance to cover the costs involved in hiring a secretary in the riding, as well as renting premises and paying for long-distance telephone calls, because you know that the representatives of rural districts are often compelled to make long-distance calls from one locality to another and this is very expensive indeed. I do not see why a member who has an office in his riding could not have a direct line linking him with the various government departments.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to deal with another matter. This has already been raised earlier in the day by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who is in favour of granting a permanent pass on Air Canada aircrafts to the leaders of the parties. I agree with that. I think this should have been done a long time ago.
Still, I should like to put the following question: if, in the early days of confederation, it was considered advisable to give Canadian members a pass on the railroad, I wonder why, today, considering the evolution in transportation and modern techniques which allow more travel by planes than by railway, the members of parliament could not be given passes on Air Canada planes, just as members were given passes on the trains in the early days of confederation.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it might be possible to agree to pass this item and later relate what we have to say to the supplementary estimates. I shall have some comments to make at that stage. Without any discourtesy to the hon. member for Papineau, when we come to the statutory item relating to the House of Commons, and vote No. 10, I think members of the committee will have perfect latitude to relate their remarks to this supplementary estimate. In order to accommodate the leaders of the parties I think we might agree to pass this supplementary estimate now and agree to relate our remarks to the statutory item and item No. 10 in the legislature estimates.
November 15, 1968


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Provided that no exception will be taken to a speech by any member that might relate to the remarks of the Prime Minister or any other party leader I would be agreeable to that course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I also agree that we now pass item 20a but not item 1.


Albert Béchard: Before calling item 15a and item 20a I should draw the attention of the committee to the fact that supplementary items 15a and 20a were tabled this morning and as I interpret standing order 61 these items should not be considered or adopted in committee at this sitting.
Standing order 61 reads as follows:
If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House thinks fit to appoint: and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole House, before any resolution or vote of the House do pass thereupon.
However, I assume there is unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
are passing items 15a and 20a, not item 1.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(The following items were agreed to:)
15a. To extend the purposes of Legislature Vote 15 of the Revised Estimates for 1968-69 to include Canada's fee for membership in the Association Internationale des Parlementaires de Langue Fran-caise, $1,000.
20a. General Administration-Estimates of the Clerk, $81,250.


Albert Béchard: It being one o'clock the committee stands adjourned until 2.30 this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Albert Béchard: Order. House again in committee of supply. When the committee rose at one o'clock we were discussing vote No. 1.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it might be appropriate if we stood votes Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 15 and went on with vote 20 so that we could deal with the general administration of the house
Supply-Legislature
and in particular the various subject matters to which hon. members were referring this morning. We could return to these votes when the committee had satisfied itself with regard to vote 20.


Albert Béchard: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
20. General administration, $9,192,100.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, when the house took recess at one o'clock, I was saying that it was imperative that members of parliament have access to modern means of transportation and communication.
Years ago, through a legislative measure, parliament granted railway passes to its members. In this age of speed, it would be proper, I feel, to give the members special passes on Canadian airlines. The frequent use of planes for travel is now recognized and accepted by everyone.
Indeed, all the members of this house can travel by plane once a week between their respective ridings and Ottawa. To my mind, it was essential that this principle be recognized. It is especially handy in the case of those members who come from the Maritimes and the western provinces.
However, it should now be recognized that the members who are called upon to vote ever increasing amounts each year for the administration and the legislation of their country, should be able to travel quickly across the country to better know it and, in particular, to study at close range the problems they are called upon to solve.
I recognize that granting permanent passes to all the members of this house on Canadian airlines may cause those companies certain difficulties, but surely some way could be found to allow all the members who so wish to move about rapidly from one end of the country to the other, at least two or three times a year.
Mr. Chairman, I see magnanimity in the attitude of the leaders of the parties who will receive additional amount to help them in their work; I find them magnanimous in the fact that they are willing to share these amounts and this additional help with the members of their parties. But to me, this is not a solution. The needs of the party leaders have been recognized, and assistance is being given to them. They are now provided with extra sums of money so as to fulfil their

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
responsibilities more efficiently. I do not think we should expect them to share those funds with the members of their parties. We must find right now some means of assisting all the members. To this end, I suggest first that the research personnel in the library of parliament should be increased; secondly, every member should be allowed to establish a secretariat in his own constituency. This is, I think, one of the most urgent and pressing needs if the members must continue to play a useful and efficient part in their constituency.
Finally, I think it should be possible for the members to travel about in this country in a swift, efficient and modern way, without having to spend fantastic amounts of money.
Those recommendations should be accepted as quickly as possible so as to render the members' work more effective, in the interest of the Canadian people.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a question directed to the Speaker on October 31 last by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) with regard to the translation situation in the committees.
Mr. Speaker, with his great kindness, had accepted to consider the matter and he had said:
I would ask him to wait a few days to give me the opportunity to study the situation a little more closely and then I may be in a position to make a statement in the house-[DOT]
on this subject.
We know the tremendous difficulties encountered with regard to the translation of the evidence of the committees of the house, and if we refer to the report of the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), dated March 31, 1967, we see that the workload of the Canadian government translators is unbelievable and that the number of words and pages translated has tremendously increased during the last few years. This does not only apply to translation but also to interpretation.
I should like to suggest that we might go back to a practice which existed in the early 40's assigning to the House of Commons translators who would exclusively look after the translation of the Debates of the House of Commons and the proceedings of the committees. I think that we are now asking too much from the translation staff, and, to that end, I should like to quote part of the report of the Secretary of State.
Additional to the requirements of parliament, assistance was provided (by the interpretation services) to departments, crown corporations, royal commissions and similar bodies in Ottawa, elsewhere in Canada and abroad.

This means that often, when there is an urgent need for documents and material which have been submitted to one of the committees, unfortunately there are no translators available to do the work and to deliver simultaneously to the members and the public the texts in French and in English. This is a situation which, in my opinion, should be corrected as quickly as possible and I suggest with great deference that the Chair consider the advisability of assigning a staff of translators exclusively concerned with the business of the House of Commons and the committees.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in the quiet retreat of the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon there is an excellent opportunity to make some comments on item 20 which deals with the House of Commons itself and to make some reference to the supplementary estimates which were passed. When all over the world today we see signs of violence and the desire of people to change their way of life by sudden and bloody means rather than by the infinite processes which democracy has made available to us, I think it is a good thing to take a minute or two to reflect on what we are, what we do and what we should be able to do. I do this in the full knowledge of the fact that the committee on procedure will be reporting by order of the house on December 1 and I do not intend, except indirectly, to infringe on what I hope will be a very useful and meaningful debate at that time.
I direct my remarks more particularly to the backbenchers opposite. I have been trying to incite a revolt over there for some time without too great a measure of success so far. With regard to the role of the backbencher, hon. members opposite must have been filled with jealousy and some admiration by the very useful and spectacular performance by the six members from Newfoundland who sit on the "right" side of the house and who were able to mount a concerted, effective and useful attack against the very unfair removal of Newfoundland's most necessary passenger train service. It did not take a great deal of time and it was done usefully and objectively. The hon. members spoke with eloquence and in an articulate way brought forward to this house and through this house to the country a very serious and urgent problem. I think they are entitled to the commendation of the people of this country and members of this house
November IS, 1968

for demonstrating that it is possible to do so. I am confident that hon. members opposite must be very frustrated by the inhibitions that prevent them from emulating the kind of presentation the house saw when the members from Newfoundland put forward their arguments last week.
There are very eminent authorities for this sort of action. I am going to try to be as objective as I can, but I should like to Quote some authorities to show the unfortunate predisposition of members of the Liberal party to fail, even in opposition, to take the independent stand they should. I have some quotations here which I will read and possibly hon. members will recognize the source later. All of them come from one article. The first one reads as follows:
There Is not remaining in this party (Liberal) one single man for whom principles mean more than power.
The next one reads:
One finds among the old guard the same brutal cynicism.
Another one reads:
I am only concerned with the anti-democratic reflexes of spineless Liberal herd.
Those are not my words, Mr. Chairman. I would not dream of saying that. Farther on I read:
I would have to point out in strongest terms the autocracy of the Liberal structure and the cowardice of its members.
I have never seen, in all my examination of politics, so degrading a spectacle as that of all these Liberals turning their coats in unison with their chief, when they saw a chance to take power.
Those are sad words, Mr. Chairman. And again:
-where was there a single well-known Liberal to stand up for the constitution of the party, to raise his voice against dictation by the leader, to question his authority thus to commit the party?
Since the present Prime Minister, Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, used these words in 1963 so effectively and truthfully, I wonder how many backbenchers there are sitting opposite me who would like to say the same thing but who, because of the description which has been given of them, do not dare do so.
Having thus established a foundation which I hope will be continued, I believe this issue becomes one with which we must all be concerned and upon which will be predicated not necessarily the survival of this house-I am not one of those who feel that this institution may be threatened-but the shape in
Supply-Legislature
which it will survive. Its opportunities to make a useful contribution, not only to preserve but to restructure and improve our society, depend on what we do with it and what use we make of the power and authority which it has.
Not long ago I read a very interesting book by Mr. Humphrey Berkeley, a former British member of parliament who belonged to the Tory party. He is no longer a member now. The book is called, "The Power Of The Prime Minister". In it he points out very succinctly the rising power of the prime minister and the addition to the structure of the prime minister's office. He points out the frightful consequences which might well occur as a result.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Berkeley was a very progressive member of parliament. It was he who sponsored and brought forward in the United Kingdom the legislation which was eventually passed dealing with acts of gross indecency. Whether or not one believes in his views, it is at least to his credit that he was able to do this as a private member. He was also very prominent in trying to help the government and parliament to secure reforms in connection with the abolition of capital punishment and changes and reforms in the divorce law.
In his book he points out how slowly, step by step and stage by stage over a period of years, power flowed from the House of Commons into the hands of the government and since then has come to rest almost exclusively upon the shoulders of the prime minister. Of course he makes certain proposals as to how this can be changed. I will not go into them, but here is a man with six years of practical experience in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom who challenged the effectiveness of the rota system in the question period in the English House of Commons. I think anyone who reads Mr. Berkeley's book will see precisely what this government and the Prime Minister are attempting to do and will then conclude that the opposition has indeed been wise and sensible in the attitude it has taken that this change cannot be made. While there may be room for some alteration in the question period, it cannot and must not be done in the way the Prime Minister is attempting to do it but must be done through the process of discussion and reaching a consensus.

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
If I had the time, Mr. Chairman, I could take the committee stage by stage, act by act, through the legislative process which we have undergone in this country. Even at this session the major bills which have been passed have all resulted in a further stripping away of power from this House of Commons and giving it to the government. The Canadian National financing bill contained nine clauses giving the Governor General in Council the power to do things which normally would only be the prerogative of this parliament. I recognize it is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process to give certain powers from time to time to the government. We have seen this happen in bill after bill, session after session. I believe the major points on which the opposition took issue with the government in connection with the farm credit legislation which was passed this session had to do with those areas where power was given to the government to fix the interest rates which would be applied to farmers of this country in an arbitrary fashion. I believe an examination of all legislation passed would show this to be the case.
I have already indicated that to some extent this is necessary. However, to the extent that it is necessary, it is even more essential that we must retain within the four corners of this chamber the independent right to challenge the government when from time to time the government is wrong. The only way we can have that independent right is when backbenchers on the government side and other members have the intestinal fortitude it takes to challenge the government when the government is wrong. There is no doubt that this is going to happen very frequently in the next four years. We must retain within the four corners of this chamber the right to challenge the government, the right to compel the government to give an accounting. We are not here simply to say: Ready, aye ready, pass your legislation; we will restrict ourselves to a feeble protest. Far more than that must be the essential requirement to retain an effective and useful parliamentary system
There are many ways in which this tendency is shown. There is excessive secrecy. There is no doubt that this government has gone far beyond the action it needs to take in order to preserve certain minimum requirements of secrecy. Certainly no one would dare disagree with the right of the Prime Minister to restrict his cabinet ministers in their utterances

