1969-07-18

Hon. Roberl L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the statement attributed to the Prime Minister in Saskatoon to the effect that some form of cash injection into the western farm economy is necessary, and in order to give the cabinet time to consider the specific nature of such an emergency program, would the President of the Privy Council consider arranging an opposition allotted day, say on Tuesday, so that a member of the government may be in a position to state a conclusive policy in this regard?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the
Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have discussions on this and other points. Perhaps this would be the best opportunity to suggest that immediately following calling of orders of the day the house leaders meet in my office to discuss this and a number of other matters which fall within the house leaders' realm.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the senior officers of two or three chartered banks have indicated that they are seriously considering increasing the prime commercial rate on bank loans and as the minister has already said that he thinks no such increase is justifiable, does the minister intend to meet with the heads of the chartered banks in an attempt to dissuade them from increasing the commercial bank rate at this time?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have given them my opinion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I assume from the minister's reply that despite the fact he does not think an increase is justifiable he is now washing his hands of the matter and abdicating his responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is argumentative, to say the least.



BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE-PURPOSE OF INCREASE

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Would he tell us if the Governor of the Bank of Canada has increased the prime rate for the sole purpose of preventing the flight of capital to f oreign countries?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as the governor of the Bank of Canada said in his statement, this was the primary purpose.



PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a most sincere suggestion to the President of the Privy Council. In view of his statement a few moments ago that after oral questions there is to be a meeting of the house leaders in his office, would he give consideration to transferring the meeting to the Speaker's office with the Speaker present as a non-partisan conciliator?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to introduce you into the middle of any partisan controversy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Inquiries of the Ministry SPACE EXPLORATION



APOLLO XI FLIGHT-SUGGESTED HOLIDAY

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in recognition of the realities of life and in tribute to that momentous day in history when man will step from one planet to another, the government will consider Monday as a government holiday?


Mr. Lewis:: The government has been on a holiday for a long time.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the greatest tribute that can be made to this day is for us to continue to carry out our responsibilities as members of parliament.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Acting Prime Minister should refrain from imputing motives or trying to put my question in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question about a government holiday was very deliberate and sincere and had no reference whatsoever to the House of Commons. I referred specifically to the realities of life and I had in mind the fact that people are going to be watching television at two or three o'clock in the morning. I am wondering how much hope-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's point has been made.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Perhaps my supplementary question has been stated, Mr. Speaker, but could we have an answer from the Acting Prime Minister to the question whether consideration will be given to making Monday a holiday for federal government employees?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member has put forward his suggestion. May I say that I did not intend in anything I said in reply to impute any motive or anything like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say I believe that all of us as members of the human race will be 
July 18, 1969
watching with great interest on Monday the landing of the astronauts. I do not think it is really necessary for the government of Canada to take the kind of action suggested. I believe all our civil servants will rejoice just as much at their desks over the success of the astronauts as anywhere else.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he, in addition to the members of the human race, will
be watching?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Soufh Shore):: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister state whether the more than 250 delegates from 42 countries who attended the fisheries conference in Halifax, sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, indicated any agreement to his suggestion that conservation controls be implemented internationally in respect of our offshore fishing banks?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the conference which was convened by the Food and Agriculture Organization was concerned with the inspection of fish and fish quality, not with the other matter to which the hon. member referred.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the contradictory statements being made by the Minister of Supply and Services for the benefit of western ears, and by the Minister of Justice for the benefit of Ottawa ears, on the subject of moving the headquarters of various government agencies from Ottawa to other parts of the country, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate what is the official government position in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that his question as asked is not in proper form. Perhaps we might overlook the first part of the question and allow the minister to answer the second part.
July 18, 1969	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would take more than a short answer at this time to outline government policy in this respect. It has been the policy to introduce some decentralization. For example, this is evident in the fact that some government offices are being moved to Hull. There may be other occasions when it would still be consonant with efficiency of government operation, which I think must be the first consideration, to locate some of our agencies outside of this area.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice is actually in charge of patronage in the Ottawa area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Minister of Justice was stating government policy when he said that the national capital is the national capital and cannot be subdivided nationally? In addition, was the Minister of Supply and Services stating government policy when he said that the movement of certain offices and government agencies now established in the national capital to other parts of the country was actively under consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly well aware that there are many government agencies located outside this area. One example is the National Film Board which is in Montreal. This is not at all extraordinary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was in relation to the movement out of Ottawa of agencies now established here.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the example I gave is one where a national agency was moved to a place outside Ottawa, and it was not thought that this changed the capital of Canada, which is Ottawa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure we are going to achieve anything by allowing a series of supplementaries inasmuch as we have now embarked upon a debate. However, I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Supply and Services a direct question: Is consideration being given to moving the Mint to Manitoba?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there is always some speculation about moving government agencies and departments, but no recommendation is before the cabinet at the present time in regard to moving the Mint.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Ac ling Prime Minister. Is the head office of the Cape Breton Development Corporation being moved from Ottawa to Cape Breton, where it is supposed to be doing its work?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any information about this, and so far as I know no recent decisions have been made in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: I again express reservations about the line of questioning upon which we are embarking. We have had many questions about moving many departments to many cities and towns across the country, from Victoria to Cornwall and from St. John's to Cornwall. We might pass on now to another subject.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there was a question earlier to which I never had an opportunity to ask a supplementary. I would appreciate it if I could have the opportunity now of presenting that supplementary.
In view of the Prime Minister's studies of economic isolation on the prairies and in view of the fact that the west must be given a sense of participation in Canada and must share in the economic benefits of Confederation if it is to overcome its feeling of alienation, will the government consider establishing the Mint in Edmonton-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a related question; it is a related speech.



VITAL STATISTICS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this is a new subject. I shall address my question to the Minister of
July 18, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Industry, Trade and Commerce inasmuch as the Bureau of Statistics falls within his jurisdiction. Would the minister say what studies, if any, have been made to determine why the birth rate last year in the province of Quebec was the lowest in Canada while that in Newfoundland, a neighbouring province, was the highest?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a question for the late show.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the government confirm that an order has been issued by the Canadian Transport Commission to the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway to resume transportation of fuel to Wabush and Labrador City?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to confirm that that is the case.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this order include both domestic and automobile fuels? Will it also include automobiles so that residents of the area can get out of there on vacation? Also, does it include shipments consigned to Churchill Falls?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, so far as I am aware it involves all forms of fuel. Automobiles were not included in the representations made to me directly. Whether the C.T.C. has included them I do not know, but I expect not. Also, the shipments do not include consignments to Churchill Falls.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Since it is not the Minister of Labour's turn to be in the house, has the Acting Prime Minister anything to report on the Canadian Pacific Airlines dispute? I am referring to the strike that was to be called at ten o'clock this morning.
[Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say I was informed just a few minutes ago that a strike has been averted and that an agreement has been signed which, of course, is subject to ratification.


An hon. Member:: You could have listened to the radio.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he say whether he has investigated why Canadian journalists are not being allowed to join United States newsmen aboard the oil tanker Manhattan which is to sail through Canadian waters under Canadian coastguard escort next month?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have inquired into this matter. I understand Canadian newsmen are to be given the opportunity of being there on that occasion on Canadian vessels. I think they will be able to report fully.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not use his good offices to bring pressure to bear on the United States authorities so that Canadian newsmen may be allowed to be present on the tanker Manhattan itself?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it is better that Canadian newsmen should go on Canadian vessels.



WHEAT-AGREEMENT WITH SOVIET UNION-BALANCE OF COMMITMENT

Mr. John Burion (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Have there been any discussions between Canada and the Soviet Union recently with respect to the wheat agreement which is to expire at the end of this month? If so, or even if there have been no discussions, are there any indications that the Soviet Union will be taking the balance of its commitment? Is there any possibility that the terms of that agreement may be extended?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, contact
July 18, 1969	COMMONS
exists between the Canadian Wheat Board and Export-Khleb, but I am not in sufficient touch with everyday developments to say more. With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question my information is that there is no indication now either that the Soviet Union will or will not take its commitment. There is still one month to go, I think-


An hon. Member:: Two weeks.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are still two weeks to go. They may get in touch with us in the meantime, but at present there is no indication either way.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether the government is agreeable to extending the agreement? Also, has the question of present pricing policies of the Soviet Union in exporting grain to countries such as the Argentine entered into the discussions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am considering these matters, Mr. Speaker. I do not think we have to decide today because there is still two weeks to go before the end of the allocated period. We will advise the house in due course.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the problems currently facing egg producers in Canada, could the minister tell us whether there has been a decrease in imports of that commodity have fallen in the last weeks and, if so, to what extent?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is asking for statistics, but if the minister has the information required, he could perhaps give it to the house.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am taking this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he received any word from Lagos about the proposal he made some days ago which was designed to be of assistance in the furnishing of relief?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but at least we have not received an adverse reply. I might add that I also had the opportunity to meet Dr. Johnson yesterday afternoon. He was here with me. Both of us are very anxious to do whatever we can to promote daylight flights. It is in that spirit that we are acting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the delay in obtaining a response, and in view of what I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will agree is a very grim situation in Nigeria-Biafra, have additional steps been considered in an attempt to secure an answer from Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: The short answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a most interesting and important question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact a multimillion dollar contract was granted to one company for the production of cloth for walking-out uniforms for the armed services, will the minister immediately investigate reports that the quartermaster stores of the armed services are issuing the green uniform in seven different shades and sometimes two extra yards per uniform because of defects in the cloth?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question might be placed on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: It is now being supplied and is costing the taxpayers a lot of money.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister from the prolific province, the Minister of Transport. Can he advise whether he is making any progress in the provision of
July 18. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry interim increased facilities at Charlottetown airport where the situation is very serious?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some progress is being made. We have done an assessment of the situation. It really does not appear to be reflected so much in the increase in air traffic as in the number of people coming out to see other people off. The first step appears to be to get a larger parking lot and a bigger coffee urn. These are facilities which are very easy to set up.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I feel the minister is confused. I am sure the crowding is due to people coming out to welcome people to Prince Edward Island rather than to see them leave.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am quite happy to concede that I put it in the wrong order.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is he aware that the R.C.M.P. brought a shackled and manacled prisoner through the concourse at Vancouver airport? If so, what is he doing to check this kind of barbarity?


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I will look into the matter immediately.


An hon. Member:: It was in all the papers.


Harold Edward Winch: wish to ask a supplementary question in support of the member for Vancouver Quadra. Will the Solicitor General look into the fact, proven by photographs, that this man was taken through the Vancouver airport in a strait-jacket as well as being manacled?


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be very glad to look into all the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the President of the Treasury Board. With regard to the announcement that a 19.5 per cent wage increase over a three-year period has been granted to economists, sociologists
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
and statisticians in the federal public service, will the President of the Treasury Board say whether these economists, sociologists and statisticians will be spending their time studying the so-called inflationary demands of organized labour unions?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is interesting and important, but the way it was asked precludes the Chair from allowing it to be answered.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent tour of water and o:her resources in northern Canada and Alaska by a group of 68 United States representatives including Senator Moss and in view of their expressed wish to obtain Canadian water from northern Canada for United States use, I should like to ask the minister whether his department has been notified of the reasons for the trip and whether any officials from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources accompanied the group?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that this question should be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.