so that they will not reveal what has taken place within the secrecy of the privy council chamber. However, the government has gone much beyond that. I say that because this fact is demonstrated in the house day after day when members on the opposition side attempt to secure from the government the facts which they must have if they are going to discharge their duties. These attempts are stone-walled. We get answers but they say nothing. We get statements but they have nothing of fact or consequence included in them. I believe this is well established.
I have here a very interesting article which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette written by Gordon Pape. The article is concerned with the problems and difficulties of government. While it is lengthy, the author has only had the space to touch upon a few of these. I should like to refer to the paragraph dealing with excessive secrecy in government:
There was nothing terribly unusual about Mr. Trudeau's edict last summer that cabinet and caucus sessions should be kept secret. Almost every new party leader has, on taking office, made similar statements.
What was unusual was the zeal with which official Ottawa reacted to the statements. Civil servants, many of whom tend to be timid with the pressit is difficult to understand that statement.
-to begin with, have used the Prime Minister's warnings as an excuse to clam up. Some cabinet ministers have become wary with newsmen-
How could they?
-even about matters having to do only with their own departments.
The over-all effect has been to stifle the news flow out of Ottawa to some degree, and to lessen rather than increase public debate on issues up for government scrutiny.
This is the essential reason why there must be complete freedom in the necessary flow of information from the government. This flow of information is necessary in order that members of the opposition may exercise their prerogative of acting for the millions of people who sent them here to challenge the government from time to time and ask the government for the facts. Only in the broad light of publicity are the processes of democracy useful and effective.
This brings me to the last point I want to make. I know there are other members who are most anxious to make their own contribution to the debate on this item. I should like to refer to the extent to which the usefulness of this institution is, in a way, being impaired
November 15, 1968

by the emergence of a new media of reporting. I have no great complaints with the press as a whole. If you manage to read enough newspapers or if you read the same newspaper long enough, you get a fairly balanced diet. It may well be that the people who do not look below the headlines may not find this to be the case. However, if the opinion makers read enough newspapers, I think one can obtain some balance and enough of the facts to know what is going on here and what are the issues.
In recent years a completely new element has been introduced through the media of radio and television reporting. I believe that this and other parliaments must soon come to some decision about how we are going to deal with it. Here we have a situation where members of this house-cabinet ministers, leading members of the opposition parties and backbenchers on both sides-have lavished loving care and objectivity in putting together a speech dealing with a current public issue. The speech is delivered in the house or a question may be asked and answered in the house. Then, outside the doors of this chamber members are met with microphones and cameras and are expected to compress within the limited time of 30 or 60 seconds a complete answer. The result may be a distortion of what has been said in the speech. I am not being critical of the people who ask for these statements. It is a fact of life that this media is here and is not going to go away. Hopefully, we are not going to go away either, so we have to bring these two facts together.
We have seen an illustration of this in a somewhat different fashion when the right hon. Prime Minister saw fit to discuss certain issues in a meeting with students at Kingston. In doing so I think he has created a great deal of confusion and a great many problems for some people in the country and for some of those who represent the country.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
When we first come to Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, and go into the office of the Clerk to take the oath of office I think we must leave outside the door of his office some of our private life. When we go a step farther up the ladder and are called to Government House and there sworn to the privy council, we leave outside the front door of the Governor General's house a great deal more of our private life. If we become prime minister-and I use the word "we" very loosely, Mr. Chairman-I think it becomes very difficult indeed
Supply-Legislature
to retain much of our private life. I do not care how valid the reason or how good the intention, the person who has the honour to hold the first citizenship of this land and be prime minister must understand that he cannot divide himself into a personal self and a public self. When he appears on the public platform or before the television cameras he cannot say anything other than as prime minister of the country. When that fact is recognized, Mr. Chairman, I hope it will make somewhat easier the task of the prime minister's colleagues who sit on the same side of the house as he, as well as all of us in the house, who wish to see the affairs of this country properly and well conducted.
In any event, the time has now come for us to have a good hard look at the question of television and radio coverage of our proceedings. Are we going to let cameras in here? Like the camel and the Arab, the camel is just outside and beginning to get its nose through the door. Are we going to let it proceed in the hit and miss fashion that we have seen existing in the past?
I for one, Mr. Chairman, will be quite honest and say that I have had strong objections, and I still have, to this kind of coverage, but I am beginning to wonder whether those objections are valid any longer. If we are going to be able to portray to the people of this country and to the world a fair representation, in terms of balance, of what: takes place here, then must we not consider approaching the question in a proper and a scientific way?
I do not think that we in this chamber alone can make the rules, though certainly we must have the right of veto. However, I do suggest-and I throw this out as a hint and hope that other hon. members will have something to contribute to it-that before too long a time has elapsed we should get together a group that would include members of this house, members of the other place, some of the chief representatives of the media and see whether or not it is possible to work out a way by which a fair and accurate representation of what takes place in this house from day to day can be presented to the people instead, as I say, of the hit and miss method we are following at the present time.
To me, Mr. Chairman, the securing of ways and means to bring this about represents the greatest difficulty. If the Lord would consent to come down and act as censor and edit the tape, then we might well be able to work out this problem. I was in the United Kingdom

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
last February, and as most hon. members know the British parliament has been tooling with this same question. The House of Commons rejected it. The House of Lords did allow cameras into the chamber on an experimental basis for one debate. This was put on tape and there was a selective showing for those whose hearts were strong enough to stand it. In typical British fashion this debate of noble lords and ladies centred around Sunday sport, on whether or not they should play cricket on Sunday, hold horse races and so on. I must say the debate was not too exciting, but the screening showed two speakers from either side, two from the government and two from the Conservative side. I did not stay to see the showing any longer, but an attempt was made to represent fairly what did take place. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was there and he did indicate he hoped the film would be brought back so as to add support for his campaign to have the Senate abolished.
But seriously, Mr. Chairman, we must wait no longer in facing up to this problem and deciding how to deal with it. Bearing in mind the quite unfair and improper campaigns of vilification that have gone on against many democratic institutions all over the world, the time has now come for us to secure some way of ensuring that what goes on in this place is accurately and properly portrayed to the people of Canada. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because the time may well come when we want in the savings bank of good will the greatest possible fund of understanding and appreciation of what is essential to the survival of this country. Somehow the members in this chamber must secure a distillation of the united wisdom of all the people they represent so that when the occasion arises, as it will from time to time, this wisdom may be set against the government and the will of the people will prevail.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment very much on what the hon. member for Peace River had to say except to say that in essence his speech was a forerunner of the one that will follow in the debate on the report of the procedure committee. This committee has been engaged in its occupation for a long time, most of that time without the presence of the hon. member for Peace River. On the whole it seems to me that it would be advisable and desirable to let the committee complete its deliberations without opening up a debate on the question of procedure. Therefore, if I do not comment 
on some of the points he raised at this time my silence does not indicate agreement in any sense with what he said, but rather that I think we should wait for the procedure committee to report and deal with the subject matter then.

I believe the member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has studied the matter seriously and his suggestions, especially with regard to the translation of the Hansard and the committee reports prove it. I should like to advise the house that later today it will have the opportunity to adopt a motion authorizing an experience with regard to the committees of the house.
As the members know, we have simultaneous translation in the committees, and the officials of the House, have suggested that it might be possible to get a written translation of that interpretation with the original text, as we do in the case of new bills. Thus, we could get the committee reports within a few days of the sittings of the committees instead of a few weeks as is now the case.
I believe also that the house might be willing to pass unanimously this afternoon, a motion which would allow us to adopt that procedure on an experimental basis from now until the Christmas recess.
The hon. member for Papineau, also mentioned secretaries in the ridings and he told us that it is the practice now in Quebec to make these facilities available to the members of the provincial legislature and also to grant them travelling expenses everywhere in Canada as well as other benefits so as to help them better fulfil their duty.
Therefore, I should like to suggest that it might be possible, in the second half of this session, to appoint a committee consisting of hon. members representing all the parties in the house, to study an increase in the staff and an improvement in the working conditions of the hon. members, so that they may better perform their task which consists mainly in representing their voters, reviewing legislation and legislating in the best interests of the Canadian people.
I will also discuss this with my colleagues and the leaders of the other parties in the house to arrive perhaps at a formula which will allow us, in other instances, to consider the working conditions of the members with a view to improving them.
And just to reassure the back-benchers of our party, we admit that we have granted
November 15, 1968

opportunities to the opposition. It is first of all an opportunity for the leaders of the other parties.
We are also fully aware of the problems faced by the members and we do intend to solve them.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to follow the argument advanced by the President of the Privy Council. After listening to the hon. member for Peace River speak about parliament I thought I might refer to several matters. He pointed out that there had been a great change over a period of years in the power and authority of the Prime Minister, a weakening in the power of parliament itself, and particularly in the power of backbenchers.
Throughout the years one of my objectives has been to do everything I could to bring about a full and complete participation, within the limits of parliamentary time, for those hon. members who, elected for the first or second time to the House of Commons, remain backbenchers. I have found from experience that their contributions mean most in giving parliament new hope, new idealism and a new concept of the needs of their generation. Ever since the first world war the trend has certainly been away from the backbencher. The trend in Canada has been similar to that in the United Kingdom. The centralization of power in the Prime Minister, and indirectly but powerfully in the cabinet, has brought about a condition that is not healthy to the concept of the House of Commons being the house of the common people.
In setting forth his views the hon. gentle-maP. re^erre<^ to the radio and television facilities that are now immediately available in the foyer of the House of Commons. There must be a good reason for this to have happened. My analysis of the change that has been brought about is that more and more the press gives less and less space to the speeches made by hon. members in the House of Commons. I recognize there is every reason for that. High costs that are ever-rising make it impossible for the press in any event to give anything more than a mere summary of what each hon. member may contribute to the house in his speech. I may be repetitious in advancing these remarks, but I have advanced them before.
I should like to see the press of our country follow the example of the London Times
Supply-Legislature
which daily sets out what took place in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords the day before. A line or two is devoted to each hon. member who spoke and the purport of their views.
Nothing is more discouraging to those serving in parliament than, after having prepared their speeches, to have no one listen to them. Speeches are not listened to unless they are well prepared and show that the midnight oil has been burned. Often a young man or young woman works with dedication to prepare a speech and then finds that there is no mention of it in the press. Hell hath no fury like the failure to mention an hon. member's contribution in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It would not require much space to make possible this suggestion. I should like to see it tried because I think it would raise the standard of debate in the house if newly elected members or backbenchers in making their contributions knew they would find a short summary of their remarks in the press. That is the first suggestion I make.
I think one reason for the tremendous expansion in the television and radio audience is that television and radio each day let the people of Canada know first hand what has happened. When an hon. member is interviewed outside the house he is able to epitomize and summarize in 30 seconds or a minute the embodiment of the argument he has endeavoured to advance. He thereby becomes known to his constituents, to his province, and to the country. Except for the instrumentality of the media there is no effective way for a new hon. member or backbencher to make his presence and his contribution in the house known.
The tremendous centralization of authority has been mentioned. Until 1914 the Prime Minister was the first among equals. Then began a constitutional change. The books on constitutional development that were written between 1875 and 1914 have no application to the parliaments of today. The prime ministers of an earlier period of history were the custodians of the rights of parliament against the crown. The prime minister of today, of this generation, has become more powerful relatively, under the British system of parliament we have adopted, than the President of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Nixon will become president in January. He will find in Congress, that is, in the Senate and the House of Representatives, the opposite party in a majority. Unless the members of Congress decide to make it possible for the presidential system to operate effectively, he will find himself unable to carry out whatever policies he has advocated unless they are generally acceptable. The Prime Minister is in a different position. He can exercise the overwhelming power which derives from his ability to recommend dissolution, a power which places him in the position not of being first among equals but of being first.
The present Prime Minister of Canada made a declaration that he wanted no more leaks from cabinet or from caucus. I cannot criticize that as far as cabinet is concerned. There was a time within the last two or three years when all that was necessary in order to be fully conversant with most of the controversial matters which arose in cabinet was to have half an hour to spare after the cabinet had met. That was wrong. That was dangerous to our system. When the Prime Minister enunciated the principle that there was to be no more of this, he not only enunciated a principle which was proper and fitting but one which was completely consonant with the constitutional responsibility of ministers. In the last few days, however, the fears of yesterday are being disregarded. Ministers are now going here and there making announcements. While this House of Commons is sitting, if an hon. member asks what is the view of the government with reference to statements which are being made, the answer is certainly not one which indicates any endeavour to give an answer.
We have seen an example within the last 48 hours. The Leader of the Opposition, together with other hon. members in all opposition parties, was pressing to find out where this government stands on the subject of NATO- what the Canadian attitude is to be, whether there is to be a change, whether it is intended for Canada to depart from its responsibilities to stand in confrontation against communism through NATO or whether we as Canadians are to adopt a new isolationism whereby, though remaining a member of this organization, we shall not carry a fair and responsible share of the load. We could not get an answer.

One has only to read Hansard in the last few weeks to realize that the period for questions is mainly given to questions, not to answers. We have reached a point at which a question asked is becoming a question unanswered, regardless of its simplicity or the need for an answer. It is true there are some ministers who will give an answer, and I follow the course of thanking them when they do so. There are others who are adopting an attitude of mind which is pretty close to being contemptuous toward those who ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The President of the
Treasury Board, with his experience of parliament and his kindly face, disagrees. When he has been here a little longer he will agree. I always like the affability with which he approaches these problems.
Yesterday we could not get an answer regarding NATO. There was talk, there was uncertainty, there were woolly pronouncements on the subject of NATO. Yet, while parliament asked these questions, 3,000 miles away a minister was giving an international organization information which parliament had the right to know but which parliament was denied. This will not make for an effective House of Commons.
There are, naturally, matters of a secret nature which cannot be revealed. But when the questions were asked yesterday and the day before, and the answers given had all the uncertainty of deception, one cannot expect parliament to enjoy the respect that it should command. We ought to have been given answers. Today, following the effusive frankness of the Minister of National Defence abroad, the Prime Minister gave answers, and by the time he was through I doubt that one Canadian had one certain idea of what this government intends to do with regard to the organization which has preserved our freedom since 1948. In the interests of preserving this institution I implore ministers to see to it that questions are answered.
There are two new ministers from the west, each without portfolio. These two ministers have in the course of the last six weeks recognized that parliament is entitled to information, and I commend them for the manner in which they have answered questions with regard to departmental matters for
November IS, 1968

which they only recently accepted responsibility. This should be the course followed by all ministers.
We do not expect ministers to tell us everything. That would not be human. But after the loose nonsense which was spoken at Queen's and the still looser talk at Halifax about Stalingrad, the Nazis and the like, we are entitled to have answers which are appropriate to questions asked about the defence of Canada, even though, because of the limitations of the need for secrecy, full information cannot be given.
I am glad to see that in the last two or three weeks ministers have to a considerable extent removed the shackles of silence. They are showing less fear than they showed following the declaration of eternal silence for them. I only hope that ministers such as the minister of defence, when he returns to this house, will display the same freedom to speak in the house as he has shown abroad.
I listened to our house leader dealing with the subject of prime ministers and their power. It has been an amazing transition that has taken place. There are few who have ever analysed what is happening in our parliamentary system. With the passing years, the power centre has shifted increasingly to the prime minister. The reason is the acceleration of powers that have come about through the practice of successive prime ministers. The expression "prime minister" is not to be found in Canada's written constitution. The British North America Act makes no reference to it. No one was sworn in as prime minister from 1867 until 1920 at which time Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was sworn in as the first prime minister. Since then it is of interest to note that one or two of those who have been prime minister have not taken the oath as prime minister, because there is no position for which such oath can be taken.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Until 1896 there was no designation of the powers of a prime minister. In 1896 Sir Charles Tupper, in the short period he was in office, decided there should be a declaration as to the authority of the prime minister and an order in council was passed which, in general, has been followed by successive prime ministers from Tupper to Mackenzie King.
The last of these power declarations was by Right Hon. Mackenzie King. Mr. St. Laurent, when he followed as prime minister, did not add to or detract from the powers. When I followed him I made no declaration, and my
Supply-Legislature
information is that neither did Mr. Pearson, nor the present prime minister. Therefore the powers in general are set out in an order in council which Mr. King had passed in 1935 shortly after he took office.
If I might place it on record, sir, it answers many of the queries as to the powers of the prime minister. It says first:
A meeting of a committee of the privy council is at the call of the prime minister and, in his absence, of that of the senior privy councillor, if the president of the council be absent.
The quorum is four, and the order in council sets out:
No submission for approval to the Governor General can be made with a less number than the quorum.
A minister cannot make recommendations to council affecting the discipline of another department.
The prerogative rights of the Prime Minister are the right of dissolution and convocation of parliament, the appointment of privy councillors, of cabinet ministers, of lieutenant governors, of provincial administrators, of the Speaker of the Senate, of the chief justices of all courts, of senators, of subcommittees of council, of treasury board, of the committee of internal economy of the House of Commons, of deputy heads of departments, of the librarians of parliament, of crown appointments in both houses of parliament, and of the Governor General's secretarial staff. I may be wrong in this but my recollection is that Mr. King had this further one added: recommendations in any department.
In other words, the power of the prime minister is an overriding one that knows no challenge. Prime ministers should not make statements off the record outside the house, or in answer to questions, that may give rise to answers that will be prejudicial to the nation, to the people, or lastly to the government. Normally speaking, the average period is some 15 years being a member before becoming prime minister, because the prime minister carries in his person the leadership of the nation. He is the example to the people of the nation, to the youth of the nation and, above all, he must uphold the rights of the institution in which he has the first position; and in saying that I am not forgetting that the Speaker is the First Commoner.
I suggest that we in this house should try out television and see whether it will work. The example that was quoted of what happened in the United Kingdom in the House of Lords, and of the day chosen to test out the

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
efficacy of television, does not convince me in any way that it would not be helpful.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, if we had television in this house, not for all day, not for several hours, but with a committee limiting it to 20 minutes per day, we would have no more absenteeism in the house after the first showing of the television across Canada.
I cannot think of anything that to a greater extent would bring about the fullest of attendance than just a daily general survey of the house by a television camera. It would do that which nothing else could possibly achieve.
I hope the government will do everything it can not to appear to push rules down to the house. The President of the Privy Council is an affable and distinguished looking man, but he has developed a complex which is a dangerous one-the idea that he can say to parliament what it is going to do. It was a frightful mistake when this serial presentation of ministers was provided, and it came about when a committee of parliament had been set up and was desirous of bringing about changes. Changes should never be brought about by the autocracy of any minister or by the action of any majority. Changes have got to represent the viewpoint of the house.
Second, in any changes you have in mind remember this: Do not destroy the mission of this house. Some talk of efficiency: "We want parliament to be efficient" has been the cry for 150 years. Parliament is not a joint stock company in which the prime minister is the president of the board of directors, the ministers are directors, and the rest of us are shareholders. Such a concept of parliament will bring about efficiency, as Hitler found and Mussolini found, but what will be lost will be that human element, that desire to co-operate together while differing in detail, to demonstrate that while having strong opinions members are united in one purpose, the pursuance of and the maintenance of freedom.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I hope the President of the Privy Council will not allow himself the luxury of his high position to endeavour to force parliament to do what the government would like. Let him show that fine spirit of co-operation he exhibits from time to time when he is desirous of getting something through but which he forgets thereafter. Let us co-operate together to make this institution, not greater than it has been in the past but the institution that we will defend, rather than join in criticizing at

a time when there is such a contagious attitude in all the western world to criticize these institutions which have preserved our freedom for generations.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, having
listened to the French speech delivered by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), I summoned my courage to begin my remarks in French.


An hon. Member:: Very good.


Grant Deachman: The members of the House of Commons were recently given the opportunity of learning French. In 1967, the House of Commons set up a French immersion course at the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean.
This summer, through the co-operation of the Secretary of State, we had French lessons during three weeks under the direction of professors from the Public Service Language School.
Moreover, since last winter we pursued our studies with the help of professors from that school and again in 1968, we had an immersion course in Saint-Jean, this time for a two-week period.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, with such a service it is possible for a westerner like me to speak French, perhaps not fluently but sufficiently well to share in a not too complicated discussion. In that way, we have helped the progress of the study of the French language in this house, amongst the members and in the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue in French.


Some hon. Members:: In French, in French.


David Réal Caouette: Everyone noticed the hon. member's ability to express himself well in French. When we hear him relate the various episodes he experienced during his French studies both in the public service and with the members, I wonder whether he did not start learning French well when we went on our trip to Russia a few years ago; at that time, he already expressed himself reasonably well in French.


Grant Deachman: I wish to thank the hon. member for his compliment and for his remarks.
November 15, 1968

I should like to continue for a moment or two with regard to another subject in connection with the House of Commons and its services. This alludes to what we were discussing this morning on the question of research services. I was very gratified indeed to see that a sum of money has been provided for an increase in the research services for the office of the Leader of the Official Opposition and the offices of the leaders of other opposition parties in the house. I should like also to refer to the remarks made by the Prime Minister concerning the research services now available in the library of the House of Commons.
There are some things which might be noted about these services. First of all, as was pointed out very ably this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the services do not include the backbench members on the government side. In fact and in reality they hardly include the back bench members on the other side of the house. These research services are pretty strictly confined to the offices of the leaders of the opposition parties and in fact once they are implemented will not have any real official status.
At this time, although I believe it is apparent to every member of the house, I should like to point out to members how difficult it is in standing committees of the House of Commons, when we examine the government, to have available to us competent assistants in the form of research experts who are capable of guiding us in an intelligent examination of the servants of crown agencies who appear before us. One of the best places to see this phenomenon is in the committee on transport and communications because this committee deals with a subject that is very technical indeed and one which certainly requires a good deal of expertise on the part of members before they can properly come to grips with what is a very complicated and technical subject. If as members of parliament we wished in that committee to examine intelligently let us say the officials of the C.N.R. or, as was the case this morning in respect of the members from Newfoundland, if we wished to examine the new commissioner of the Canadian Transport Commission on the subject of passenger service in Newfoundland, surely we should have available to us through the committee system of the house technical guidance which would enable us at an official level to penetrate the field of administration and examine these people on a competent basis.
Supply-Legislature
Certainly this is the way examinations are carried out in a law court. It is the way the government itself functions through royal commissions and all kinds of other investigations when it wants to find out something and investigate the technicalities of it. This I believe must be a part of the services of the House of Commons if we as backbenchers are to make real progress. I think it must be recognized that within the framework of the House of Commons we are two kinds of people. First of all, we are members of parliament, but in addition to that there are the cabinet ministers who have an administrative function to perform and who have a body of experts who travel with them and assist them whenever they make statements. For our part as members, we have no expertise available to us when we examine the experts whom we must confront each time we have the officials of a department before us during a meeting of a standing committee of the House of Commons. So, when looking at the subject of expanding research, I appeal to the administration today to consider that all of us here in the House of Commons are badly in need of an increased capability built into the committee system which would enable us to perform effectively the work of the standing committees when we examine the estimates and other matters which come before the House of Commons.
I shall not pursue this much further, although I should like to bring out another highlight. When I first came to this house in 1963 the then minister of national defence had promised that he would have established within the House of Commons a committee on national defence. He carried out that promise, so we were the first members of a committee whose function it was generally to look into questions of national defence. We were for the first time faced with the problem of coming to understand the function of a department which was then spending a quarter of the taxes raised from the people of Canada for federal services, namely $1.5 billion. One can readily imagine how difficult it was for a novice in the House of Commons to have any comprehension of what $1.5 billion was, much less how that amount of money could be spent within the framework of a department such as the Department of National Defence which, through tradition, had been very secretive indeed about how its budget was handled and where the money went.