FINANCE
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the discount rate was maintained by the Bank of Canada for 22 years, including a period of war, depression and inflation, can he tell us whether during those years Canadian capital was exported in such a way that our economy became more unbalanced than it is today?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question seems to be much too general in nature to be asked at this time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my
July 18, 1969	COMMONS
question to the Minister of National Defence but first may I congratulate him on the performance of the Bras d'Or. Can the minister advise the house whether the Department of National Defence or the government will enter into consultations with provincial or municipal officials prior to the announcement he intended to make concerning the base consolidation program, which he hoped to be able to do by August 1?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to accept in the name of the services the hon. member's congratulations concerning the Bras d'Or. I do not know whether I am right in saying that this is the first time we can say we have something which is either the biggest or the fastest in the world.
With reference to negotiations and consultations with municipalities or local authorities concerning possible base closures, may I say that we have a procedure whereby in such cases we consult with and inform the local authorities ahead of the announcement. In this instance, however, I believe there will be an accompanying statement on the base closures regarding a possible form of relief or assistance to the people who will be affected. This has not yet been determined, but it is a recommendation which has been presented and is being studied. This is the reason I previously said in answer to a question on this same subject that I might not meet the target date of August 1 which I announced previously.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the point I have in mind is with regard to the question of school opening and so on. Can the minister indicate whether there may possibly be an announcement or a report prior to September 1?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: All announcements pertain ng to base closures would involve in any event at least a year's notice and in some cases a little longer. I think the shortest period we have considered so far is at least a year.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence supplementary to the question asked earlier. Do I take it from the minister's remarks that no announcement on base closures will be made until there has been consultation with the area concerned and with other departments of government with a view to finding substitute government employment in the area in order to relieve
Inquiries of the Ministry the economic dislocation caused by the closure of bases, or will that process take place only between the time of the announcement and the closure?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will be involved in the study of each base which we plan to close. The form of the help that will be provided has not been determined yet. So far as consultation with local authorities are concerned this will be done, except that we must proceed from a firm decision to dispense with the base. The cases which can be discussed on this basis are limited. In some instances we will be able to give longer notice but in any event it will not be done in isolation. We will discuss the matter with the local authorities.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister agree that before any official announcement is made he will inform any member of this house who may represent a constituency in which a base might be closed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately on previous occasions we have had to close bases and our regular procedure is first to give priority to the Member of Parliament by informing him of the impending announcement and after that the local authorities. We also have a special team which goes on the base itself to brief the people involved in the closing. The same kind of procedure will take place this time.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the difficult employment situation faced by university students this summer, has the Minister of Finance considered discussing with the provinces programs to ease the requirements for students to qualify for loans next term?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. In reply may I stale that financial assistance is available, of course, to students under provincial programs and from private sources as well as under the Canada Student Loans Act. As I have reported to the house from time to time, federal

July 18, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry officials have regular consultations with the provinces on the student loans program. We have all been very much aware of the more difficult employment situation for some students this summer. This was taken into account, for instance, when the house approved my recommendation that the basic provision for students loans this year be increased to $100 million. The loans are available to students who need financial assistance, and I can assure the hon. member that the criteria applied for this purpose take into account the fact that a student has not been able to find summer employment.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries which relates to one asked earlier about the F.A.O. conference in Halifax. Is the minister proposing to make available, either through tabling or distribution, copies of the papers presented, in particular the basic position paper reportedly delivered by Dr. Needier on the effect of the use of d.d.t?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into this and make copies of the papers available to any interested members.


AIRPORTS
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister had an opportunity yet to study the representations made by the citizens of Canada's most southerly territory, Pelee Island, with regard to the modest improvement of their airport, and to arrive at a decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question should be placed on the order paper.


TAXATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance when we may expect the white paper on tax reform which we were led to expect in June, then in mid-summer or September, and which we now learn from the press may not be available until October?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, parts of the white paper are now being written. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as some important decisions are taken by the cabinet I will present the white paper. I am as anxious as the Leader of the Opposition to have it completed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I take it from that, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is either unable or unwilling to state a date now when the white paper will be available?


Edgar John Benson: It is just impossible to do so, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the continuing rise in mortgage interest rates, what measures, if any, does the minister intend to take to stop this upward spiral?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a statement which would normally be made on motions. To that extent the question is not in order.


John Gilbert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask a question supplementary to one that is not accepted. However, I invite the hon. member to ask another question while he has the floor.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister make a statement on motions with regard to the continued upward rise of mortgage interest rates and tell us what steps, if any, the government will take to correct this situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will examine this suggestion, but I do not think I can compete very adequately with the Governor of the Bank of Canada at this time.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Official Opposition are obviously using the platoon system and taking their vacations during what was to be the summer recess,
July 18. 1969

will the minister use his good offices to suggest to the President of the Privy Council that while in session today with the house leaders he arrange a pairing program so that government members can also enjoy at least a partial vacation before we commence the second session of the 28th parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIRPORTS
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a delayed supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, *delayed because I was mortally offended by his implication that the islanders were becoming mere coffee drinkers. Would he give thought to providing space at the terminal so that they might leave their automobiles there? Also, would he think of such things as an instrument landing system?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I was a little facetious in my answer. The truth is that it is a complex problem in view of the very large increase in the amount of traffic during a short period of the year and the relatively limited traffic in other periods of the year. I am taking a serious look at this matter and we are trying to do something worth while about it.


HOUSING
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question essentially similar to the one I asked yesterday which Your Honour ruled out of order on the ground that you thought it had been asked previously this week. However, I have checked Hansard and I do not think that is the case, and I hope Your Honour will recognize the question. It is directed to the minister responsible for housing. Would the minister consider informing the house now what the outside date will be for his announcement of government policy on urban renewal schemes? There have been many requests on this subject. Will the minister say what will be the outside date for his announcement?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my desire as I have

Inquiries of the Ministry indicated on previous occasions, is to do it as soon as possible. I hope it can be done within two or three weeks.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Some time ago he indicated that he was considering restricting commercial fishing on the Pacific coast on weekends. Has he reached a decision whether such a restriction should be put into effect? If so, for what period of time, and will the restriction include sports fishermen?
John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the final announcement concerning restrictions on commercial fishing has been made. It is to the effect that fishing for cohoe salmon must be restricted to week days and not carried out at weekends. We are faced with the lowest run of cohoe salmon on record and we are very concerned about the resource.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the run of cohoe salmon is low and the minister has found it necessary to restrict commercial fishing to week days, will he apply the same restriction to sport fishing for cohoe salmon?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the number of sports fishermen is much greater, but their take is a small fraction of the take of commercial fishermen.


ST. MARY'S BAY, N.S.-DISPUTE BETWEEN SEINERS AND WEIR FISHERMEN
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to view at first hand fishing conditions along the coast of Nova Scotia, especially the herring fishing industry in St. Mary's Bay, when can we expect a decision concerning the future operations of herring seiners and weir fishermen in this area?


John (Jack) Davis: I hope before the end of July, Mr. Speaker.
July 18. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry INFORMATION


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF TASK FORCE
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government reached a favourable decision with regard to tabling the report of the task force on government information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the report of the task force on government information has not yet been discussed by the cabinet.


POLLUTION
Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has any ac.ion been taken regarding the possible pollutant effect of herbicidal spraying along the Canada-United States border in British Columbia?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my departmental officials to look into this matter and report back as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that may be answered by either the Minister of National Defence or the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Italian government asked Canada to train Italian air cadets and, if so, has a favourable decision been reached on the request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure of the urgency of the question. I would think it is the kind of question that would normally be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.



FINANCE


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a further question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the economic situation of the country is getting worse and that 
the Governor of the Bank of Canada can find nothing better than to increase our troubles and our problems, would the minister consider asking for his resignation?



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of recent statements by the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt that there is no question of Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic Islands, the continental shelf and the spaces between the islands, could the Acting Prime Minis! er indicate whether this is in fact the case and whether all the problems have been resolved with respect to Canada's sovereignty? What is the situation in this respect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will agree that the complexities of international law are such that it would not be possible for me to answer this question in a short time even if I had the competence to answer it.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the problems connected with Canada's sovereignty, particularly with regard to the waters between the islands, have been resolved? That was the purport of the statement of the Minister without Portfolio. Would the Acting Prime Minister deal with that aspect of the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the position is that Canada has a view about Canada's sovereignty. Unfortunately it is not universally accepted.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, July 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
July 18, 1969
Mr. Ray Perraull (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned at four o'clock yesterday afternoon I attempted to relate a number of statements made at various times by spokesmen for the other parties in the house in support of time limitation on debate. There is a vast catalogue of speeches made in the house, or before non-political forums, supporting the concept that governments have a responsibility to govern and must ultimately express the wish of the majority of the people of a nation. I quoted the N.D.P. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the remarks he has made on a number of occasions. I quoted the former prime minister, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Basically, we are faced with the question whether after reasonable opportunity for full debate and discussion has been accorded all parties in the house, the government of the day, be it the government of Canada, one of the provincial governments or one of the governments of other parliamentary democracies throughout the commonwealth, has the right to expedite the business of the house and determine when a debate shall end.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
There are a number of peripheral issues here. There is a question with respect to how this may be accomplished fairly and within reasonable limits, but our basic question is one of principle. Again we come back to the basic problem, the challenge of attempting to fit into the 365 days of the year the vast proliferation of matters which must be considered on behalf of the Canadian people, and at the same time ensuring the maintenance of a high standard of parliamentary democracy.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) made an excellent speech the other afternoon.
Procedure and Organization business of the house with the support of three parties in the house. These members would effectively cut off the right of a fourth party to unlimited free speech. Of course they accept the principle that there must be responsible limits to speeches made in the house.
Let me quote a well known Conservative, a former member of the house, to establish the point which I am attempting to make with respect to limitation of time. The hon. Davie Fulton, speaking to the Couchiching conference in 1964, in a moment of candour perhaps, said:
An important restraint which members should impose upon themselves is to accept as a matter of routine an "allocation of time" system as it operates in the United Kingdom parliament, by which representatives of each party meet in advance to decide how many days will he spent on each major matter of government legislation.
In the unusual circumstance where it is not possible to obtain agreement, the government itself takes responsibility for-and there is a vote upon- a motion for allocation of time on the matter in question.
This is precisely what we have been considering these long and dreary summer days.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why doesn't your house leader say that?


Raymond J. Perrault: In that non-political forum a respected Conservative spokesman stated very explicitly that the government indeed has the responsibility to govern and also to exercise the mandate conferred on it.
Again, speaking for that great party sitting to my left in opposition, Mr. Fulton spelled out the following in the same speech:
No matter what mathematical disposition has been arrived at by the voters, parliament has the duty to get on with the business of the country. And the government has the right and the responsibility to govern, so long as it enjoys the confidence of parliament, or at any rate unless and until parliament accepts the responsibility of defeating it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I have only 20 minutes left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I know hon. members are enthusiastic about their member who is a good member, but he suggested a very exotic thought, namely, that somehow freedom of speech is endangered under proposed rule 75c because it would restrict the right of members of all parties to express fairly the views held by their constituents. Yet, the same hon. member and his colleagues are enthusiastic supporters of proposed rule 75b. What does rule 75b do? It would expedite the
This is precisely the position which the government of Canada is taking during the course of this debate. This is a crystal clear presentation of the facts of parliament, whether it is at Westminster in Great Britain, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or any other Commonwealth country. But how different in his philosophy from that expressed by some opposition spokesmen during recent days in this debate!
In the face of an earnest desire on the part of the government to initiate reforms in the public interest, words have been heard in this chamber which have done little credit to
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization those who uttered them, words like "restriction of freedom", "dictatorship", "the extinction of parliament", and all the rest. Yet, paradoxically, the same government which members in the opposition attack with such vigour, voted the opposition a quarter of a million dollars in research funds, made available to opposition backbenchers and which were not available to government backbenchers. This was done so that opposition members could do a better job in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker I know the hon. member does not want to exaggerate on a point which can be checked immediately, but he had better check the figure he mentioned, which should be $125,000.