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
During my years on that committee I gradually came to know a little about what it meant to operate a department which spent $1.5 billion, and how that money was spent. I also came to have some critical ability to talk about the work of the department. But when I came to the study of railway matters in the transport committee, I found myself, much more at a loss to understand what was going on inside the offices of Canadian National Railways, Air Canada or other services under the Department of Transport. I understood less about what was going on in respect of these matters than I did about what was happening within the offices of the Department of National Defence.
This is an area which I do not believe we will be able to penetrate today unless we have at the committee level research facilities available to the members of committees concerned with these matters. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, my appeal in closing these remarks is for the continuation of what we have started today, namely research facilities available to members of parliament on a larger scale, and in so doing to put these departmental matters on a basis available to committees and at a level which committee members can penetrate. This will assist hon. members in following government policy and assessing what should be done in the best public interest.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal today with the subject on which we began discussion this morning and which the Prime Minister led off, namely the subject of increased assistance to members of parliament in the field of research. I do this, not in the almost apologetic way in which I felt the Prime Minister backed into this subject, but because in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of people who have studied the functioning of government and parliament in great detail, it is of the utmost importance that all members of parliament, those in government and opposition, including backbench members on the government side of the house, obtain the kind of assistance which will permit them to do the job required.
The government of Canada is every year dealing with more problems which face the Canadian people. We are spending this year over $10.5 billion. In the last dozen years we have more than doubled the expenditures of the federal government. I am not critical of this; I think we have done no more than we

ought to have done. Indeed I think there are many things which we ought to have dealt with but have not yet considered. It does not surprise me that the staff available to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet has been increased at a fantastic rate. I am not critical of that.
I think we all recognize that the staff of this Prime Minister has doubled since the government took office. Speaking from memory-and I do not think I am far wrong in saying this-press reports are that there are now some 28 people, or there were a month ago and this is probably out of date now, working in the Prime Minister's office. This is double the number of people working in the office of Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, when he was prime minister.
The Prime Minister has decided-and I am not being critical-to open up what he has called regional desks in his office. The Globe and Mail of November 4 this year lists some of the people who have already been assigned to the task of handling regional desks. There is Mr. David Thompson, who is the regional officer for western Canada. Jean Hache is looking after the regional desk for the mari-times, and Mr. Levasseur is at the moment looking after the Quebec regional desk. He is looking at Ontario candidates for a replacement for that position. I think this is necessary.
As the right hon. member for Prince Albert said a short while ago, the office of the Prime Minister is increasingly important in the decision making of governments of this country. I think it is necessary and I support the increases which have been made. However, the Prime Minister's office is not the only one which has an increase in staff. What is true of the Prime Minister's office is true, on a smaller scale, of every minister. We now have more ministers than this country has ever had. We have ministers and associate ministers. We have ministers without portfolio. We have a whole host of parliamentary secretaries. Each of these has executive assistants, speech writers and public relations officers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Parliamentary secretaries?


David Orlikow: No, the ministers. Like my colleague the hon. member for Skeena, I have not quite been able to figure out, in the six years I have been here, what parliamentary secretaries do, if anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
November 15, 1968


David Orlikow: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with them. But each of the ministers has the staff which I have mentioned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
parliamentary secretaries have hope.


David Orlikow: As the member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, parliamentary secretaries live in the hope that they will be something more at a future date.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is something you do not have.


David Orlikow: Not only do ministers have the staffs I have mentioned, but they have the full time assistance-I am not being critical; it could not be any other way-of a very competent civil service which is there to help them develop programs, draft legislation and work out the details of the expenditures their departments will be making. This is the way parliamentary government must work, and I have no objection to that. I do object to the feeling which I have had since I came to this house-and I am sure hon. members who were here before me feel this even stronger than I do-that on the government benches there is an attitude that somehow this government and its party have an almost divine right to rule the country. I happen to believe in democracy. It is at least theoretically possible that at some time in the future some members on this side

I am not even going to say members of the party to which I belong-will be sitting on the other side of the house and forming a government. If this is so, and if the democratic system is to function effectively, surely the opposition must be able to develop alternative policies to those proposed by the government.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If that is so, surely the opposition must be able to look in detail and in depth at the policies the government proposes. Surely the opposition must be able to look at the programs which are now operating, and at the expenditures of each department which, as I mentioned earlier, amount in total to more than $10J billion this year. If one is to do that, he must have the technical training, the skill, the knowledge and the knowhow to do it in detail. I submit that there are very few members of parliament, if any, who have either the technical knowledge-and certainly there are no members of parliament who have the time-or the knowhow to go into 29180-178J
Supply-Legislature
the kind of detailed study of all the facets of government operation, legislation and expenditures which is necessary to do the job, and still do their work as members of parliament. This is as true of the members of the opposition in 1968 as it was of the members of the opposition in the period from 1957 to 1963, who are now sitting on the government side of the house.
I can speak only from my own experience. Since I came here in 1962 we have inaugurated a whole series of programs in which I believe, in principle, and which I support in principle; and yet on the basis of what I have been able to see and on the basis of discussions I have been able to have with people whom I know to be experts in the field-not people who work for the government but people in universities, in the co-operative movement, in trade unions and in the business world-I am satisfied we are making some major mistakes, and we are wasting a good deal of money. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is deliberate sabotage and that the government is doing this knowingly. I am simply saying that on the basis of my experience I have some very important reservations, and I shall deal with them very briefly, just to illustrate what I have in mind.
We have a new Department of Manpower and Immigration. We are spending a very substantial amount of money on manpower training, but we need to spend more money on that than we have spent until now because in our increasingly technological age a person who wants to work and who does not have the skills required has virtually no chance of getting any kind of decent wage. Yet the fact is that if you discuss the problem of manpower training with the provincial departments of education you find a pretty general feeling that to a large extent our whole program is on the wrong foot and that we are not doing the job that is required. No doubt the provincial departments have their faults, as I well know, but they still have more knowledge about education, both for young people and for adults, than any other group in the country.
A week or so ago the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in answer to questions, told members of the house that this year the department was spending substantially more on manpower training programs in Ontario and Quebec-these were the two provinces about which he was questioned-than it had spent last year. Yet I saw the most recent figures for the number of people who are

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
enrolled in manpower training courses in the city of Toronto, courses financed by the federal government's program, and I saw too that in the last month or so we have simply come back in terms of numbers to the number of people who were being educated two years ago under manpower training programs in the city of Toronto, one of the two largest labour markets of the country. That was the time when this program was initiated, and when the former agreements with the provinces were wiped out. I say that in my opinion and in the opinion of the people to whom I have spoken, and who are much more expert and much less political than I am, there is something basically wrong with our manpower training programs.
I submit that it is virtually impossible for members of parliament, because of the pressure of time and the large number of subjects they have to deal with, to do the kind of detailed examination required. Let us look at the ARDA programs. There is not a member of parliament who would disagree with the basic principle enunciated in the ARDA legislation and programs. Certainly we need to do something very drastic to get rid of rural poverty. We know that a substantial majority of the people who are living in poverty in Canada are living in rural areas of this country, both in eastern and in western Canada, and the original idea of ARDA, that the government of Canada in co-operation with the provinces would begin a program of consolidating land holdings and making individual farms larger, so that the people who remain will be able to earn a living of a kind which one can expect in a rich country like Canada in 1968, is a good idea.
I am told by a man whom I consider to be the most knowledgeable expert in the field of agricultural economics in Canada that until recently we gave very little thought to our ARDA programs and to the problems, not of those people who will remain on large farms and who hopefully will be able to make a decent living, but to the problems of those people whose farms will be purchased and who hopefully will move away from the farms on which they have lived for generations.
Where are they to go? These are people with very little education. What will they do when they move into the cities and towns of Canada? Will they become simply more unemployed and unemployable people? I think these are very valid questions which need to be asked, and I would hope that at
[Mr. Orlikow.l
some point the whole ARDA program would be scrutinized in greatest detail. I suggest that to do this members of the opposition, and indeed members on all sides, need to have the kind of expert advice we have not had up to now.
In my opinion one of the saddest debacles, of what should have been a wonderful and exciting idea, which I have seen since I came here in 1962 is what has happened to the Company of Young Canadians. The idea is excellent; it was an exciting one, but if one looks at the projects they have initiated and have tried to accomplish since the company was first set up he sees that there has been disaster after disaster. Project after project was begun, continued for a few months and then abandoned.
Why was that? This is the kind of thing members of parliament, either here in the house or in committee, ought to be looking at in depth. But to do that you need a team of trained people, you need economists, sociologists and community development people which we in the opposition do not have. We cannot expect the government or the permanent officials of departments or of the board of directors of the Company of Young Canadians to supply us with that kind of information.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
After all, and I do not say this in any critical way, they have a vested interest in defending and explaining the things which they have been trying to do. Let me give one last example, Mr. Chairman. I suppose the most exciting idea which has come along in the field of Indian affairs, not just since I came here in 1962 but in the last 25 years, is the new idea of community development, which hopefully would have turned the corner and given us a breakthrough in the 100 years of Indian poverty and paternalism on the part of the officials of the Indian affairs branch. The suggestion was to appoint young people, sociologists and economists, people skilled in working with groups, who would not be part of the bureaucracy which tells the Indians what they are to do if they are to get their welfare, a little bit of education, a road or a bridge, who would work with the Indians to help them verbalize or put in writing what the Indians themselves want. It was a wonderful idea, Mr. Chairman.
I had the opportunity of seeing the draft of the original proposal which went to the cabinet, and it excited me. I thought it was a great
November 15, 1968

idea. What has happened to it? The idea of community development, to all intents and purposes, is dead. Why? I believe, and the people who started the project believe, that the permanent officials in the Indian affairs department did not want this development. As soon as these people started to do a job, as soon as the Indians started to make their complaints vocally, the permanent officials in one way or another cut the heart out of the community development program.
I have given these illustrations, and I am sure the members of parliament on both sides could give another dozen illustrations. I believe I am putting the case conservatively because I am convinced that if the members of parliament on both sides of the house are to do the job which they were sent here to do, to represent the people who elected them, to represent all the philosophies in which we believe, then in this day and age when government has such tremendous agendas before it we must have the facilities to do the things which we have not been able to do in the past. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was right when he talked about-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did he make a speech?


David Orlikow: He did; one of the few he makes. He talked about the importance of the research facilities being provided in the library of parliament. I think they are important but they are not really what members of parliament, certainly not what opposition members of parliament need. It is not just factual information which one needs. What the members of the Conservative party, the Members of my party and the members of the -reditiste party need are experts who have [DOT]he same general view about social and eco-lomic problems which these members have. These experts could help us deal with the proposals which the government is bringing :orward; they could help us deal in detail vith the expenditures of the various depart-nents of government.
I began by saying that I supported the very eeble beginning the Prime Minister an-lounced today. I suppose one slice of bread s better than no bread at all. I want so say hat when you compare this proposal with the :ind of research and technical assistance in ill matters given to members of the United States Congress and Senate, you can see how woefully weak and feeble this proposal is. I mow that there is a vast difference between he United States system and the Canadian ystem. There is a vast difference between
Supply-Legislature
the parliamentary system under which we operate, and the division between the executive and legislative branches of the government in the United States. Hut I want to say that in my opinion a great deal more needs to be done than the government proposes to do now.
I want to conclude by quoting just one paragraph from an article which appeared in the winter issue of the Queen's Quarterly for the year 1957. This article is entitled, "Toward a well-informed parliament" and it was written by Mr. Donald Eldon, who was at that time research director of the Progressive Conservative party. I will just read the first paragraph of the article because I think it is one to which the government ought to give some consideration:
Are Canadian politicians well informed? Sound legislation will come out of parliament only if alternative viewpoints and prescriptions for government action are expressed clearly and accurately. The more complex government becomes, the greater is the need for clear talk in parliament. Yet today it is increasingly difficult for the legislator to master the many subjects upon which he must speak and pass judgment, unless he is adequately served by an expert research staff. In an era of complex government there is a danger that only the cabinet, which has direct access to the experts of the civil service, will be well informed. As a result there is grave danger in Canada that the government backbencher and the opposition collectively who do not, generally speaking, have access to as many competent sources of information as the ministers, will become ciphers.
Well Mr. Chairman, 11 years have passed since that article was written. The budget of the Canadian government has doubled since that time. Legislation, such as the Canada Pension Plan, the medicare plan, and the employee training plan, to mention but a few which affect the welfare of every Canadian citizen has been passed. However the basic problem which Mr. Eldon discussed in 1957 is still with us. In closing I want to say that while I welcome the beginning we are making today, I think it is a very small beginning. I feel we have a right to say to the people of Canada that government is big business now, that the people who serve in parliament if they are to do a job must have the tools to help them to look carefully and in detail at the proposals which come before parliament. We should be given the tools to do that job. I wish that the government would really believe that. If it did it would do a great deal more than it is proposing to do today.


Mr. Mongrain:: I should like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by congratulating the President of

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
the Privy Council and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra upon having made part of their speech in French. I can say that their fluency and the grammatical correctness of their remarks deserves congratulation. Since I have mentioned these two names, I think congratulations should also be extended to the English members of this house who take every opportunity to say a few words in French. I think this gesture on their part is doing more to promote national unity and prevent separatism in my province than anything else, and I think it is worth while to underline this.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Vous parlez tres bien l'anglais.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I extend my congratulations also to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I will remember that city all my life because I won an election once in Winnipeg.