Raymond J. Perrault: I know that if the Leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) makes a request and provides a justification for it, the increase may come along next year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: The right hon. gentleman who presided over the affairs of Canada between 1957 and 1962 may be a colourful and interesting orator, but the promise he made in 1949 to strengthen the role of the opposition in the House of Commons faded like a prairie violet at high noon when he propelled his way to power in 1957. Nothing was done to help the opposition in this house.
Opposition members have engaged in a vigorous and personal attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). May I remind them that one of his first actions as Prime Minister was to extend these grants to the opposition, and not only that but also to attempt to ease the lot of the backbenchers of all parties. For this he should be thanked.
May I suggest that if the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert had taken action during those years of Conservative government to organize more efficiently the business of the Canadian people, then our political history might have been written differently today. Today's government is willing to establish the areas where reforms are required and is willing to act, even if controversy ensues, to correct abuses and to improve procedures.
On October 27, 1949, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said the following:
An opposition does not properly perform its functions unless it examines all expenditures made [Mr. Perrault.)
with a searching eye and fearless criticism, yet members of the House of Commons have no proper facilities to enable the full examination of the public accounts and estimates. Debates on estimates are futile-An expenditure of millions of dollars that are totally unjustified could conceivably be passed without much danger of detection. Canadians have become so used to the expenditure of billions that a million here or there seems of little consequence.
The budget in the fiscal year 1948-49 was $1.9 million. The budget in the fiscal year 1956-57 was $4,528 million, but no reform was initiated by that government to correct this abuse.
Let them attack this government, Mr. Speaker. It is a government which has the courage to say that the status quo is not good enough, that we are going to have a committee system which, when it becomes fully operative, will be a safeguard against an imprudent waste of funds something which was charged by the right hon. gentleman 20 years ago. And some of the opposition critics accuse this government of attempting to trample on democracy!
It was 20 years ago that the right hon. gentleman made the following statement:
If parliament is to be made as effective an instrument in the modern world as it should be, the procedure of parliament should be modernized and brought up to date.
That is what he said, but what did his government do about it?
Today we have a government willing to initiate procedural reforms with all of their strength and possible weaknesses, and if there are weaknesses in this package of rules 75a, 75b and 75c, at least there is a government in power with the courage to initiate the proper reforms to correct these weaknesses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: Members may recall the speech of the former prime minister made on March 11, 1960 at page 1973 of Hansard of that day. At that time he said:
We are now in our forty-second day and the order paper does not seem to be diminishing at any great rate of speed. I hope that after a number of matters are dealt with in the legislative program, the subject of defence may receive early attention in committee.
Then on July 21, 1960, almost nine years ago, he appealed for shorter speeches. He said:
Do not tell me that once an item has been dealt with repetitious utterances by other members having similar views add either to the forcefulness of the argument or the effectiveness of the examination.
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization
This is a point which the government has been making in this debate. Of course the time of parliament and the money of the Canadian people have been wasted by an inordinately long debate on certain matters. That former government complained, and this government is taking action.
Changes are being sponsored by a government with a sense of responsibility. The former prime minister said:
I say that nowhere else in any other parliamentary institution is so much time taken in the examination of particular items as is taken here in connection with estimates.
He was right of course, but absolutely nothing was done to correct this abuse.
[DOT] (12 noon)
This government, criticized and villified by the opposition, is prepared to act and will act on the basis of suggestions articulated by the right hon. gentleman long ago. Time does not permit me to go through all the other examples about which the opposition parties have complained, but spokesmen for all parties have said insufficient time is being given to the consideration of estimates, and that speeches are too long. This government has acted. We simply say that those of us on the government side have been asking for cooperation. Some of you may say you have co-operated and 75c is not needed. We have been co-architects of many reforms which have taken place in this house but leadership has been given by this government.
Given reasonable co-operation by the opposition 75c may never be required. Who will question the right of the government to exercise power, when no agreement can be reached under 75a and 75b, to set in motion a procedure which would allow it to limit debate? To repeat those words of the former distinguished justice minister for the party to my left:
In the unusual circumstance where it is not possible to obtain agreement, the government itself takes responsibility for-and there is a vote upon -a motion for allocation of time on the matter in question.
In other Commonwealth jurisdictions, those nations which cherish zealously the tradition which we have inherited in Canada, the guillotine, closure and other devices are employed to limit debate. These are devices employed without any protestations and without any motions from the opposition.
If it can be demonstrated that 75c allows insufficient time, then let more time be
allowed, but the right and responsibility of this or any other government to invoke 75c or equivalent rules cannot be challenged successfully. Surely the members in opposition, in view of the statements of their former leaders and spokesman, will at least test 75c. Let them give this package a trial.
The minority right to dissent must never be jeopardized, but it is true that in the ultimate the wishes of the majority must prevail. Nowhere in this package of 75a, 75b and 75c is this principle violated or placed in jeopardy.
Some have alleged that closure is sufficient and that there is no need for 75c, yet closure permits a minister unilaterally to stifle all debate. Rule 75c only imposes the obligation for advance consultation with the opposition under 75a and 75b. In virtually all cases 75a and 75b would be sufficient, and 75c would be employed only when the majority opinion of the nation, represented by a majority of members in the house, supported action on a matter of importance to the country.
Rule 75c as it is, or modified to provide greater time for consideration and debate, will be a safeguard. I do not oppose this concept at all, or the idea of giving the opposition more time under 75c, so long as the principle remains that the government must have the right to schedule the work of the house when it comes down to the crunch. That is a right which must be observed.
Rule 75c as it is or modified will be that safeguard and a symbol of the determination of the majority of Canadians, after fair debate and after opposition members have had their opinions heard, that the government be able to proceed through a democratic vote in this house and get on with the people's business.
Speaker after speaker has made reference to the fact that this has been one of the most productive sessions in the history of this parliament. Members of the opposition parties have admitted the government has been successful, and have suggested that we do not need 75c because this has been one of the most productive parliaments we can recall. The only dissenting voice was from a member of the N.D.P. who said that so far as his party was concerned there has not been any legislation good enough to block or oppose. One wonders what their qualitative standards might be.
The rule changes made earlier in the session have strengthened the Commons without doubt, and they have made this institution
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization more meaningful to the Canadian people. The wonder of it all is that previous governments moved so slowly to reform the rules. While our Commonwealth cousins have been initiating changes and reforms in all directions, our parliament has become more and more ineffective in the face of modern challenges. When a committee of this house visited Westminster and conferred with British leaders a while back, the U.K. government house leader, Richard Crossman, told Canadians bluntly that we have been living with 19th century rules of procedure.
Those very spiritual cousins of our friends to the left have been telling us that it has taken time but change has come. Many people resist change because they cannot abide it. They say, halt and stay awhile. Let us adopt a few tentative reforms. Some say we cannot and must not contemplate anything like 75c. Progress has been made during the past months, and there have been some major steps in spite of the failure of previous governments to initiate progressive and regular rule reforms.
What have we accomplished? Despite all their shakedown problems the standing committees have a new status in the house. After years of complaints by members that estimates were given too little time, our standing committees are being entrusted with detailed examination of the estimates, and they have been accorded a new role in the matter of examining public bills. For a government which the opposition alleges is hell-bent on the destruction of the parliamentary system it must mark a new departure from the standard plot of subversion to accord opposition parties so many days wherein they can bring forward policy issues in a series of motions that they can bring forward with notice and have debated.
The report stage of public bills now provides opportunities for members to direct attention to amendments and to stimulate debate in a way that has not been possible in the past. Is this another way of subverting democracy and crushing parliament? For a government which the opposition charges is against democracy, surely it was unwise for it to fulfil a long standing Tory promise to provide research budgets for all opposition parties in order that they might make a more helpful contribution to parliament?
This debate has continued long enough. Conversations should be resumed, and we are hopeful they will lead to the settlement of difficult differences.


An hon. Member:: Don't believe it.


Raymond J. Perrault: There is no doubt whatsoever about the determination of the government to adopt 75c. If there is majority agreement to extend the time limits under 75c, or in respect of other modifications which would make it acceptable, I would not dissent or disagree with such a decision. No one in the house could reasonably dispute the fact that the government, after all other negotiations have failed, in the last extremity has the right to establish the limits of debate with the full and certain knowledge that if, in the mind of the public, the action is unfair it will be turned out of office and given time to contemplate its sins of omission and commission.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to be locked in debate in mid-July in a session of parliament which has had 192 sitting days. It is stranger still when there was supposed to be a clear understanding that we would break off our deliberations and debates on June 27.
The recommendations of the committee on procedure concerning the virtues and values of the semester system-a word which I always thought was rather inappropriate- now seem strangely unreal. While I appreciate the beauties of our nation's capital, I would prefer to be amid them in the weeks after Labour day and prior to Dominion day. This is not only because I come from a part of the country where summer is a glorious season when warmth and winds are alike, kind and gentle, but I think there is something wrong when a parliament cannot so organize itself that its members and its staff are out of here in July and August.
This is wrong, but there is here a greater wrong being perpetrated. That is why we are debating, and that is why I join in this debate. That is why I have no idea how long we may be engaged in this important debate. This must be obvious after the performance of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) last night.
a (12:10 p.m.)
If the performance of the President of the Privy Council on television last night is indicative of the attitudes of hon. members opposite, then I must confess to great anxiety for the future as far as compromise and reasonable conciliation is concerned. His perform-mance, his suggestions and their implications did no service to him or to this parliament. They were a total misrepresentation of what

July 18, 1969
was suggested by some very able and sincere parliamentarians yesterday.
This is a very important debate, but it has become a very painful one as well. Much of the reason for this stems from the fact that the person who should have brought most to this debate and raised its tone, who should have given it fine and noble emphasis, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, was one of the chief of those who cast denigration upon it by suggesting that members battling for the rights of parliament were indulging in a "stupid filibuster".
Denigrating parliament is a serious matter. We as individual politicians are used to being the stereotyped butt end of jokes; that is part of the game. But when the institution of parliament itself is denigrated in the eyes of the public, and the leader of the institution from within joins in that denigration, then the situation is serious. Never in the history of this country have we had a Prime Minister who has led the ranks of those who would belitile this institution.
Sir John A. Macdonald, the father of this country, was a member of parliament at the age of 29 until his death at the age of 76. He loved parliament and sometimes played it like an organ. But he always recognized its importance and value. As Arthur Meighen said of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, parliament was the home of his in'ellect and he liked it. Sir Robert Borden from Nova Scotia, our second last Nova Scotian prime minister, found it a workshop. He worked hard and well. Arthur Meighen electrified and glorified its debates.
A former Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), was one of the great performers in parliamentary institutions. I may say that of all the criticisms that I have heard levelled against the right hon. gentleman, today was the first time I had heard him criticized for not imposing closure and for not limiting the rights of the minority.
Certainly this could have been done in the years after the election of 1958 when the Liberal opposition was decimated. Even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was gone. The opposition consisted of hapless and hopeless remnants. The hon. member for Prince Albert led a triumphant group of 208 members. But never did he or his associates ever suggest that the smart thing to do would be to bring in some device whereby the opposition might be muzzled. I think this is to his eternal credit, not to his detriment.
11349
Procedure and Organization
I, much like my colleague for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness), do not pretend to be an expert on the rules. I leave this subject to those who are. I also agree with him that some of our most lengthy debates are those devoted to discussions about saving the time of parliament.
This debate is more than a discussion of the rules. It is not just a narrow discussion of a law, a regulation or a rule, but of the spirit behind it. This is what we are reflecting upon in this debate. There is more involved than the mere words of rule 75a, 75b and 75c. I think it is the essence of representative government that we are evaluating and appreciating at this time.
We all know, of course, that parliament should be efficient. While precedent and tradition are important to us, we do not necessarily weaken the institution when we change its rules or guidelines. There have been in recent years some real contributions toward achieving greater efficiency and I welcome them heartily. Over the years members have adopted many self-denying ordinances. We limited set debates such as the Throne Speech and budget. Time limits on speeches of individual members have been set. Then we reached the stage where we limited the question period, and I think that was a good step. I welcome these measures, but I think the committee would find it profitable to consider further improvements.
Although there has been a proper limitation of time in the question period, there has been an improper limitation of participation on the part of ministers. Therefore, I think we may have to take a look at the question period in a new perspective.
I also wonder whether consideration might be given to putting into our order paper some concrete and definite guidelines on the question period which would be more practical and contemporary than the provisions of citation 171 of Beauchesne. In fact, I wonder whether, under the existing restraints, we need consider other guidelines than those of relevancy, propriety and brevity to steer us through the question period.
I believe that Standing Order 40 has been a contributor to more meaningful debate in the house. On the other hand, perhaps further consideration should be given to Standing Order 26. Waste of time while waiting for votes has long been a pet beef of mine, and I would welcome improvement in this regard. We need constantly to improve our procedures and to revise our standing orders.

July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization
But the proposed rule 75c is something more than procedural; it is fundamental. The discussion that has been evoked in this debate has indicated clearly that we are not just arguing about form but about substance. Certain people in this house, such as the Prime Minister, have scorned this debate. Some of the press representatives are sadly unaware of what it is all about and spend more time in measuring the length of debate than in appraising what is being debated. This is one of the most serious and fundamental subjects that could be discussed in these torrid July days.
In parliamentary debates and in politics generally, I suppose we do not need much encouragement when it comes to the art of dramatization. Perhaps we are inclined to hyperbole, and certainly understatement is not the most outstanding attribute of the politician. But this debate is not one that needs the art of the dramatist. Exaggeration for emphasis is not necessary. The subject itself is sufficiently serious as to require no adornment, no additional or external calls for urgency.
What we, the people's representatives, are dealing with today could mark a great watershed between a parliament which, with all its imperfections, was and is a meaningful instrument of democratic action and something that is much less valuable, much less significant and much less expressive of the popular will. As I say, we are dealing today not with the routine, but rather with the essence of parliament. We would be less than true to the spirit of parliamentary democracy, that precious but sometimes frail product of centuries of human achievement, if we did otherwise.
We should remind ourselves always that popular democracy is not an easy or a natural human development. It has not flourished universally. Indeed, it has often failed and faltered. Men of wisdom and perception like Abraham Lincoln, and Wilfrid Laurier after him, have warned that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Especially has this been so in reference to political liberty. So, it is well that hon. members are sensing that there is great danger in what is being imposed; there is great danger in this seemingly innocuous rule 75c.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Before coming to this chamber I spent a good many years perusing Hansard and other parliamentary papers. It is my view that, in general, the speeches of hon. members in this

debate have so far been of very high quality. I am not particularly referring to speeches made today. Speeches in this debate have been thoughtful, perceptive and, in the main, they have been utterances of men who realize that what is happening is very serious in the evolution of our parliamentary system. This is not just another debate, not just another argument, not just another confrontation between parties.


An hon. Member:: It is not just a stupid filibuster.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am not one who is given to criticizing the C.B.C. or the media generally-not that silence is to be taken as enthusiastic endorsation. Nevertheless, in this vi al phase of parliamentary deliberations I think the free press has generally failed, and there are important exceptions to this, to realize that without a free parliament there will be scant room or scope for a free press.
I must confess to being an avid C.B.C. listener and I report with sadness, Mr. Speaker, that little has come from the many representatives of the cognoscenti whose views it airs concerning the true inwardness of the situation confronting the House of Commons of Canada today. I believe in this respect-and I do not know whether the weather has had anything to do with it-the press has been less alert to the dangers at hand than was the case with rule 16a last December. I agree with my friend the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), that Frankenstein is still Frankenstein and his monster is still the monster.
There are important exceptions to the general run of press coverage, and my hon. friend, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), mentioned some of them. It is significant that one man who knew at first hand the tyranny of a political system which banished free institutions should be in the forefront of those who see the dangers lurking in this current effort on the part of the government. Lubor Zink, with whom I do not always agree, has from the first syllables uttered in this debate given this issue the emphasis it properly deserves. I congratulate him and salute his perceptiveness. I salute him and others like him who are fully awake to the importance of this debate. I say that they are acting in their own interests, in the interests of the fourth estate, when they direct attention to the importance of what is going on.
Some time before we had a parliament in Canada there was another newspaperman
July 18. 1969

Procedure and Organization executive, not to the majority, but to parliament itself.
My leader said the other day, and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was of the same opinion, that there are indications that people in high places believe or are persuaded that we should be governed in this country by a presidential system of government. My friend from Lambton-Kent (Mr. MeCutch-eon) mentioned it again yesterday.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
When we used to study the presidential versus the parliamentary system in our political science classes, we made many analyses and comparisons. It was a favourite question of the examiner. There is much virtue in the Congressional system as it is known south of the border, but the presidential system which the government has in mind is not the healthy, vigorous system of the United States. You would have to go farther south than that to find the Congressional system which is in the minds of some people today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or to de Gaulle.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Perhaps if it is not found in Latin America, it will be found in certain couniries in Europe whose parliaments may be an instrument of adornment, but they are not instruments which function. No self-respecting United States congressman or senator would tolerate for one moment the pusillanimous role given to committees by this parliament. I refer to what is an actuality, and that is bad enough, not what may be envisaged by those who would do away with this nuisance and diminish the stupid filibustering and the bother of the people's representatives expressing themselves on the people's business in the people's chamber.
An essential ingredient in the successful working of the parliamentary process is compromise and common sense. You can see this in 75a and 75b. There is something in 75b which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would probably describe as stupid. It was an omission. I would say in a more gentle piece of phraseology that it seems a bit strange. Proposed rules 75a and 75b could be made suitable repositories for compromise and common sense.
Any debate which produces quotes from Edmund Bruke cannot help but be a good debate. Edmund Burke said:
All government,-indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act- is founded on comprise and barter.

The system cannot work of course unless on the vital issues there is an attitude of accommodation, a desire for consensus and a reasonable approach to compromise in the institution itself.
Rule 75c represents and reflects something entirely different. Not there do you find the wisdom of compromise and the value of consensus, but the impatience of the autocrat, the power madness of the arrogant and the brittle abrasiveness of the technocrat. That is what 75c reflects. What saddens me most is the chance we had when this new parliament came into being. We could have had reasoned and reasonable reform far beyond that which we attained in some of the items which we passed last December. Where would one find a more moderate man than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)? Where would we find a man more reasonable and patient? Of course some people believe because he is consultative, he is indecisive, because he is reasonable he is weak. These people are now finding out these are misconceptions.
Where could we find a more understanding man than the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)? Who is less given to fractious activity than that man? Who could we have chosen to typify goodwill more than that man for our house leader? And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? I sometimes call him venerable. He has been here a long time, he has said a great many things, but I have never heard him say a mean or little thing about any member of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Inside or outside the house.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As his leader says, inside or outside this house. There were opportunities for goodwill. How much better it would have been had compromise been the vehicle instead of the bulldozer. Bulldozers wreck and destroy, and sometimes the surface is never the same as it was before.
The lessons of last December have not been learned. Once again parliament is hungup in an angry debate. What is the reason? One of the perspective political writers in our country today is Mr. Dalton Camp. I read from one of his columns:
The trouble with the Trudeau administration which the New Yorker did not report, is that it is overlayed with arrogance and it is hell-bent to impose its authority upon the Canadian Parliament to a vastly greater extent than any previous government, which is saying a good deal. Mr. July 18. 1989	COMMONS
Trudeau's demand for further rules changes represents another invasion of the shrunken ground of authority and self-respect still held by the members of the Commons, after years of steady attrition.
If imposed, the rules will ensure not only that less will be heard from the opposition but a good deal less from government backbenchers as well. What are they to do with their time?
Given the Prime Minister's distemper the other day, few Liberal members are likely to expose themselves to his charge that all who oppose him are "stupid" or "hypercritical."
And Mr. Macdonald, the Prime Minister's jack-of-all-troubles, has told them, at a recent caucus, not to forget the fact that they are in parliament because they were borne there on the coat-tails of their leader. But the life of a parliamentary acolyte must be hard! It is only too bad that some of them will not say publicly, about now, what they are saying privately.
I do not like to enter into harsh, unkind debate. In my political career I have never developed an instinct to go for the jugular. I do not care where a man's jugular is because I have not the intention of going after it. However, there are certain things one must note and, noting, must react to. I have been wondering in this interesting poltical phase if there is some elixir of arrogance which is quaffed by members of the present cabinet before or after their meetings. Dicey used to talk about the "endless audacity of elected men" and I think of the presumptuous arrogance of some of those who are ministers of the Crown today.
Is there some cloak of condescension which must be worn by the sacred group who sit at the great table? Even the Postmaster Genral (Mr. Kierans), whose administrative actions when they are not failures are fiascos, even he can be arrogant. Do some members miss this arrogance because they are not exposed to the centre of things? Is this why the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) is always such a reasonable, gentlemanly man? Is this why the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) do not possess these attributes, because they are farther away from the new era and the new type of politics? Because I mentioned those two I do not want to suggest I have exhausted the list.
I do not enjoy this sort of debate but I cannot in all conscience find any good or worthy reasons for what is being attempted in 75c.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The convictions I had were made more grim last night as I watched the President of
Procedure and Organization the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) try to convey to the Canadian people what is going on in this house. I think his performance was shameful-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -and the reason we are not in agreement today. I do not know why such a man was chosen for such an important position as house leader. Where was the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith); where was the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen)? Why could one of these men not have been designated? Not only do they have a knowledge of the rules of the house but also they have the kind of parliamentary maturity which is necessary in dealing with hon. members and which perhaps would have ensured to them success. I suggest with all respect that the designation of the President of the Privy Council for the delicate role of negotiation in a matter of such importance is just about as wise as would be the nomination of Genghis Khan as Moderator of the Presbyterian Church.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And with the same result.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope I did not hear
someone across the way cast aspersions on the Presbyterian Church. Say what you like about me but mind yourself when talking about the Presbyterian Church because I might have to forego my usual role of humble gentility if this should come about. Like my fellow Presbyterian, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-you are calling for my confession here-I am angry, I am disturbed, I am anxious and worried about what is happening. But also like the hon. member for Broadview I think perhaps the heaviest emotion I have at the moment is one of sadness.
I say why is this necessary? Why must this vital national institution be so torn and traumatized as it is at the present time? Why do we have these recurring efforts to block free expression of opinion in this chamber? In a day and age when many established institutions are under severe stress and strain why are we not all uniting to buttress and strengthen this one instead of having to fight within ourselves against efforts which would debilitate it?
There are too many things today being assailed by unreasonable anarchists. Surely we should preserve this institution. I should like to say in passing that I do not commend
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization those who showed some lack of manners in dealing with the Prime Minister in the west, but I would say that part of the trouble is that in this house the sound suggestions which have come from this side of the house to deal with western problems have been repudiated. I would say also that he should show a greater respect for organized, reasonable and proper debate in this chamber and not thereby encourage that kind of thing outside.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: All around us we see ill
organized, ill directed patterns of dissent and hear on every hand the raucous cry of those who would destroy and not build. Why do we not unite to preserve, to sustain and to strengthen this essential forum of national opinion, this indispensable organ of the people's will? That is what it is. It is not, I hope, too late for these people across the way to reconsider. This is my plea to the government: desist before it is too late; reflect, consult, and abandon rigidity in favour of reason. Let us preserve the essence of the parliamentary system to which at our best we are all or should be dedicated, every one of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions it has been my privilege to have listened with pleasure to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). I cannot recall an occasion in the past when he has been more eloquent, more sincere, and has expressed more adequately his concern for this great institution. I therefore would wish my first words to be ones of congratulation to the hon. member for Hillsborough, and indeed to all hon. members who have participated in this debate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to observe the special nature and condition of this debate. Surely it is obvious that never have so much effort and thought been put forward by a united opposition as in this debate. I have observed that members who in the past have normally spoken from very rough notes, as is the practice in this house, have engaged in a great deal of preparation and thought about what is involved in rule 75c. They have come here well prepared to express their great concern over the effect 75c will have on this institution.
I wish to observe also that in my recollection this is one of the few occasions when not a single member of the opposition has risen to 
support a government measure. This is unusual. As I look back on most of the debates in this house I can recall that seldom has the government brought in a proposal when there has not been a willingness on the part of one of the opposition parties, or of some members in the opposition, to support the measure. A member of parliament does not like to break with his party. Yet there are occasions when a member feels compelled to do so. You will not find this situation in this particular debate, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to recall previous occasions. Let me speak about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who, at great risk to his own position in his party, and to his eternal credit, had the courage to stand up and support the government measure in respect of the language bill, even though he wanted some changes made in it. Here was a new leader of a party who had the courage to say to those in his party who did not agree with him, "This is necessary." This is a tribute to his leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: I can also recall a previous occasion when the former leader of that same party, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), stood up in this house, with most members of his party opposed to him, arguing for everything he was worth for the abolition of capital punishment. To me it was a memorable occasion and one I shall never forget. Again it is a tribute to the character of the people who are members of parliament that on matters of principle which concern them they are not afraid to dissent from their party's position. I believe there is hardly a member in the opposition who, at some time or other, has not felt compelled because of reason, conscience or principle, to differ with his own party and take exception to some issue. But not on 75c. [DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
If it is not obvious to those on the other side of the house, let me spell it out: We in the opposition are prepared to stay here as long as we can, and as long as it is possible to continue this debate. We shall do this to indicate our defiance of a measure which we believe will have a profound effect upon future freedoms of the house.
Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose and in a graceful gesture offered the olive branch to the government. He offered them a chance to get out of the terrible position in which they have put themselves. The government could
July 18, 1969

have got out of this position with dignity and grace. What happened? I have never heard a more arrogant speech than that made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: Even if we forget that this kind of response was designed to heat up tempers in the House of Commons rather than cool them, it was a disrespectful act for a member of parliament to make toward another who was offering him an opportunity to move forward with the business of the house. One could have forgiven the house leader had he said he was caught by surprise and this was the reason for responding as he did. He could have been forgiven had he said he had not prepared an answer. But he left the chamber and deliberately repeated this piece of arrogance to the entire nation. Surely there is no forgiveness for that kind of discourtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: He does not know any better.