David Orlikow: For which party?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: It was not a political affair but an honest affair.

Mr. Chairman, an hon. member who spoke earlier blamed the government for trying to display a kind of superiority complex, a kind of inclination to create an impression that it had a divine right to administer alone the estimates of this country, and he said that it might be an infringement upon the democratic system. This had already been mentioned by previous speakers.
However, we should remember that we all believe in the democratic system. We are convinced that, at a given time, through the democratic process, people choose a government and, under these circumstances, they gave it a majority which does not lead to confusion and does not allow any doubt. However, a government which has received the confidence of the people in our democratic system, still has to perform its duties, to assume its responsibilities, to make decisions and not let these endless proceedings be carried on sometimes indefinitely by people who have some interest in filibustering. There comes a time when the government must put its foot down, so that the people can say to it in the next elections that it has done well, or poorly. But the people will have accomplishments to weigh, analyse and study. However,

if we continue, under the cover of democracy, to chit-chat indefinitely, we will accomplish nothing.
Instead of blaming the government, I feel we should congratulate it for having the courage to assume its responsibilities. Besides, the opposition has every opportunity to criticize; for instance, look at the question period where the opposition absolutely monopolizes the attention of the ministers who are there and that of the government, and the interviews broadcast on the radio, on television, and those published in the newspapers. We know the opposition benefits much more from them than the government, because when it blames the government it makes the headlines. I do not believe the opposition can complain about being muzzled and being unable to exercise its rights as the opposition. On the contrary, it exercises it with zeal.
Someone talked earlier-my remarks are a little disconnected because I am trying to hurry-about putting research facilities at the disposal of the leaders of the opposition parties.
I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the rather extraordinary research possibilities which exist here in parliament. There is for instance-I am saying that for ordinary members-the parliamentary library. The national library does not have any specialized research staff, but it boasts an outstanding classification system. It includes among other things the catalogues of all the main libraries in Canada. Should a member of parliament, a senator or a minister need a work of reference not available in parliament, he can contact the national library and he will be told where to get it if it is not available at the national library. We might add to that the library of Toronto and other provincial librairies that have catalogues of all the books that are in the other libraries.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a recommendation to the government. I think it would be important if the staff of our national library included a well-organized group of researchers, able to assist all Canadians who would like to devote themselves to scientific, literary or other studies and who could have at their disposal, after a few minutes' notice, this mine of information or at least get the information they need, instead of devoting months and years looking for it themselves, with inadequate means. This would be a remarkable service to render the Canadian community and it might be
November IS, 1968

even more important than making a research service available to the leaders of the opposition.
But certain things amused me a while ago, Mr. Chairman, when I heard the party leaders or their spokesmen give their impressions about the announcement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the effect that he would provide for each party supplementary allowances to enable them to secure the services of research workers.
I was glad to see that they first expressed their gratitude, which is good, but I listened more carefully to what the leader of the Ral-liement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) had to say. As I have said before, he interests me particularly. But this time, I agree with him. For instance, he said that the Ralliement Creditiste would receive only $35,000 while the official opposition would receive from $120,000 to $150,000-I do not know exactly- and I find that he is right. As a matter of fact, the sum of $120,000, should be granted to the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, but perhaps not for the reason he thinks. He said that the Prime Minister recognized the importance of the opposition. He even suggested that the importance of the Ralliement Creditiste was recognized when he said that certain things should be told before the elections, not after. In short, he would like the Liberal party to organize the publicity of the Ralliement Creditiste during election campaigns. I think that he will admit just the same that the Liberal party has consideration for him and I will support his motion under which he wishes to obtain $120,000, because he may need it more than the others. It is just as good a way as any other to render him that service and agree with him. In supporting this recommendation that he be granted $120,000 for research work, I would only make one reservation. He should not use that money for partisan work. But even then, Mr. Chairman, I think that the more the population will know about the lucubrations of the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the more they will be inclined to vote intelligently.
Now, I still intend to support the request of the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste.


The Chairman:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.
S upp ly-Legis lature
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. It is very pleasant to hear the wild and woolly remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), but I will not tolerate his insinuations about the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), to the effect that he would use the funds that will be given to him for political propaganda.
I would like to point out to him that we showed better manners. In fact, we congratulated the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for having taken that step, and we did not suspect his motives. I would like the hon. member to withdraw his remarks and to say to the house that the hon. member for Temiscamingue will not use that money for political propaganda against the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, because, if we did, he would no longer be a member of parliament.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: You will note, Mr. Chairman, that there is no pleasing them. When I support them, they protest; when I blame them, they protest again. We will never get along, of course, as long as they act like that. However, I mentioned one thing that I suspected. I suppose that what worries them is not really what I think or what others think, because if they were granted $120,000, they would not refuse that money. If I asked the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste that question, I am quite sure that he would agree. He would be very happy to have people at hand to do research for him. That is what I said, more or less. I fail to see therefore what remarks I should withdraw, unless I am asked to oppose that proposal, something I have not done.


David Réal Caouette: That would not upset
anything.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On the contrary, it would put a lot of things right.


David Réal Caouette: It would not change anything because your opposition is not worth much.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Did I hear the hon. member say that his opposition is not worth much?


David Réal Caouette: Yours.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I go on with my remarks.
I also listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who, I believe, is the right hand man of the official
28X6

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
opposition, even though he sits on his leader's left. He said that the government bills seemed mainly designed to deprive the opposition of the power which should normally be given parliament.
It is about the same reaction we might have upon hearing the remark I mentioned earlier concerning what I said about the member for Winnppeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Nevertheless it must be recognized that we have a government elected with an unquestionable majority, a great majority, a government to which the nation has given a mandate. They draft their bills, introduce them in the house and give the opposition the opportunity to criticize them or move amendments. Many of these are proposed in parliamentary committees. I know that some opposition members who meet ministers in private make constructive suggestions which are accepted, but a decision must finally be taken and the government assumes its responsibilities, even though, afterwards, it must answer for them to the people.
The hon. member for Peace River added that he would like to keep his right of criticizing the government, of calling it to account. That is perfectly in order and I do not think that he is frustrated of anything. Indeed I think-and that goes for all the opposition- that he has more opportunities to criticize the government than we have ourselves.
We allow ourselves to criticize under certain circumstances and our friends sometimes regret that we do not do it publicly. We do it unobtrusively, because we are not bent on making the headlines; we are not looking for newspaper articles stating that one part of the Liberal caucus is deeply divided against the other. We are trying to solve the problems, but we have no objection when the opposition takes all possible means to criticize the legislation of the government, because we feel that it is a democratic attitude.
However, we should not be grudged what was termed a while ago excessive secrecy and discretion. It is quite obvious that the Liberal party does now wash its dirty linen in public, but does it at home. We should not be compelled to perform a self-examination here in the house, as is done in certain religious orders where public confession takes place. I do not think one can demand those things from us.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that he wished debates of the house were televised. I know

several members in this house-I for one- who would not be too keen about the idea.
Of course, the member for Prince Albert would try to monopolize the 20 minute period, or perhaps the member for Temis-camingue would try and secure part of it. This would not settle the problem of backbenchers, even though the member for Prince Albert said that it could perhaps help, in discouraging absenteeism. Maybe we could compromise and televise certain debates of parliamentary committees. But as far as discussions of more important questions in this house is concerned, I object. But Mr. Chairman, this is not my main point.
My main purpose in rising now was to make a recommendation to the government and to the right hon. Prime Minister with all the energy I can possibly command.
I think that it was a very good thing to provide the opposition with research services. I agree on that with everyone. However, we should go further. The most urgent priority is to allow all members-those in opposition as well as those in the government-to hire someone to replace him in his riding, whether we call him a secretary or whatever name we want to give him. I think that this is a must for all kinds of reasons.
First, this secretariat could be used as an information centre for the riding. There are many government agencies but not everyone knows where to find them. Not everyone knows how to get in touch with us.
The office of the member is normally a sort of clearing house, an information centre for the distribution of information. However, the member is not there at least five days a week, and some do not even go home on week-ends.
It would be very important to have a representative in the riding in order to serve the public in every respect. This representative could also, sometimes, call the attention of the government on the deficiencies of some services, about which we hear sometimes several weeks or months later when the situation has deteriorated. The people who are on the spot would receive the complaints day after day and could bring them to the attention of their member. This might be used by the opposition as an argument, but it would at least provide some material for the members of the government.
In many cases, this secretary could settle a lot of problems which end up in the office of the members in Ottawa and which he does not have time to settle because, in a very short period of time, the secretary could get
November 15, 1968



used to the job and know where to go so as to settle these cases. Therefore, he would relieve the member of what we might call routine or what my honourable friend called earlier Joe's work, the daily work which anybody can do with no need to refer it to the member.
Under certain circumstances, he could replace the member who is in Ottawa, at official functions, where the mayor, the aider-men, the school board presidents are invited. The secretary of the federal member could go and represent not only the member but also the government. This would relieve the member of parliament from a number of problems that would not end up on his desk, because they would be settled right then and there.
I need not explain, I think, the work of a member of parliament. As a matter of fact, he comes to his office in the morning and sees on his desk a pile of mail. He has to study bills and the briefs that are sent to him from all parts of this country, read his voluminous correspondence, sit on committees, examine carefully reports from previous procedures, run from one committee room to two or three others, eat a quick lunch at noon, attend as often as possible the sittings of the house. He must answer all mail and prepare the interventions he will make in the house and the speeches he will be called upon to deliver before social clubs, commerce chambers or other such organizations. It is materially and physically impossible for him to collect the documents he needs.
Then the riding secretary would unburden us from the administrative work, which would result in our being able to do a better job here with the means available to us. We would be able to study more thoroughly the legislation on which we are called upon to give our opinion, to prepare more carefully our contribution to parliamentary committees, as well as the speeches we have to deliver on occasion here and there. I imagine there are some members who are quite satisfied to have their speeches prepared by others, but I think the majority of the members would prefer to prepare themselves their own speeches and to write them down in their own words and in the way they would like their audience to understand them.
Mr. Chairman, this is the view of my observations. I should like to insist, with my friend the member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and some of my colleagues of the opposition, and tell the right honourable Prime Minister and the government that the first priority, as
Supply-Legislature
far as services are concerned-now that the question of the research personnel for the leaders of the parties of the opposition has been settled-should be to give each members, in his riding, a secretary or assistant- call him what you will-because the amount of work to be done is accumulating at such a dizzy rate that we are swamped by responsibilities and events and we cannot give our electors the services to which they are entitled in view of what the Canadian budget costs them.
I support that recommendation wholeheartedly in the hope that it will be taken into consideration and that journalists will not see in it a deep split between the back-benchers and members of the cabinet.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I like nothing better than a crowded house; I like an expectant audience! I will not follow the example of two hon. members opposite and inflict my fragile, fractured and fragmented French on the house, because I have too much respect for that fine language. I warn my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that I will not swing in behind him in his crusade against the Senate. He said he wanted to be here forever. I too hope to be here for a long time. Perhaps when I am 74| I shall join his crusade against that illustrious body, but not before then. I live hopefully in hope.
This is the kind of important debate that comes up from time to time in which we all ought to participate. Down through the years people have been concerned about parliamentary institutions. In the present day there are many reasons for thoughtful people to be more concerned than usual about this institution to which we belong.
We are all aware of the complexity and multiplicity of legislation today. In Canada, elections have come with a frequency which has done dreadful things to legislative programs, to order papers, to fiscal years and God knows what else. We are developing, too. an area of government in the field of dominion-provincial relations which is extremely difficult to comprehend because so much of what is decided behind closed doors rather than in the full light of a legislative body. There are times, also, when we are given to too much partisanship in our legislative bodies. I never could believe that the ties of party could be so strong that even on procedural matters there would be a party line. But at times this is a fact.