Max Saltsman: The members of the government and those of the opposition are in this sense very much alone in this debate: men are on their way to the moon and public attention is focussed on that historical event. Many people outside the chamber cannot understand-and the press certainly has not helped them understand-the vital issues involved in this debate. They wonder frankly and honestly what all this is about. They ask: What are these two groups doing to each other? The public has not really made up its mind who is right and who is wrong in this regard.
It may take a while for people to make up their minds on this issue. Important as this debate may be, it will not strengthen people's confidence in the parliament of Canada. If we were debating the interest rate, if our debate built one more house in Canada, created one more job-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Sold some wheat.


Max Saltsman: -helped one farmer, or sold some wheat, people would understand. It is difficult for people to understand this issue when grown men, the elected representatives on one side take one position and the elected representatives on the other side take another. We recognized this yesterday when we said to
Procedure and Organization the government: Let us sit down and talk about it. But we were rebuffed in a rude, crude, crass manner.
It is interesting to note that the whips are very happy these days. Normally the whips have a great deal of difficulty finding enough members to take part in a debate. There is difficulty because members have other com-mi.ments, they are in committees, have speeches to make and constituency work to do. Now the difficulty is that the whips have to placate all those who wish to speak on this subject; they have to find spots for those who are determined their voices shall be heard in the debate on an issue so vital to their future and the future of this institution.
It should have been recognized from the beginning, when the committee chairman brought in the report, that we were heading toward this difficult situation, particularly wilh a stubborn government on our hands. I cannot recall a committee report that did not have the endorsation of at least some members of the opposition. In this case it was not a committee report at all; it was a government report. There was no agreement on the committee. The flag debate was the most contentious issue that I can recall, but even in that case some opposition members endorsed the committee report which was put before the house. That is not the situation here. It has been obvious from the beginning of this debate that as much as we in the opposition have been prepared to give, the government has been prepared to give absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: From the beginning the government has displayed a de ermination to have its own way. There has been no spirit of consultation, no spirit of compromise. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "We are masters of this house", the whole body politic was adversely affected. I like to recall the President of the Privy Council as he was before assuming his exalted position. We sat on committees together. I remember him as a reasonable, intelligent man who in those days understood the various positions being adopted. I like to think that when we have statements emanating from the President of the Privy Council he still has some reservations about them. I suspect that although it may be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Tax Reform AFTER RECESS

July 18. 1969
The house resumed at 2 p.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose of dealing with the proposed order with respect to the tax reform committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there agreement to reverting to motions?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.
The house having reverted to the order for motions:


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned there have been discussions regarding the best procedure for dealing with the order of the house with respect to the establishment and terms of reference of the committee on tax reform. If the house is agreeable to the special order which I am now going to suggest, I suggest that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray) will propose a motion and make a statement.
But before doing so I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to the following terms which, I think, will be found generally agreeable: First, that the notice of motion required of my colleague be waived under the circumstances; second, that there should be one speaker representing each group, who would have the opportunity to speak on the matter; and third, that there be no amendments but that the question be put after each of these representatives has been heard. As I said, if there is general agreement perhaps that could be made a special order of the house.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is agreed, Mr. Speaker, but may I make the point that it is the result of consultation.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).!


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Before beginning to move the motion may I ask for the indulgence of the house with reference to a related matter of order. Ordinarily, once I have moved the motion and made any remarks connected with it I would not be able to speak again. I was wondering if it might meet the satisfaction of the house if I begin by simply moving the motion and reserving any remarks on it until other hon. members have spoken, thus enabling me to answer questions or give explanations arising out of the remarks of the spokesmen for the other parties. I am making this suggestion in order to be helpful.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: May I speak on the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary. The hon. gentleman opposite would not expect me to make a comment on such an important subject without knowing the government's intentions. If there are questions to be answered surely the house would find it appropriate to have the parliamentary secretary make his remarks on the motion now and deal with the questions later.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen):
That the House of Commons do unite with the Senate in the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, to be known as the special Joint Parliamentary Committee on Tax Reform, to consider the government's proposals for tax reform, with powers to report from time to time its opinions and observations thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the house; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;
That Standing Order 65(5) be suspended in relation to this special joint committee;
That 20 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the house as members of the said committee, 11 of whom shall be required for a quorum;
That the presence of a quorum shall be required whenever a vote resolution or other decision is to be taken by the committee, provided that the committee by resolution may authorize the chairman to hold meetings to receive and authorize the printing of evidence when a quorum is not present;
That any member of either house who is not a member of the committee may, unless the committee otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor shall such a member be part of any quorum; and
That the committee be authorized to retain expert, technical and secretarial assistance;
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that house accordingly.
July 18, 1969


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I believe may be helpful. In following the text read by the parliamentary secretary it has occurred to me that perhaps there is an inadvertent omission in the first paragraph which reads that the committee may sit during the sittings and adjournments of this house. This implies that it could not carry on following the period of prorogation. This being a special joint committee I do not believe it will be appointed only for the life of parliament, as is the case with the standing and joint committees of the house. There might be a procedural difficulty there in that the committee may do a considerable amount of work before the prorogation of the present session, whenever that may occur, which would be lost following the prorogation of the session and would have to be repeated in the next session. Perhaps this might be cured by the addition of the words "during the sittings and adjournments of the house and periods of prorogation".


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. I think he has a valid point. I think that what we should want to do is not only to enable the committee to sit during any period when there may be a hiatus following the prorogation of one session and the beginning of another but also to enable it to be in the same situation as are the standing committees which carry on during the life of parliament. Perhaps in the course of our remarks on this I may, with the assistance of the table, draft appropriate wording and, with the unanimous consent of the house, add that wording to the motion because, as I said, I think my hon. friend has in fact made a most useful and valuable contribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, if the wording is changed, their Honours in the other place will be called back to change their part of the motion?


Harold Edward Winch: If I am wrong, I apologize, but my understanding of what we have just heard is that this committee will be able to sit during the summer recess, if we ever have one. I understand that the other house has adjourned until October 14.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am informed that the motion for adjournment of the other place is such that it can be called back on a 24 hour notice, and I have been informed that it would be
Tax Reform
possible for this to be done, if it were necessary, to ensure that this particular motion be in the form most conducive to carrying out the aims sought for it. I think that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has also raised a good point, that is that the change which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) mentioned may in fact require the concurrence of the other place to modify their own motion. As far as I am concerned I would have no hesitation in asking, through the proper channels, that the Senate be asked to come back to carry on such work as may be necessary for this purpose.
e (2:10 p.m.)
While some thought is being given to the proper wording which will enable the committee to carry on beyond any prorogation of this present session, perhaps I can say that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) attempted several weeks ago to obtain leave of the house to move the motion to set up a special joint committee of the house and the other place to deal with matters of tax reform. When unanimous consent was not obtained there occurred a period of consultation not only with spokesmen of the opposition parties but also with members on this side of the house. This resulted in the form of the motion being changed substantially, such that it now reads in the way I have just stated.
If I am not misinformed, and I do not think I am, it is fair to say that the provisions of the motion, at least with respect to the participation of members of the House of Commons, reflects the consultations that have taken place with members on both sides of the house. Let me review these provisions briefly.
I think the most significant is the one calling for the appointment or designation of 20 members of this house to make up the House of Commons component, if I may call it that, of the special joint committee. You will recall that the original motion called for the appointment of only 12 members.
Having 20 members from the House of Commons on this special joint committee will, of course, mean a widening of the opportunity for participation of members of this house in the discussions on this important matter. The practical effect will be that members of the finance committee of this house will be in a position to act on behalf of their respective parties on this joint committee. Also this will
11358

July 18, 1969
Tax Reform
make it possible for members of the committee, if they wish, to ask the present chairman of the finance committee to act as the House of Commons chairman of the joint committee.
I believe it is the intention of various groups in the house to give their members on our finance committee the opportunity to serve on this joint committee on tax reforms. The provisions of this motion about the use of quorums are in effect identical with the wording of our standing orders on the use of quorums by standing committees. The motion is designed to ensure that the special joint committee will follow the same provisions on this as are presently followed by our standing committees.
The next paragraph deals with the right of someone who is not a member of the committee to participate in its public proceedings. This again is taken from our standing orders and is designed to give members of either house, who want to do so but who are not members of the committee, the same opportunity that is given in our standing orders with respect to participation in the work of standing committees.
There is also a provision in the motion which will authorize the committee to retain expert, technical and secretarial assistance. I think the need for this is self-evident. By putting this provision in this particular motion we will make it unnecessary for the committee to come back to this house at a later date to ask for this authority.
To conclude, let me say that this motion asks this house to unite with the other place to create a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to be known as the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on Tax Reform. The wording dealing with the participation of members of the house has been modified from the wording of the motion originally presented several weeks ago. This is the result of consultation with members on all sides of this house. The creation of a joint committee of the house and the other place I think it can be argued, will bring about a measure of convenience for the public. All those who are interested in presenting briefs on the government's initial proposals on tax reform will not have to do so twice-once in the house and again in the Senate. They will make only one appearance before this joint committee.
I certainly commend to the favourable consideration of the house, this motion to set up this joint committee. By accepting this motion we will be empowering it to sit although the

house itself may not be sitting until some time in the fall. If that should turn out to be the case at least some necessary preparatory work could be carried out thereby enabling us to begin, all the more quickly, the study we all agree should be given to the forthcoming proposals of the government on tax reform.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray) for his explanation of the motion before the house. In respect of the point of order I raised I should like to say there is another point I might have raised in relation to the events and circumstances surrounding a potential white paper on this subject.
It is quite conceivable that this house will be prorogued and reassembled before the white paper is presented. Any question of the committee considering the white paper after it has been considered in the house in proper order is merely academic at this time.
This matter of tax reform has been with us now for seven years. If my memory serves me correctly a commission was appointed in 1962, the report of which was tabled by today's Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), on February 24, 1967. Like a knight in shining white armor he proudly, and with a degree of what he felt was self-satisfaction, promised us a white paper for January, 1968-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He was held up by parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -not withstanding that fact a number of members, particularly those to my left, thought the minister should be prepared to implement some of these provisions by June of 1967. We have now reached July of 1969 and there is no sign of this white paper. All we had this morning was an indication that this famous white paper was being written.
There are original drafts and original drafts. The paper may be written but I do not know through what maze of government our committees may have to circumnavigate, or attempt to wiggle through, before the government will dare let us and the public proceed to examine its ideas, not only on tax reform but on other measures. This is the thing I find extraordinary. There was never any indication in 1967 about the presentation of this limited report.
I do not know how many times the then minister of finance said the white paper on tax reform was being prepared. On many
July 18, 1969



occasions he said it would be presented before too long. This apparently was a delightful and classical expression from the never never land.
Hon. members will remember that last year the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) completely disavowed any intention of presenting a white paper. He said there would not be a white paper but there would be legislation. I suppose someone got to the Minister of Finance and put a little sense in his head about this subject. Last spring, in March or April, we saw a shift, and we all observed the shift which was made in respect of the white paper. We are now going to get it, but it was supposed to be presented in April, then June, and then July. We are now on the eve of August.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I do not know when the house will reconvene, if it ever adjourns, and then prorogue. Let me take, for example, a target date of October 1. I am willing to wager one of our Canadian quarters against its equivalent in the United Kingdom that it will be much closer to October 1 than to any earlier date before we see this white paper.
The Minister of Finance has told us that it will deal only with income and corporation taxes. The Carter report is the report of a royal commission on taxation. Does the minister mean by this statement that we will be presented with a white paper on income and corporation taxes, which will then be followed by legislation; that we will then be presented with a white paper on sales and excise taxes and customs duties and that we will then be presented with a further white paper on estate and succession duty taxes? In other words, is the matter to be proceeded with on a piecemeal basis?
If that is the case, this house is going to be asked to reform our taxation system slice by slice, not knowing what each successive slice is likely to involve. With what has been deemed by many to be a taxation system that has gotten out of joint, there is the very grave danger that we will be asked to assume some other taxation system that may be even more out of joint. Consequently I am not at all happy with the approach that is being adopted by the government.
I think we have already been given a clear indication of what is going to happen in the budget presented on October 22, 1968, in which there was quite a shift of government policy in regard to estate and gift taxes, a 29180-718J
Tax Reform
shift that bore the influence of the Carter royal commission. I suppose the minister will ultimately tell us that the government have accepted the Carter proposals with regard to state and gift taxes. We are now going to be asked to accept what the government think about income and corporation taxes; and five years from now we will likely complete our study of the whole of the Carter commission report.
I should like to refer to some of the things the Carter commission dealt with under the heading of tax reform. I ask the house to note that they dealt not with income tax reform but with tax reform. I have in my hand a summary in the Canadian Tax Journal, published by the Canadian Tax Foundation in April 1967 of various sections of the Carter report. Among other things the Carter Commission studied the use of the tax system to achieve economic and social objectives. In other words they asked what the purpose of a tax system was. I should like to know whether we are going to be able to study this subject when we are dealing merely with income tax reform. I do not think we will, yet the question is most important.
The second item was taxation of individuals. I suppose we will be able to talk about this when we consider income tax.
The next heading related to taxation of income flowing through intermediaries. Possibly that too can be considered under the heading of income tax.
Then they dealt with determination of business income. That relates to corporation tax.
Then there is a matter I have not seen previous reference to, but it is dealt with under the simple heading of "international".
The next heading relates to sales and excise taxes and duties; and the last heading, is general tax administration.
These matters are so inextricably linked together that I find it rather difficult to see why the government should have adopted the procedure it has. I think we are entitled to know whether it is the government's intention to continue to proceed with tax reform, shall I say, slice by slice.
The report of the royal commission was, basically, a package deal; its recommendations are closely interlinked. Changes in income tax are to be compensated for by changes in estate and gift taxes. Changes in the corporate tax structure are to be compensated for by changes in the taxation of individuals. Certainly on the allocation of tax revenues as between the federal government

July 18. 1969
Tax Reform
and the provincial governments questions arise as to how you handle, for example, sales tax. Do you abolish it, or do you collect it at the provincial level and refund part to the federal government? Such matters involve the question of tax reform. I hope we will be given a much clearer indication of what the government proposes to do in regard to the whole subject of tax reform.
One further point I should like to make before I resume my seat relates to the degree of consultation-and I mean active consultation, not merely information that is given to the provinces-that should be undertaken in regard to the question of income tax and corporation tax. The province of Ontario commissioned a study which culminated in an excellent report being presented, entitled the Smith report. Similarly the province of Quebec commissioned a very excellent study of its taxation system, the Belanger report if my memory serves me aright.
As a result of our federal constitution and the separate jurisdictions that exist in Canada today, we are overtaxed. Our taxation system is complex. It has some grave inequities and inconsistencies created by the intermeshing of our provincial and federal taxation systems. If the government of Canada, having considered our taxation system, has not taken into account the legitimate interests of the provinces as expressed in these two leading tax studies-I am sure that most of the other provinces will follow closely the general principles outlined in these two tax studies-then we are merely going to be asked to exchange one form of irritant for another. As we all know, there is an old Biblical story about the woman who swept her house clean of devils, only to find that other devils ten times worse came in to take possession.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that without appropriate study of the three reports dealing with income and corporation taxes we will lead ourselves into an unholy mess. According to the 1967-68 figures, in excess of 34 per cent of the gross national product is taken up by the public sector. A great proportion of the gross national product is going to be affected by an unwieldly, an uncoordinated, and frankly a wasteful tax system.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I am quite pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are to have the committee that has been constituted. On it will be 20 members from the house, and undoubtedly they will include representative members from the Standing IMr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and ten members from the other place who, I am sure, will be fully qualified to deal with the subject. After all, Mr. Speaker, the other place is as much part of the parliament of Canada as this place is, and we welcome its joint participation.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I take the strongest exception to the establishment of this joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. I see no reason at all to include members of the other place on this committee, and there are some very compelling reasons for not including them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: The committee is to deal with tax reform, something that will affect all citizens of this country. I submit that any committee dealing with such a sensitive matter ought to be above suspicion and ought not to have on it members whose interests may conflict with that of the people. In short, there should be no conflicts of interest. I fail to see how conflicts of interest can be avoided if some of the members proposed for this committee from the other place are appointed to it.
The subheading of the July 12 article by Robert McKeown in Weekend Magazine is, "Senators Should Be Above Suspicion-But They're Not". In part Mr. McKeown said this in the editorial:
A reporter put this question to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau:
Is this a matter of concern to you-that many senators become directors of companies after they enter the Senate?'
Trudeau: 'Do they? Is that a fact?'
A fact? The Senate collectively holds hundreds of directorships and other business retainers. Once they become senators, men not previously noted for their business acumen find themselves being ushered into the top board rooms of the nation.
Before this measure had even been introduced to the Commons and before this house had deliberated the matter, the other place had appointed ten men to study tax reform. Even from the very incomplete list of senators with corporate appointments that I have been able to obtain, it is very obvious that most senators to be appointed to that committee will be faced with conflicts of interest. I am not imputing motives or intentions to the people of the other place; I do not say that they have become deliberately involved in this situation. I am merely saying that it is
July 18, 1969

too much to ask human beings to be completely impartial in situations like these. Considering their responsibilities in other areas, some of these senators will have difficult choices to make.
May I list some of the corporate appointments of some of the senators, Mr. Speaker. Senator Beaubien holds appointments to Canadair Limited, Empire Life Insurance Company-and we in the other place legislate with respect to life insurance companies- Holt Renfrew & Company Limited, Marshall Steel Company Limited, Beaubien Corporation, Belding-Corticelli Limited, Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, Dominion Structural Steel, London & Yorkshire Canada Limited, and M.G.F. Management Limited.
Senator Cook holds directorships or appointments in the following companies: Cook, Bartlett, Chalker, Marshall & Thons, United Towns Electric; Dominion Buck Company; William Nosworthy Limited; Maritime Life Assurance Company; Newfoundland Fluorspar Limited; Great Eastern Oil Company-and it is significant to note that the Carter report has launched a major attack against the oil industry's depletion allowances. And this senator is a director of one of the oil companies of Canada. His other directorships are with Bank of Montreal, Colonial Cordage, and and United North American Holdings Limited.
Senator Everett is the president of Royal Canadian Securities Limited, and his other appointment is with Dominion Motors. Senator Gelinas has appointments with The Mercantile Bank of Canada; Distillers Corporation (Canada) Limited; Canadian International Paper Company; Canadian Cement Company; John Labatt Limited; Canada Permanent Trust Company; Foster Wheeler Limited; Manicouagan Power Company; Sicard Incorporated; Global Life Insurance Company; National Drug & Chemical Company of Canada Limited; EMCO Limited; Hilton of Canada; Robert Mitchell Company Limited and North American Holdings Limited.
Senator Grosart is not shown, so far as I am aware, as holding any directorships. I think he ought to remain on the committee.
Senator Hayden holds appointments to the following enterprises: The Bank of Nova Scotia; Union Carbide Canada Limited; Rio Algom Mines Limited; Atlantic Sugar Refineries Company Limited; Acadia-Atlantic Sugar Company Limited; United Steel Corporation Limited; Parker Pen Company; Allied Towers Merchants; Scotts Restaurants; Capital Wire Cloth Limited, and Electric
Tax Reform
Furnace Products. He holds ten other appointments as well.
Senator Laird has directorships with Western Ontario Broadcasting Corporation Limited, International Wire and Cable Limited, and Liquid Glaze of Canada Limited.
Senator J. D'Arcy Leonard holds directorships with Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation; Toronto and London Investment Company Limited; Canadian Industries Limited; Canada Permanent Trust; Consumers Gas and Triarch Corporation Limited.
Senator Thorvaldson holds directorships with Western Gypsum Products Limited; Wesco Paints Limited; Weshoe Industries; International Savings and Mortgage Corporation; Marshall Wells of Canada; International Laboratories Limited; Anthes Imperial Company; C.A.E. Industries Limited; Canadian Premier Life Insurance Co.; Canada Security Trust Company.
I regret having to list these directorships and would have avoided doing so if the matter had been of less serious import. If the work of the committee is to meet with success it is important that the members of the committee in all ways be above suspicion. There is no room for divided loyalties. If the government persists with its intention to appoint members to the committee with divided loyalties it will be quite obvious that this government's child will come into the world stillborn. It will be clear that the government is not really interested in tax reform and that the setting up of this committee is merely another delaying tactic. It will be clear the government will do little about the recommendations made some years ago by the Carter Commission.
The concluding words of Robert McKeown's article are:
Sorry, senators, but that's the way It must be If you are to avoid suspicion of conflict of interests
No directorships, no retainers, no legal fees.. Nothing.
Unless the government can assure us, and unless the Senate can join in giving that assurance, that those appointed from the other place to the committee will be above suspicion, the birth of the committee will be shrouded in suspicion.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we are for the setting up of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the

July 18. 1969
Tax Reform
House of Commons in order to consider the financial structure of the government.
However, I agree with the hon. member of the New Democratic party who believes that since many senators belong to such or such a company, that could have strong bearing on the matter because some decisions could favour high finance.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are for tax reform, but it is the whole structure from top to bottom, as it were, that should be examined. There are in the field of taxation gross injustices which could be labelled as antisocial.
Basic exemptions are not high enough and in relation with the increased cost of living, low income groups pay too much in taxes.
In our economy, several companies are not taxed as they should be. There are many kinds of reserves that big institutions may keep. They withdraw from those reserves, and they are legally allowed to do so. The law guarantees those rights they enjoy. There are many kinds of reserves which should be taxable in part, because they are much too big.
Some citizens pay too much in taxes. As for those who enjoy extraordinary benefits that are granted to them by the house or joint committees such as the one whose establishment is now being considered-in order to give all possible opportunities to large institutions which already enjoy great privileges- they should pay more taxes.
If we have to pay interest on money for high finance by overtaxing, it should be done equitably and all taxpayers should be on the same footing. The same income tax return should apply to everybody. That would only be fair, Mr. Speaker.
If that committee intends to study the problem in that light, we are for its establishment. We do not object to sitting between sessions; we are ready to devote the necessary time to study that serious matter of taxation. Moreover, we should consider the other existing problems. It is well to tax citizens but they should be able to receive some income.
A great many people do not earn enough to live on. We must look into this problem in an attempt to find some solutions so that everybody may get an adequate income, because it would be pointless to set up further taxes only to pay interest to financiers. Let us bring down interest rates, let us cut taxes, so that the taxpayers may breath a little, may live.
Mr. Speaker, if the Carter report which cost $3.5 million is not to be studied by that