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
We are sensitive to the fact that in these days all the institutions of the establishment are under fire. It seems that any institution which exists is, in the minds of many people, automatically ready for discard. Change for the sake of change is often the order of the day.
I think we would be most insensitive in this parliament if we believed for a moment that just because it is old and ancient it is bound to survive and command the respect of the people it serves. It is important that we should strive not only to be effective but to appear effective-to appear efficient, to appear relevant, to appear "plugged-in" to the problems and the people about us. It is not unusual for politicians or, as we like to call ourselves, parliamentarians, to be criticized. We are used to that. We are a familiar stereotype. But when the parliamentary institution itself is denigrated and when it begins to lose respect, it becomes a matter for real and genuine concern. The institution must perform the functions for which it is established. The author of one of our great classics in political science was old Bagehot-bigot Bagehot, as we used to call him; but he was a very wise man, nevertheless. This is what he had to say:
The House of Commons needs to be impressive, and impressive it is: but its use resides not in its appearance but in its reality. Its office is not to win power by awing mankind, but to use power in governing mankind.
This, surely, is what we are grappling with when we seek to examine our structures and our procedures. Many interesting things have been said today-many things with which I agree and some with which I disagree. I do not agree with the Prime Minister that the research staff is adequate. I think it is inadequate. May I explain that I think it is inadequate numerically; the people there are doing an excellent job, but there are not enough of them. Many of us who use the services of the research staff with great satisfaction would be glad to use them a great deal more if there were more personnel. I say that the time to expand this service is now.
It is often said that the only people who approve of television in the House of Commons are those who have the physiognomy of a Greek god. I wonder if I am betraying my class when I say I am coming increasingly to the conclusion that we should probably be moving in the right direction if instead of having television off to one side, as is happening now, and the nation being governed in part by television, television should come into

the legislative institution itself. This may be hard on some of us who have long passed the age of beauty, but I think we would have to endure these circumstances. If the hon. gentleman questions that, I thank him heartily for his cheerful disclaimer.
There are in my view some obsolete and obsolescent practices which we must discard for the sake of efficiency. I have never yet made a speech on this subject without talking about voting machines. Imagine what must go on in the minds of the people in the galleries when they hear a vote called. The Speaker says "Bring in the members" and then they hear the bells ringing for as long as an hour and a half or more. They look at the order paper and note that the vote is scheduled for 9.45 or some such hour. Yet we go on with the present silly practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. member not aware that we have made some improvement in voting procedure by prescribing that when a vote is set for a specific time the bells must not ring for more than 15 minutes?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is excellent, a move in the right direction. But I want further improvement to be made, having discovered that since I came here 11 years ago-and that is not a long time compared with the record of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I have spent the equivalent of 30 sitting days waiting for bells to stop ringing, and though I do not think my time is the most precious in the world I still believe there are better ways of disposing of it.
That is why I would welcome this improvement. If the hon. gentleman could bring about the installation of electronic voting machines we shall have gone even further. We should not be afraid of change. It is necessary to change, though naturally we should not be afraid to retain things of value which have existed for some time.
One thing which concerns me more than anything I have mentioned so far is the growing tendency to by-pass parliament, and I am afraid that the present Prime Minister may be the chief practitioner in this dangerous course. It would be serious if the head of the executive arm should opt out of parliament on important occasions. The Prime Minister of Canada cannot really become a president, our system is not designed in that way. He derives his strength from the public, of course, but he functions only as he commands day in and day out the support of the House of Commons. While ten minute confrontations
November 15, 1968

with students or with Haligonians, or with a few Liberals here and there are very interesting, and make good copy, it is not representative government; it is not direct democracy, either.
The people of Canada are represented in this chamber. Every part of the country is represented here. It is not necessary to have street confrontations to know what Newfoundlanders think of the railway situation. We heard their views eloquently expressed by six able members of this house the other day. It is not necessary to stand on the street corner of Halifax to discover what the people of Atlantic Canada think of the causeway. And no one needs to confront the students in Regina, either, in front of the statue of Louis Riel, or behind it, to know what the people of the west think of the wheat situation. Their representatives here have been telling us succinctly and powerfully.
This is the place where the people are represented. Scattered contacts, however dramatic and pleasing, are no substitute for the continuing relationship between the executive and legislative, which is the very cornerstone of our system. Some of us can remember when a man by the name of Walter Gordon, once a well known figure here, brought in some outside experts. There was a great deal of talk about those outside experts. This is again a matter of public interest inasmuch as the Prime Minister is drawing about him a cadre of experts-150 of them, I believe- who will keep him informed as to the points of view of Canadians everywhere. These are to be the spotters of public opinion.
I do not know what this will do. Naturally, we would like the Prime Minister to see as much as he can, to talk to as many people as he can, and to go to as many parties as he can. That is an excellent thing.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We like to hear of this sort of thing, but where is the voice of the member of parliament, especially the voice of his own caucus?
The hon. member for Peace River quoted the Montreal Gazette, and to show how ecumenical this party is I am going to quote the following from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail:
The student mob scene in Regina and the Halifax sidewalk debate on feeding Nazis at Stalingrad may have moved him to reponder Falstaff's advice on discretion and valour-
Yet beyond this maladroitness of technique emerge doubts of principle. First, and perhaps most gravely for democratic statecraft, Mr. Trudeau's compulsion to converse with the people seems often
Supply-Legislature
to by-pass the people's designated spokesmen. A free electorate can readily bear the curbing of an ambitious bureaucracy, but can it tolerate the downgrading of the men it voted in to state its views?
This is a very important question which the Globe and Mail is asking.
The Prime Minister's proposal to set up a network of some 150 hand-picked citizens to advise him on what the people want and think must be regarded as at least a slight to elected Liberal members. No one suspects Mr. Trudeau of wishing to establish a nation-wide ring of more or less secret agents. But one can question the need for such a P.M.'s council when the law and the people's free choice provide for official local spokesmen.
That is what we are here for.
One can ask too whether such shadowy informants can truly reflect the views of the majority of citizens. One can wonder whether they will dare speak frankly to a [DOT] man or a party from whom they might, however distantly or unconsciously, expect some favour-
Here I am in a very embarrassing area. I believe the suggestion is of patronage.
-even the favour of being categorized as one of the 150 insiders.
The the Globe and Mail says:
Finally, one must question still more deeply whether any such elitist scheme to channel opinions is basically democratic. From the leaks about the network's composition, it appears its structure will be priestly and corporatist-the fears and feelings of the masses will be conveyed on high by a hierarchy representing special groups. (As if there were not enough special groups-from the Canadian Labour Congress to the Canadian Manufacturers Association-anxious to advise the Prime Minister.)
Now, that is one aspect-


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Surely.


David James Walker: Was he in the house when his leader spoke to the Prime Minister's suggestion of making funds available for research to opposition members? Was the hon. member here when his leader really served notice on the house that the funds, so far as the official opposition was concerned, might well be used for this type of outside assistance for their own party, the type the hon. member is now suggesting would not be proper for this side of the house?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think my good friend, and I say this in more than a parliamentary sense, misunderstands me. Of course we do not assume in the Conservative party that all wisdom lies within our caucus. Our leader

November 15, 1968
Supply-Legislature
would certainly be the kind of person who would be consulting with us; but we in the Conservative party are always ready and eager to consult with people outside it. We would even like to consult with people across the aisle. We are ecumenical in our search to broaden our understanding and knowledge. There is nothing narrow about us. My concern is that those of us who are here to be consulted in a primary sense are being bypassed. However, that will not happen in our party, and I hope it will not happen in the hon. member's party.


Gerald William Baldwin: We often ask for knowledge but we don't often get it from the members over there.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As my house leader points out, very often we try to find out things and you will not really tell us. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time this afternoon to develop either on a philosophic or a pragmatic line this quite important matter.
I think there is a danger of this parliamentary institution being by-passed, being short circuited in this media day of image building, and this could be very serious. I think there are two aspects to what I am trying to suggest. I believe it is very dangerous for the executive to do this. Also it is very much incumbent upon this institution, upon this house, to put itself in such a state of relevancy and effectiveness that it will not be in danger of being scorned and having the public suggest that perhaps in fact it is not functioning as well as it is. I hope my fears are not well grounded, but as I look over what has happened in this country in the last few months there are times when I fear that in a year or two the Canadian people might wonder if majority governments in fact are all that beneficial.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would have several remarks to make on these votes, especially as regards the organization and staff of the House of Commons, but since they would require a lengthy preparation, I should like to call it five o'clock right away. I will speak when this vote comes up again, as I would not like to split up my speech.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have permission to revert to motions in order to put to the house the motion which I suggested we might make with respect to an experimental practice concerning translations in committees?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Has the
minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during committee discussion on the legislation estimates I think there might be found to be agreement in the house for an order somewhat along the following lines:
That, until the end of the calendar year 1968, in lieu of a written translation of a report of proceedings in any standing or special committee of this house, a transcription of the oral interpretation, as revised, of proceedings in any such committee may be made and printed and, if made and printed, the same shall be deemed to be an official report of proceedings in that committee; and such transcription, as revised, may be used in relation to any proceeding in any such committee or in this house.
Perhaps if there is consent that might be made an order of the house now.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): Is it the
wish of the house to give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): It is so
ordered. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Robert Sianbury (York-Scarborough) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-8, to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of voters and candidates).
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 is a revival of a bill which was introduced by me in the last parliament. It would provide that Canadian citizenship be a standard qualification for electors and candidates in Canadian federal
November 15, 1968

elections. The motivation for this measure arises not only from a desire to achieve greater justice among those who have chosen Canada as their home, but also to try to do something to cope with the very serious problem that I believe exists with the large number of people resident in Canada and eligible for Canadian citizenship, but who have not applied to become Canadian citizens.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
During the last parliament, through placing a question on the order paper, I found that the estimate of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics extracted from figures in the 1961 census of Canada indicated that there were some 453,441 people at that time who still held citizenship in the countries from which they came, although they had been resident in Canada for more than five years. I since have seen estimates which I believe to be more accurate. One of them was made recently before the standing committee on broadcasting. This estimate placed the figure at about one million people, and my own estimate would place the number at almost one million. It appears to me that while almost 35 per cent of aliens who are eligible for citizenship have not applied, the percentage of eligible British subject immigrants who have not applied is something like 70 per cent. My concern is that not only British subjects but citizens of all countries who have chosen Canada as their new home should be encouraged, through equal treatment in the law, to consider Canadian citizenship as being worth while and to acquire it as quickly as possible.
As I mentioned, this bill was first introduced by me more than two years ago. Since it does seem to have some bearing on citizenship I suppose there might be a suggestion that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) might have had some hand in this idea, but of course it is very clear that that is not the case, it having been introduced more than two years ago. The bill deals not directly with matters of citizenship but with matters of electoral reform which come under the jurisdiction of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I suggest that this proposal, and other proposals for reform of our electoral law, should be studied by a standing committee of this house as soon as possible. I believe the President of the Privy Council has indicated that such a study might take place at the beginning of the new year. I hope therefore that this bill might be referred to
Canada Elections Act
that committee for study of its provisions and the problem out of which it arises. I do not suggest that the proposal I make will solve the problem I have outlined. I do think however, that it would create a more equitable situation in a country which is made up of many different races and of immigrants from many different sources.
Naturally a proposal such as this raises some heated reaction, and I think predictably so. I might share with hon. members some of this reaction which has been both pro and con. One gentleman in Toronto wrote to me, saying in part:
Your name sir is Stanbury, an old country Anglo-Saxon name, yet you have the gall to do this treasonable act toward the greatest tradition in the whole world's history by removing this just preference. I was born in the north of Ireland myself and if I was in good health at over 65 years of age I would sure invite you to a duel.
Another letter from the Toronto area addresses me as "the anti-Britisher" and says: What are you doing about the frogs? The next time I come face to face with your ochre face Stanbury, I will bury you, chicken.
Then this letter from Oakville says:
Jew loving bastard:
We killed many Germans in this last war, not one of them as vile as you.
You are a disgrace to the name you bear. It will be removed from you and your family.
I will censor the next sentence because I think it is too rich even for this place. It ends up with the words "Death to traitors".
I received a letter, too, from something called "The New Right". It refers me to the Bible and says:
As the British people are part of modern Israel, one would do well to read Isaiah, chapter 54, verse 17, and take warning.
Well, perhaps it is significant that I did receive another kind of letter from a Jewish person in Toronto who said:
Bravo!
If we are a truly sovereign nation we should not give preferential treatment to immigrants from any country (except possibly ex-Canadians).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you going to name these people?


Mr. Groos:: It is alright; you can relax.


Mr. Stanbury:: I will be glad to show these to my hon. friend.
Another person writes:
-you are right. As a former British subject I voted before I was able to become a citizen but I always felt guilty for doing so. I hope it becomes illegal.