committee, we will object to its being established.
However, if that committee is set up to study the report and implement all its recommendations, we are favourable, that is that we will not only promote the setting up of the committee but will also be prepared to sit on it.
We expect only one thing: some improvement in our tax system and a little more justice for the taxpayers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A point of order was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I thought it was a useful point and on moving the motion I undertook to check it with the officers at the table. I believe I should deal with this now because once Your Honour hears it stated, I think Your Honour will agree it should be disposed of now.
The hon. member for Edmon on West pointed out that while the motion would authorize the committee to sit during sittings and the adjournment of the house, it did not deal with the question as to what it could do in any hiatus between the prorogation of a session and the beginning of a new session, and also with respect to the effects of prorogation on the existence of the committee itself.
I am advised that it is correct that the Standing Orders of the house do provide that the membership of the standing committees and the joint committees mentioned therein would be continued from session to session in a parliament. I am referring to Standing Order 65(4)(a), but that in any case any order of reference to such committee will expire on prorogation. In so far as a motion to set up a special joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate contains wi.hin it an order of reference, which I think in effect is the case here, this aspect of the motion at least would of necessity expire on prorogation.
I wish to suggest to the house that at the very least we can deal with the matter of continuing the membership of the joint committee by adding to the mo ion the wording on this point which is found in Standing Order 65(4)(a). We could add the wording that the membership of this joint committee "shall continue from session to session wi.hin a parliament." This is exactly the same wording-
July 18, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon, member for the argument he has submitted to the house. I suspect what he is now proposing to do to the motion is a nullity. My view of Ihe matter is that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is in.eresting, but it is only theoretical at this moment.
The Chair does not rule by anticipation. It may be that the work of the committee will be terminated before the work of the current session. There is no indication how long the current session is going to last, either now or next year. Certainly the Chair cannot be asked to decide now what would happen if this committee did not terminate its work before the end of the current session, whenever that comes.
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member is not too' helpful, although I do not think I should even rule on this. It is his mo ion and it is up to him to make the amendment if he wants the motion amended. If the hon. parliamentary secretary wishes to amend the motion in the way he suggests, it is up to him to do it, but I am rather suspicious he may not achieve the aim he thinks he will by making that motion.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Gray) agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, before one o'clock I had pointed out to the house the united stand of the opposition on this particular measure. I pointed out at that time that there must be a reason when an opposition unites. When people who have
Procedure and Organization actual differences with each other decide to take a common stand against a certain measure, which I might point out is most unusual in this house, there has to be a very obvious reason. It is because we all believe it to be wrong.
We believe the government is being incredibly stubborn and arrogant. For a long time there was a minority government. We thought perhaps the leopard would change its spots somewhat, but it is still the same old leopard.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Liberals have a majority now and are determined to have everything their own way. They are requesting powers they do not need. The main point I should like to make in my intervention today is that the government do not need 75c. In addition I believe that 75c will come to haunt the government. They will find that by using 75c, although they may think they are protecting themselves, in the long run it will spotlight their own inadequacies, and remove them from a dialogue with this house and with the people of this country. With a dictatorial rule of that type there may be no need for them to understand. I am suggesting that in the long run it will be the government which will be hurt more than the opposition itself by 75c. Parliament will survive but the government will not.
There can be no question that we in the opposition have given a great deal. The opposition has given the government almost everything it has wanted. For a long time now our party has been asking for reform of parliament. We have made our position fairly clear. In many cases we have prodded the government into action. We are glad to see the rules which have been adopted. I know that many members of the Official Opposition have overcome their reluctance to grant the government certain powers. Private members with some reluctance have given up the power they had to push the government in order to get some of the necessary things for their ridings. They gave this up in the interest of making parliament more effective.
We have pointed out that we are prepared to accept 75a and 75b. Why then is 75c necessary? Surely it must be obvious that if we have 75c, 75a and 75b are a mockery. Who will negotiate and what kind of meaningful negotiations can take place when there is a gun held to one's head? This is all 75c is.
I would not think, particularly with the type of attitude displayed by the present
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization house leader, any meaningful negotiations would ever take place, and instead of 75c would be used all along. I remember occasions in this house when governments have taken a very strong position saying that the opposition was not letting legislation go through. Then suddenly the opposition said, "You know, we would not want to be put in this position; let the legislation go through". Then what happened? The government did not have any legislation prepared to bring before the house. The opposition has often been placed in the position of having to call upon the government to bring in legislation.
There have been many instances when legislation has not been ready to be brought before the house, legislation with which the opposition wanted to deal. We in the opposition have said that there are certain problems in this country which must be dealt with, but where is the legislation? It is not here. Instead the government has decided to inflict its stubbornness upon the house.
There would seem to be a special psychology to this parliament which has been sensed by most members who have been here for some time. That psychology depends upon members' reactions to government legislation. When a government brings in a good piece of legislation, or the kind of legislation people want, and which can command the respect of the country, the opposition does not oppose it because the opposition is responsible to the electorate.
Hon. members of the opposition know which legislation must go through, which legislation is important and which legislation should not be opposed. They oppose it in those areas which need to be examined. But the opposition is not foolish. The opposition knows something about what the people of this country need and want, and would not hold up legislation that has significant meaning to the people of the country.
Then there is the matter of the filibustering about which the government speaks so much. One would think the house is continuously occupied in a filibuster and that all we are doing here is filibustering. When we look at the record we find that we have passed an enormous amount of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: Even when we had a minority government legislation was passed. When the government sat for years without a majority it was able to get its significant legislation through the house. It went through 
because it was good legislation which the people wanted. I can recall a minister of the government virtually asking the opposition to defeat the government. The opposition did not do so because it knew the legislation that was being brought in was good and desirable legislation. The government knew that no responsible opposition would defeat the government when it was bringing in good legislation. The only time a government has to fear an opposition is when its legislation is bad.
I suggest that by the introduction of 75c the government is attempting to protect itself when it brings in bad legislation from having to bear the consequences of that legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: There is a thing called feedback. On this side of the house we are as responsive as hon. members over on that side to feedback. I remember an occasion when former Prime Minister Pearson came back mopping his brow because the government had been defeated. He appeared on television and said a number of things to the Canadian people. Within a few days it was obvious to most of us in this house that the Canadian people did not want that government defeated at that time, on that particular issue. The government survived, not because it had the numbers necessary to survive but because the Canadian people wanted it to survive.
There are ways to find out how well a government is doing. All we need do is take a look at the situation in Manitoba to see how the Liberals are doing in Canada as a whole. When by-elections produce members other than of the government party this is a reflection of what goes on in this house. One might think at times that Mr. Speaker does not have control over the events in the house and does not call members to order on questions of irrelevancy. It is interesting, however, to note that as the debates unfold and the longer they progress the more the Chair becomes insistent on relevance. It may be my imagination but it seems to me that very considerable discretion exists with the Chair in this house, and that that discretion is used wisely and well.
A great thing is being made about the fact that the Creditistes put up a long fight on the amendments to the Criminal Code. I might point out that I was in total disagreement with the position taken by the Ralliement des Creditistes at that time. But I want to say one thing; they represented a sizeable block of opinion in this country and whether I agreed
July 18, 1969

with them or not they had a right to be heard in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: It would seem from the arrogance exhibited on the other side of the house that members over there would like to see the world created in their own image and that they would like to see this whole house peopled with people of their kind. That is not the way it is going to be. When you look at the membership of the House of Commons you see the people of Canada. Some Canadians are arrogant, and this attitude is reflected in those on the other side of the house. Whether or not one likes the members in this house, they are here because the electorate of the country decided they were to be their representatives. The government has never had any difficulty finding support for even the harshest measures when the House of Commons thought those measures should be passed. I again refer to the flag debate of 1964-65. It was not the government that had the courage to call for closure. This was done by a member of the Conservative party who said: We are killing ourselves. This debate has to end. That sentiment was expressed by other parties.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Hon. members opposite have very short memories if they forget this institution has a way of correcting things that go wrong. Many of us love this institution; we care for it and do not want to see it dragged down. I hope that respect exists in hon. members opposite. Under our system of responsible government the electorate gives the government party all the legal powers of a dictatorship. Let us not be squeamish about that. Under responsible government the party in power has the powers of a dictatorship, albeit temporarily. Some of these powers are necessary. However, they are modified and the people of this country do not become too concerned about the strength of the powers because they know there is in the House of Commons the tradition of not abusing them. Nobody uses all the power he has. The people of Canada also know there is an opposition which has countervailing powers.
We are being asked to enlarge the already dictatorial power of government and diminish the power of the opposition. We are, in effect, being asked to upset a balance that is necessary and which in the long run will not work in the best interests of this institution. Government already controls information in this

Procedure and Organization country. It floods the press gallery with press releases. The government has access to advertising. It brings in a labour code and Canada Pension Plan and claims credit for them, even though the opposition fought hard for these measures. The government takes all the credit for measures such as these and advertisements concerning them carry the pictures of the responsible ministers.
How much more power does the government really need? How much more should it have? Has it made out a case for additional power? I do not think it has. The government claims there have been substantial changes in our committees system. I do not understand how committees can overcome the already enlarged areas of authority the government possesses. As important as rules are, no set of rules can be devised to guarantee co-operation in the house if consent is absent or there is no desire to make things work. I say this with the greatest frankness, Mr. Speaker: Even if the government gets 75c, what will it have? If the opposition decides to take four days to deal with every measure introduced by the government, almost nothing will be done in the house. The government may be successful in having a specific piece of legislation passed, but how much of its program will go through?
In the final analysis it is the mood of parliament that determines how much legislation goes through. Proposed rule 75c creates an unco-operative mood in the house, and in the long run the government will jeopardize its hopes for a successful program. This is a truism; it is true of the home, as well as the factory, and it is true of the relationship between business and labour. There has to be consent, agreement and understanding of each other's role. The government is going back to an autocratic age. I would have thought that with all the talk about participatory democracy the government understood what democracy was, but it does not understand anything about it. Democracy survives, and institutions like this survive, because there is consent and willingness on the part of people to make it work.
It is true that there is a great deal more efficiency when you have an absolute dictatorship. All dictators love that; they do not have to answer to anyone for what they are doing. Democracy may be considered to be an inefficient system; let us face it. But is this a factory? Is it General Motors? Is this the type of institution we have here, or is it the forum of the Canadian people? Do we pretend there
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization are not in the country serious differences of opinion which must be resolved? Do we not recognize that the fights that take place in this chamber are brought about because we reflect the intensity of the feeling that exists in a nation like Canada.
Hon. members on the other side of the chamber say that Great Britain has adopted rules similar to those we are discussing. How ignorant of history can they be? Great Britain is not Canada, and Canada is not Great Britain. We are a country only 100 years old. We are just learning to live together. It is here that the warfare is conducted, because parliament in a way is war. We are concerned with very serious business; this is not a gentlemen's club. We come here with fire in us and fight to resolve the grievances of the people. It is to the glory of English speaking people that they have devised an institution for resolving difficulties without people going around cubing each other's throats. Parliament is a substitution for war and rebellion, and we must recognize it as such.
We must have freedom in this institution to express differences and resolve them. When a government brings in measures such as 75c it is an indication of their impatience and lack of understanding of what goes on in this nation. The government is not interested in resolving problems; it is interested in suppressing the opposition and not bringing controversial issues to the surface. This is a short-sighted approach, because if these issues are not brought to the surface here they will surface somewhere else.
If we consider the British House of Commons, we can more clearly understand the nature of this institution. I sometimes think we should have, as they have in Westminster, two lines running down the chamber the distance of two swords apart. This is to indicate the true nature of the Commons and how we have learned to live with serious differences and resolve them.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I said earlier that there is a psychology to this house and that this house knows when the government measures are good and when they are bad. On occasions when the government is strong, the opposition knows it. When the government is weak and is falling apart, the opposition also knows it. It has been said during the course of Canadian history that it is not the opposition that defeats governments, it is governments that defeat themselves; the opposition merely puts them out of their misery.
[Mr. Saltsman.l
I suspect that what the government is trying to do is to head off the inevitable. I ask myself, as has every member who has spoken, why do they want rule 75c? What real difference is 75c going to make to them? After all, they have not used closure at any time because they know what happens when closure is applied. One measure is passed, but what happens to the rest of the legislative program? Why do they really want rule 75c? Obviously they have not needed it all year. They are not even pretending to make a case that they need rule 75c because of what has happened in parliament this year. If you press them hard enough, they say, "we might need it in the future, and therefore we had better be prepared for that future". I suspect that there is fear in their bones, like the fear of an ageing lover afraid of losing the favours of his mistress, the public. This year the government has had a honeymoon because the country wanted their Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to be given a chance. I suspect they know now that the honeymoon is over; the glamour is gone and the government must live by achievements instead of words or fancy gestures. They can survive only on the basis of a legislative program. So what they are trying to do is to bring in rules that will prevent their demise, and rule 75c is that kind of rule.
This rule is a foolish Maginot line the government is building because it can be outflanked and skirted, as only members of parliament know how to do. Or is the great Liberal party trying to be what it has been in the past, all things to all people? Is it trying to avoid a polarization of opinion in this country, by having members make great Liberal speeches about what we should do about poverty, about this, that and the other, and then having members vote the other way?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought you were that kind of people.