November 15, 1968
Canada Elections Act
I refer to another letter which in part reads:
I myself am of Irish nationality with Canadian citizenship so I can speak from personal experience of the views of my English and Irish friends and their absolute rejection of Canadian citizenship as something they don't need. Up until now with the privileges afforded Anglo-Saxon immigrants they didn't, as they put it, need it to participate in the affairs of this country if they felt so inclined.
The fact that they find the country good enough to live in and enjoy the fruits of our high standard of living and yet will not hold up their heads to be counted as Canadians is one hypocrisy that gets me really mad. I do not know if this sense of national feeling is something my Irish heritage brings out in me but I really feel that passiveness in the face of the massive task of giving Canada a feeling of national identity will never get us anywhere.
Another letter from Sarnia says in part:
I wish to commend your action. The present situation in this country does not encourage a total commitment to Canada. The law as it now stands is discriminating against other immigrants while it provides no incentive to the Briton to make himself a true Canadian.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I live in a neighbourhood with a great variety of new Canadians, and I feel sure most of them appreciate the efforts you are making to make all immigrant peoples equal.
I am myself a British immigrant and I know many who fully support the action you are taking.
The only privilege that should be enjoyed by the British immigrant is the privilege of taking out Canadian citizenship. I'm afraid all too few of us do so.
Another letter says in part:
You are so right. No wonder some immigrants feel like second-rate citizens.
To be frank, I am sure most native Canadians were not even aware of this discrimination. I hope they are now.
It may be that the presentation of this bill has made some people more aware of the existence of Canadian citizenship and perhaps has moved them to make application for it. I have here another letter from a constituent who says:
I agree with your change.
He goes on to say:
I believe after two or three years in Canada you should be able to make up your mind to become a Canadian citizen. My family and I are UJC. subjects; we are four, and would like you to tell us how to get the forms to become Canadian citizens.
If my bill has had the effect of making people more aware of the existence of Canadian citizenship and the value of it, and
[Mr. Stanbury.l
has encouraged them to seek it out, I think the presentation of the bill will have been worthwhile. There are of course many people who feel that such a move might be a weakening of our ties with the commonwealth. They point out, as have some hon. members, that this has been traditionally a reciprocal arrangement. I looked into that situation and found that while this might at one time have been the case, at the present time approximately 16 commonwealth countries do not reciprocate in this regard and about seven do.
I cannot venture any opinion on Rhodesia which now considers itself independent, but I suspect that immigrants would not be able to go to Rhodesia, vote and be elected to its legislative assembly, although under our law Premier Ian Smith of Rhodesia could come to this country, live here for a year, be elected to our parliament and entitled to vote in our elections. For that matter, I suppose Lord Thomson of Britain could also.
The arguments against this measure all seem to add up to the fact that people from British countries are necessarily more familiar with our language, assuming it is English, and our laws and customs; but I do not think this is any longer necessarily true. I do not think we can assume that every person coming from a country that is British, or was formerly British, will necessarily be more capable either in language, knowledge of customs or our democratic way of life than a person newly arrived from any other country.
I would like to feel that our laws deal equally with people who have come to Canada to make their home here, no matter from what country they have come. I believe there is more and more acceptance of this idea. When I introduced this bill for the first time, the Toronto Telegram frowned on it, but we seem to be making progress in this regard. In its issue of November 9 it approved the idea and said editorially:
It is to be hoped that no objection to this measure will be raised on the sentimental ground that it weakens the British connection. If there is one British connection which endures, and which is an inalienable Canadian heritage, it is respect for justice and fair play.
Just so no one will think that the Toronto Telegram and the Conservative press are alone in their support of this measure, I should say that the Toronto Star in an editorial of November 7 suggested as follows:
Preferential treatment of British immigrants owes its origins to a time when Canada was the respectful elder child in the British family of nations.
November IS, 19S8

But, while we are still respectful, we have grown up, Our responsibilities are now to our family, and we believe the time has come to place preferential policies on the shelf along with other mementoes of our colonial past.
The Montreal Star has also commented approvingly on this measure. It said in an editorial of November 8:
There probably will be a flurry of protest over indications from Ottawa that people settling in Canada from the United Kingdom may not much longer be entitled to any special privileges. Our colonial heritage is important to some groups across the country, but pride in being a Canadian should be vital.
Its editorial ends by saying:
A country good enough to work in, to live in, year after year, should be worth being a part of.
As one of my correspondents pointed out, my heritage is mostly British. I am proud of it. But I am more proud of my country, Canada. I hope that all people who choose it as their home will be most proud of it, and I hope that by dealing with all people, from whatever country they come, on an equal basis under our laws we will encourage all to become Canadian citizens as quickly as possible and to cherish that right and privilege.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this matter has come before the house because it at least opens up the whole question of the franchise in Canada. Lest we be carried away with this idea of treating everybody fairly in Canada-and I congratulate the hon. member who introduced the bill for his very commendable attitude-I think we should not forget one or two very salient facts in this regard. We do not treat our armed forces equally. If you look at the regulations regarding the voting of our armed forces, you will appreciate that it is not a secret ballot at all, because anybody who can count on his fingers can find out who voted how, and where, in respect of any of our Canadian armed forces.
This is something I could put my whole heart behind, namely making sure that those people who have given the most to become Canadian citizens should be afforded equal, if not preferential, treatment. While on this subject I would point out that I know that people who refuse to serve their country in time of war are treated equally with those who do. It is a strange anomaly that in a country where we value freedom so highly those unwilling to serve are entitled to take the highest positions in our land. Not only are they unwilling to serve but are actively
Canada Elections Act
engaged in sabotaging the efforts of those who believe in fighting for freedom. This should be looked into.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not think I am an Anglo-Saxon crackpot, either. Some of my people were natives of this country. It was the Conservative party that gave these people, senior citizens of Canada, the full franchise. This is the type of action we want. We want to broaden the franchise, not to restrict it. I am not at all sure that I believe the five year period of waiting before a person can become a full fledged Canadian citizen is reasonable, particularly if he has already been raised in the western tradition of freedom. I am not only speaking of the people from England, Scotland and Ireland but of people who have lived in the Caribbean all their lives, people with dark, yellow or black skins. The colour of the skin makes no difference, our Bill of Rights gives them all freedom here in Canada.
I should like to see the number of years of waiting before citizenship is granted reduced down to three years, or even to one year for those who are qualified. Our present immigration laws are restrictive. Canada has no right to deny millions of starving people the right to live. Why do we not open up our gates? Why do we not practice what we preach and broaden our immigration laws to encourage those who are willing to work and willing to defend freedom to come here and become a full-fledged citizen as soon as they are ready to expend their energy lives and resources alongside of us? I would like to see those who have fought in defence of the western world granted the right to Canadian citizenship. I would not hesitate to give anybody full citizenship in Canada who served Her Majesty in any corner of the world, particularly in time of war. Imagine denying a man who had been in the merchant marine in Australia the right to come to Canada and vote, or a man who had made seven or eight trips to England from Canada, carrying servicemen and ammunition in time of war.
I am against any restriction of the right to vote of people who, as I said, are qualified to be good Canadians. We should take a good look at the idea of restricting, for example, a well educated man, a professor from India or a doctor whom we would trust to operate on our children and be in charge of their health. Can we say to such a man: Oh no, you will first put in five years in Canada and will improve yourself in accordance with our view of western civilization. I do not think there

November 15, 1968
Canada Elections Act
will be many Russian spies voting, because we allow them to obtain full voting rights once they come here and start paying taxes. We deny a doctor making $20,000 or $30,000 a year and paying enormous taxes the right to vote, because he has not put in an arbitrary five year period in this country.
I fully agree with the hon. member who introduced this bill that we should take a good look at the voting rights of our armed forces, to make sure they receive the right to a secret ballot. They are the ones who paid the most and who intend to pay the most in their proper time for our freedom, for our right to have a country and our right to survive in this jungle in which we are living.
Let us not get carried away by the crocodile tears of people who say we should make immigrants wait before we grant them citizenship, or until we are ready to give those people who have already earned the right to full citizenship in Canada the kind of treatment they should get. Today the running down of anything Anglo-Saxon seems to be a kind of national pastime around here.
I say this is a red herring. It is not a question of whether or not you are Anglo-Saxon. The purpose of our reciprocal agreements with many nations of the commonwealth is to encourage commonwealth people to come here, and this is done for a very good reason. The very fact that these people are members of the commonwealth ensures that they are good risks and will adjust quickly to our Canadian way of life. Let us not have any more witch hunts here, and let us not seek cheap popularity by running down the Old Country because she does not happen to have the power she once had. I wonder how much more courage it would have taken to bring forward a bill such as this one a hundred years ago. It would not have been acceptable then and I do not think it is acceptable today, because it is restrictive and is in the nature of a witch hunt.
I would say most of the people who have come here from other countries are so glad to get here that they are not agitating for a vote, they are not here to tell us in Canada how to manage our position in the commonwealth. Most of them are so happy to be here that they have gone to work and are productive citizens who have taken their full place in the commonwealth. I should like to give them the full right to vote as soon as they show us they are no threat to this country, and thereby give them the right to say something about what is going to happen to the enormous taxes they are paying. The Americans broke

away from England because they said that people who were taxed had the right to have some say about it. If you feel so deeply about these people who are being so unfairly treated and who have no say about the elected members of parliament, and so forth, let me ask why they are not exempted from taxation until they become Canadian citizens. We bring them over here to use their skills. There is a brain drain in reverse going on in this country.
We bring these people here because we do not want to educate our own professionals. Let us give more of our own Canadian boys and girls a chance to become dentists and doctors, and not take advantage of commonwealth countries which need every doctor, school teacher and university professor in their own country. We have opened up a new university for these people who come here and when they see the good life in Canada they may be tempted to break the contract under which they came. We train these people so they can be a blessing to our sister commonwealth countries.
I venture to say that some of the people who write these letters want something more than simply to become citizens of Canada immediately. They want to tell us the rules under which they should be Canadians. I say we should beat them to it, we should certainly give them an easier franchise and an easier entrance to full Canadian citizenship, if they qualify.
It would be ridiculous to say to a man who served in the armed forces of Australia alongside of us for six or seven years during the last war, who speaks either French or English, either of our official languages, who is used to our parliamentary system and is thoroughly conversant with all our mores and has paid a tremendous personal price in service and sacrifice, that we have a witch hunt going on right now. It would be ridiculous for us to say to him: You are British and you have proved yourself British so we are going to make you wait five years, meantime we will take away from you a privilege which we gave to those people who qualify, for perfectly good reasons.
It is not because we love Englishmen or because we have put a racial tag on someone. This sounds to me like racism and I have the right to talk about it. Some of my people were natives of this country, who have been here for two or three hundred years. So I know what we have to offer in this country and I know it is not negative. We are not
November 15, 1968

denying others the right to Canadian citizenship which we have offered to people who have shown their loyalty to the crown, the commonwealth and our western principles and who have done so most often in very definite ways. We appreciate this, and we have given them an incentive to come here and give us some of their time and talents. I am getting a little bit tired of people who are trying to get on the bandwagon and who are picking on the poor old motherland because she is down. I see an element of that here, and it is not a very nice road to popularity.
Let us take the positive approach and offer full rights to those who come from our sister commonwealth nations. Let us not take the approach that if they do not play it our way we will not play it their way. We are the senior member of the commonwealth, we are the oldest child of the family. We should set an example, instead of being restrictive in dealing with voting rights in Canada. I do not know why we have a year of waiting, to tell you the truth.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I would be shocked if I went to any Commonwealth country and was told I had to wait for some time before I could vote. I have not done the homework the hon. member has done in relation to those countries which impose restriction on us, but I would be shocked if I went to Australia and, with my record, was told I could not vote for some time. I do not care how long we would have to live in Australia before we could vote; I think that is irrelevant. I do not believe that people from other parts of the world, perhaps from countries that have openly fought us or are going to fight us, should necessarily get equal treatment with people from countries that have proven to be friends and allies in the preservation of western democracy. Voting rights should be broadened by all means, but I do not believe I will stand in this house and vote for any restrictive measures on the rights of people from commonwealth countries who want to become Canadian citizens.
So far as citizenship itself is concerned, I venture to say a good many members of this house have not taken out citizenship papers. I agree that they should, but I am not sure that this is the proper way of forcing them to do so. Many of us were born here and have a certain distaste for the fact that we have to apply to obtain Canadian citizenship, especially in the light of the fact our ancestors have lived here for a hundred years. This
Canada Elections Act
little bit of red tape is annoying to some people, but it should not be so annoying that they do not apply for citizenship.
Citizenship is something we have taken for granted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you have to have a
certificate?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You are not a Canadian citizen if you don't. This particular measure would bar you from voting if you do not have citizenship. I presume if you carried that to its logical conclusion, a person would have no right to sit in this house unless he had citizenship. I wonder how many seats would be vacated today if hon. members were asked for their citizenship papers.


Richard J. Stanbury: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Richard J. Stanbury: I feel the hon. member has misunderstood the law and perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North could consult with him. The hon. member for Calgary North has suggested that citizenship does not depend on applying for a card. All of us have citizenship if we qualify under the law without applying for any papers. All I have suggested is that people who do not have citizenship should apply for it, not for a card.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Well, I think it is the thin edge of the wedge. I would go along with the hon. member if he suggested that all Canadians should seek Canadian citizenship if they desire it. However, I would not force it on anybody. Those who do not want to partake in the advantages of Canadian citizenship would please me if they never applied. I am certainly not anxious to have them vote if they are coming here from the commonwealth with no intention of becoming good citizens. I do not believe this is the case. I believe nine out of ten come here with the intention of earning a living and becoming fully qualified citizens.
I certainly do not believe the hon. member did so intentionally, but the letters he read contained overtones of racism. I certainly cannot go along with that. I see no necessity for bringing in the Palestine question, the coloured question or any other question. It is only a question of whether or not we are all Canadians and want to encourage as many people as possible to take part in public life and exercise their franchise. I felt this was the proper time to raise these other points

November 15, 1968
Canada Elections Act
about reform for our armed services personnel. Those who are in hospital should have every opportunity to vote. I know that in the five elections in which I have taken part I have been asked whenever I went to a hospital if the patients could exercise their franchise. We say we cannot do that because it is too difficult. Perhaps these patients are policemen who were hurt on duty, or members of the armed forces who are in hospital. We have put polls in some of the chronic hospitals and I feel this is a good reform. I think anyone who has the franchise in Canada should be given the right to use that franchise, even if we have to go to the trouble of hiring a few officials. Goodness knows, we spend money in many other ways which are not as important.
My Canadian citizenship is the source of my greatest pride. I do not like raising controversial issues like this. I think there is danger in this idea of telling our so-called new Canadians that they are being discriminated against, because I do not think they are. Perhaps we should say we have overlooked encouraging them, we have overlooked our duty to see that they become citizens. Perhaps we have been delinquent in not reducing this time limit. Certainly I should like to see any new Canadian who qualifies permitted to vote on an equal basis with those from the commonwealth. However, I would not take this backwards step of restricting the voting privileges of newly arrived Australians, New Zealanders, Caribbean people or Africans, regardless of their colour or creed. There are some Anglo-Saxon connotations to this idea. I honestly think it is a backward step, but I go along with the spirit in which I feel this suggestion was put forward. Let us broaden our franchise just as far as we possibly can without endangering security in Canada, by encouraging all those who want to be fully qualified citizens to take out their papers and be accepted into our family, with celerity.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for presenting Bill No. C-8, whereby, in order to take part in an election, to have one's name included in the list of electors or to run for office, one must be a Canadian citizen. This is I think a step towards the liberation in Canada from a certain type of colonialism that seemingly still persists in this country.
As it is now, the fact of being a British subject is sufficient for a person to be qualified

to vote, or to run for office, which would not normally permit people from New Zealand, from Australia, from Jamaica or other countries in the British Commonwealth to come to Canada and be candidates in a general election.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, that constitutes, I believe, a lack of respect for or a violation of our Canadian sovereignty. Canada is a sovereign country; we are told that it is and we say it.
To insist that anyone who wants to vote or run as a candidate in an election be a Canadian citizen does not mean that we reject completely everything that is British, of course not. Such a measure would not prevent us, for instance, from remaining a member of the British commonwealth of nations. India and other countries are members of the British commonwealth of nations, yet they enjoy their sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, that would enable us, however, to be ourselves in Canada, to take our decisions ourselves, to be first of all Canadians. I am not saying that one should be an English Canadian or a French Canadian, but I say that one should be a first class Canadian citizen to have the right to vote or to run as a candidate in an election.
A couple of years ago, I presented a bill to the same effect but covering a much greater scope. It meant to remove from all Canadian acts references to British citizenship, keeping only the Canadian citizenship, without, as I said, Canada withdrawing from the British commonwealth of nations.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian citizenship constitutes the fundamental quality of a Canadian and we would betray Canada and its identity by maintaining such references to colonialism. We have been a colony, French at one time, English at another, but we are no longer a colony. I believe Canada is an adult and sovereign nation.
And in that capacity, I believe Canada should assert herself more, while staying among the nations which make up the British community.
I shall now refer to the explanatory notes of Bill C-8, and I quote:
The purpose of this Bill is to provide that only Canadian citizens shall in future be qualified as electors or as candidates at elections:
November 15, 1968

The bill tends to amend paragraph (a), subsection (1), of Section 14 of the Canada Elections Act which would now read:
(a) is of the full age of twenty-one years or will attain such age on or before polling day at such election:
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who has prepared this bill should not have by the same token, taken into account the young people of 18 years and over. In the province of Quebec, these young people have the right to vote in provincial elections, while they do not have such a right in the federal elections. Here, I refer to an act which provides that in an armed conflict, for example, all young people of 18 years or over shall be called upon to serve their country.
When the government so decides, these same young people who must serve their country in the armed forces cannot have their say in electing their representatives as they are not eligible to vote or run as candidates at election time.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for our 18-year olds to be granted a little more consideration. If they are old enough to join the Canadian forces, they should be entitled to vote and they should have the privilege to run as candidates in any federal constituency. It is the law in Quebec. I do not know what the situation is in the other provinces, but the eligible voting age is 18 in the province of Quebec.
Furthermore, the hon. member introducing Bill No. C-8 should have included therein a useful clause dealing with compulsory identification cards for Canadian voters as a prerequisite to their names being printed on the voters lists, in addition to being Canadian citizens. An identification card bearing a photograph-I would not object to have my picture appearing on an identification card- would be a deterrent against those manipulating elections with the help of impostors or "phoney" voters.
Compulsory identification cards bearing photographs would avoid the stealing of elections. Perhaps we would have valuable members in this house who have been defeated because of trickery and shady election manoeuvring, mostly in cities where people are not known. In some instances, Mr. Speaker, women of ill repute disguised themselves as nuns in order to record their votes in well organized and controlled polls. This is contrary to true democracy. The people are no longer deciding when election schemers can arrange a choice.
Canada Elections Act
I think it is high time serious thought was given to a review of our election system, not only on the surface but in depth. As Canadians, let us still require that only Canadian citizens may have their names entered on the voters' lists and have the right to run as candidates.
In addition, let us lower the voting age to 18 and also make compulsory the identification card bearing the photograph of voter, for positive identification. Then we would no longer have to deplore the infortunate things that happened in the past and are still happening in many areas during general or partial elections.
This would eliminate a great deal of annoyances and also make things difficult for those who are inclined to use dishonest electioneering practices. In short, this would ensure the election to parliament of honest members through honest methods, both during and between election periods.
Mr. Speaker, those are the only remarks I wanted to make on Bill No. C-8.
I congratulate once again the hon. member for having introduced that bill providing that we should be Canadian citizens to have our names appear on an election list or to be a candidate at an election.
I regret however that an individual must have completed his twenty-first year instead of his eighteenth in order to vote or become a candidate.
The carrying of an identification card with a picture should be made compulsory to prevent the possibility of dishonesty, cheating or election gerrymandering. Thus, the Canada Elections Act would be more respectful of the Canadian citizens; the latter would more readily go to the polls to select their members and their government in order to establish in our country a true democracy based on social justice and the just society.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke just a few weeks ago in the private members hour on another bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. It seems to me that if a man's automobile needs minor repairs, it should be repaired or patched up. But if its poor condition has resulted from many points of weakness, then it either needs a thorough overhaul or else a new car altogether is required. In the same way, Mr. Speaker, if there are many points of weakness within the Canada Elections Act it

November 15, 1968
Canada Elections Act
seems to me we need either a thorough overhaul of the act or to write what might be called a new act altogether.
I am opposed to a piece by piece, or a bit by bit, or a patch-up approach to the revision of this act, and in that sence I am against this bill. As for the content of what Bill No. C-8 intends, I favour it in principle. It means, simply, Canada for Canadians; a Canada for Canadians, governed by Canadians; and I as well as other hon. members, I assume, support that. Yet there is an inequity within this bill, and I want to speak about that. Subsection (l)(a) says that only those who are 21 years old shall be allowed to vote.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, we live in a day when our citizens who are in their senior teens have been exposed to mass media literally from birth. This is a time when progressive forms of education are encouraging even very young children to develop their ability to discriminate, to judge, to decide and, hopefully, to learn to live with the results of their decisions.
This is also an era of high mobility for youth. Even at a very early age our young people spend many hours far away from their families and their environs; frequently they are many miles away. In such circumstances personal decisions are made at a very early age; they are made at a much earlier age than was the case, I suggest, even one decade ago. To have our voting age remain at 21 years of age is no longer consistent with the social context in which we now live. It ought to be lowered at least to 18 years of age and had this bill contained that change I could have supported it.
As for the idea that Canadian citizens and only Canadian citizens should vote to bring in a government of Canada, with that I have no quarrel. It is necessary for us to become more Canadian. I suppose it follows logically that we ought to be less British, less French, less Portuguese and less what have you, and we should be just plain Canadians. With that aspect of the bill I am in accord.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have developed the habit of speaking on the Canada Elections Act. Only two weeks ago I spoke when another private member's bill to provide the franchise to university students came before the house. At that time I commended the mover of the resolution and said he was moving in the right direction. He is reform minded and

undoubtedly is aware of the inequities in the Canada Elections Act. My only reservation at that time was that the hon. member was not going far enough, although he was heading in the right direction. I suggested that the entire act needed revision.
I favour anything that tends to broaden the franchise and to make more democratic our Canadian parliamentary system. I am not in favour of anything that tends to discriminate. I was not in favour of those parts of the act which tended to discriminate against university students. I cannot see much use in tinkering with a document which, in my opinion, is of nineteenth century vintage.
If the Canada Elections Act were brought before this house and debated by all hon. members, I am sure we would arrive at a law which would constitute a new elections act. That needs to be done. I have read about the French revolution and I am aware of the great turmoil which surrounded the voting privileges of the common people of France. It took a revolution to undo the inequities surrounding the Estates General of France of that period.
I do not propose that we have a national revolution in Canada, but I do say that it is time for the government to take a good look at the elections act and to iron out some of the inequities in that act.
I could spend half an hour talking about the voting age alone, but I will not do so. As the hon. member preceding me said, we live in an age of great social change. Young people are being taxed, sometimes when they are only 16 years old. As my colleague indicated, taxation without representation was responsible for our great revolution in North America, as those who have heard about the Boston tea party will recall. In England they have considered this matter of the voting age, and there is every indication that in that regard they are more reform minded than we are. Perhaps hon. members ought to review what has happened in the United Kingdom House of Commons in this regard.
Some hon. members have said that under our system workers who are employed away from their electoral districts on voting day must return to their districts to vote. Sometimes they must travel a considerable distance to do so and no provision in the act makes it necessary for them to be paid a return fare to their jobs. People at sea especially are effected by this part of the act. During the last general election some people
November 15, 1968

in my riding were at sea on election day and therefore they could not vote. Many complained because of this. The returning officer in my district phoned to Ottawa, to St. John's to here and to there, but still those people went without their vote. Many of them were good supporters of both parties, yet they had no chance to vote.


Mr. Bell:: Do not talk it out.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, though there are many other matters I might raise, I shall not do so. Instead, I shall sit down.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking I gave the house the other day about the desirability of putting these proposals before the committee on
Canada Elections Act
privileges and elections so that they may be considered, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor the following:
"the said Bill be not now read a second time but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
time being six o'clock the hour for consideration of private members business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]
LEGISLATURE 15a, 20a.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 18, 1968

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1969, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.