Max Saltsman: We hear an intervention from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). No, it is the Liberal party which is that way and which likes that pattern of Liberalism while they pursue reactionary policies. With measures like rule 75c, under which a debate can be closed, they can put more of their own restless backbenchers into the debate. It will give their backbenchers an opportunity to make flaming, progressive speeches and then, when the vote is taken those members will quietly vote with
July 18, 1969	COMMONS
the government as though they had not heard or read their own words.
This is what the government wants. They want to continue confusing the country as they have in the past. Again, I do not think this will work for them. I do not think anyone is going to be fooled by the kind of measures that they are introducing. In my opinion, we have given a great deal. The opposition has made tremendous concessions to the government because it recognized there had to be changes in procedure. I sincerely ask the government to consider whether or not they need rule 75c because I do not think they need it. In the long run it will prove to be their downfall, just as closure proved their downfall in 1956. They will pretend they are getting things done when, in fact, they will have their eyes closed to public opinion about certain issues.
In some ways we are really helping you. The Opposition is going to survive regardless of what you do, and so will parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to
remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair at all times, although he may not do so now because his time has expired.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the motion before the house I should like, first of all, to associate myself with other hon. members on this side of the house who have stressed the obvious need for reform, indeed, our party's willingness to support the adoption of many of the measures that would achieve that end. Since the present government took office, they have introduced a new principle into the rules of parliament, that is one of arrogance. They are obviously acting contrary to the age old tradition which has been the foundation of our freedom, namely that parliament must control its own procedure.
The government is asking the opposition to limit its power to oppose. It is asking members of parliament to gag parliament, and I contend that if this motion is allowed to pass, members of this parliament and indeed other parliaments, will be like driven cattle. Parliament will be the tomb and not the defender of Canadian freedom. Hon. members opposite, especially the new members, must know in their own hearts that it is not parliament that is ruining the reputation of this government and of the Liberal party. They must know perfectly well what has happened to their so-called just society and how it is held in

Procedure and Organization contempt by so many Canadians. What is happening to the government and to the Liberal party has nothing to do with the length of debate in parliament or with the imagined abuses which rule 75c is supposed to correct.
The troubles in which the government finds itself all began just after the election. Canadians were affected beyond words by the indescribable mass slaughter and starvation of women and children in Biafra. They were disturbed when they saw almost daily on television pictures of children who were actually starving. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada, with his usual elegance, grace and wit, asked, "Where is Biafra?" Many weeks later, with the same sense of history and perspective, balance and justice, which are so much admixed, the Prime Minister compared the situation of those women and children to that of the Nazis at Stalingrad. I would strongly suggest to the house leader, to the Prime Minister and to the government that before they try to ram through rule 75c which would have the effect of shutting up parliament, he should consider the advisability of putting a rein on his own tongue. Is there any wonder that a great many people in this country are disillusioned with the so-called just society?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Some time ago the Prime Minister made a cruel statement which related to a large part of our population. He said, "Why should I sell your wheat?" He said this to those people on the prairies who are gravely concerned about the tight financial squeeze in which they find themselves. This statement by the Prime Minister was not very consoling. I con.end that rule 75c is not going to stop that sort of statement in this house. Apparently that statement was a calculated insult. There has been no statement about the problems faced by the oil industry in Canada. The Prime Minister also made a statement to the effect that certain civil servants who are not bilingual will be demoted to running elevators. These are examples of the thoughtless and callous statements the Prime Minister has made in recent weeks.
As a result of such statements the Liberal party and this government have reached a low ebb in popularity. It is obvious they want to ram through rule 75c to enable them to gag the opposition, then they will bring forth legislation which is deserving of debate. I contend this is why they are bringing in 75c. The Prime Minister's statements in recent
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization months have been attacked by the press. Following an invitation to the press some time ago to attend the Prime Ministers' Conference here, our Prime Minister told them to go home and take a bath. These suggestions would hardly endear him to members of parliament or the Canadian people. Such statements should not be made, and they do not become the Prime Minister of this country. Members are aware that these thoughtless, arrogant statements have dealt a serious blow to the reputation of this government. One cannot blame parliament for these statements and I do not think rule 75c will prevent the Prime Minister from making them. I am sure that if hon. members knew that 75c would have this result they would certainly give unanimous approval.
Members opposite know very well that the ramming of 75c down the throats of the opposition will not improve the reputation of the government or the Liberal party. I suggest to backbenchers on the government side that this is not an improvement to our rules. It will not affect them because very few of them speak. They should not forget, however, that in the near future they will be sitting on this side of the house, and that will be a different matter. They will then be objecting to this sort of rule. They will want a chance to say their little bit in opposition to legislation introduced by a new government.
I ask hon. members opposite to give serious consideration to the suggestion that 75c may be important to them, particularly when they sit on this side. Hon. members opposite who are in touch with their constituents know perfectly well that this rule is an unpopular one. It has been condemned by the press and I understand condemned recently by university students. They have circulated a petition throughout universities across Canada concerning this very obnoxious rule.


An hon. Member:: Have you checked with your parish priest?


Walter C. Carter: The hon. member has made his usual contribution from his seat. I should like to ask him to stand up and make a speech.


Mr. McBride:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should be interested to know how much the opposition had to pay the organizers of the university students to get the campaign going to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, such a statement is a reflection upon the university communities in Canada and is unworthy of a member of this house. I do not think university students have to be bought or bribed.


An hon. Member:: Especially by a so-called Christian.


Walter C. Carter: They do not have to be bribed or bought in respect of what they feel is right. The hon. member may be that type of person, but I do not think those who belong to the university community are of the same type. They don't have to be paid to express their opinions in respect of what they believe. I cannot say the same thing about certain members on the other side of the house.
This government and the Prime Minister are obsessed with constitutional theories. Perhaps it is not known in Canada that these constitutional issues have been brought in as red herring, but that is the case. Canadians expected to be given the right to participate in the business of this nation. This promise was made. They desire to take part in finding the solutions to the serious problems which face this country. They were led to believe that they would get action from the government to solve problems of pollution, housing and poverty. So far there has been very little action.
Members on this side of the house in recent weeks have been trying to extract answers from the minister in charge of housing, but it has been like pulling teeth. We have tried to find out when we may expect a statement from this minister regarding the so-called guidelines on urban renewal. This statement was promised some months ago.
Constitutional issues have their place in parliament. There are many more important things in Canada at this time with which we should be concerned. We should not be wasting our time debating rule 75c. There are many more important things we should be discussing, including the wheat situation, the problems in respect of our fisheries, housing, poverty and pollution. Last fall we wasted weeks discussing a similar proposal. We are now wasting time discussing rule 75c when we should be devoting our time and energies to finding solutions to these other serious problems. These problems have been treated with nothing but indifference and contempt by the Prime Minister and his government.
Members on the other side must be aware of our role in NATO and the defence of North America. They must know that we are not
July 18, 1969

going to get a clear statement in respect of our policy as a result of debating rule 75c. Those hon. members opposite who are associated with war veterans and their associations must recognize the sense of frustration these people have as a result of the failure of this government to take concrete and firm action to improve their lot. Members must know how difficult it is to explain the actions of this government. I should not want to be placed in the position of a member opposite in trying to explain the inaction of this government and its indifference toward the serious problems facing this country. I admire some of the members opposite for their gall. I do not know how they manage to sit silent. When they shave in the morning it must be difficult for them to look at themselves when they think of some of the actions and statements, both callous and stupid, of the Prime Minister and other members of his government which they are told to support.

Procedure and Organization legislation that it feels is important and good for Canada. We are begging the government to bring in such legislation.
Questions have been asked daily in the house for the last two or three weeks about so-called guidelines in relation to urban renewal, but we have been unable to obtain satisfactory answers. We are only too ready to co-operate with the government on such legislation. Yet we have to discuss this obnoxious rule which will have the effect of gagging parliament.
Let me tell hon. members opposite that it is not the opposition that is ruining their image in Canada. The government came to the house about a year ago with a mandate from the Canadian people. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite are frustrated by the knowledge that their image has slipped badly since that time. They must not blame us for that; let them blame their own Prime Minister and some of his statements.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
chair is finding it difficult to link NATO, wheat and housing to the proposed Standing Order 75c. I would ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the subject before the house.


Walter C. Carter: With great respect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the matters I have referred to are relevant in that they are subjects we could be discussing now instead of wasting our time discussing rule 75c. The point I am trying to make is that it is not the opposition that has hindered the government from bringing in its legislation. We have been very co-operative, and if legislation is good we approve it. But as opposition members there are certain things we cannot accept.
If the government is not ready with legislation to deal with housing and urban renewal, with additional benefits for veterans, and to deal with other crucial questions, then the government should not blame us for filibustering this debate. We do not delay the government on legislation which, in our opinion, is good legislation.
All hon. members realize the serious economic problems facing Canada today. I could cite the increased bank interest rates and the increased interest rates on mortgages. These are matters to which we should turn our attention, instead of wasting our time and energy discussing this proposed measure. As I have said, the opposition is anxious to cooperate with the government in adopting


Murray Arndell McBride: What about the orders that have come down?


Walter C. Carter: The hon. member is quite familiar with the orders that have been passed around.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He certainly knows all about that.


J. Michael Forrestall: I can think of no one more qualified to talk about that than the hon. member.


Walter C. Carter: The hon. member is rapidly learning the smart alec attitude taken by his leader. Why does the hon. member not rise in his place and make a speech? We would be delighted to hear from him, instead of listening to his smart alec remarks. This sort of thing will not get the government, the Prime Minister, or for that matter the people of Canada anywhere. This matter is too serious for that sort of thing.
As the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) suggested this morning, the government house leader is acting like a bull in a china shop. He lacks the tact to reach agreement with the other house leaders. As a result, we are wasting our time discussing this proposal. I would ask hon. members opposite to bear in mind the fact that it will not be long before they are over on this side of the house-two or three years.


An hon. Member:: A Tory dream.


Walter C. Carter: This is not a dream. Hon. members opposite may like to think it is but
July 18, 1969

Procedure and Organization it is not. Hon. members opposite will then realize how unfair they were to bring in Standing Order 75c. I ask them to vote the way they feel they should, instead of acting like trained seals who do what they are told.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I ask all hon. members of the house to cooperate with the Chair, and I would ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the amendment before the house.


Walter C. Carter: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members opposite how they can let this sort of thing happen. They get up in the mornings and shave the same as I, so let them act like men. Let them vote the way they feel they should, in which case I am sure they will vote against this unjust proposal. Let these great orators across the aisle, who sit in their seats making snide remarks, stand up and express their views. And when the time comes to cast their vote, let them vote against this unpopular measure.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a great deal of jealousy among members on the other side of the house. Earlier today one of them asked for the institution of a rotation system for government members so they could have their holidays. These poor unfortunate souls do not like to be here now the heat is on. Let me tell my hon. friends on the other side of the house that when the snows are coming down they will still be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: The type of comment made by the house leader yesterday guarantees that they will not even get a Christmas vacation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be too hard on them. It is at least nice to see them here on a Friday afternoon.


Robert Carman Coates: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, it is nice to see them here. It is nice to see them participating in the democratic process, which is what parliament and this debate is all about. We are here to defend democracy.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Carman Coates: I enjoy debate, and I hope to enjoy many more days like this because, unless this autocratic government bends, it


will break. It will founder on the shoals of rule 75c. The people of this country know that the opposition is protecting its rights and their rights; that it is protecting its freedoms and their freedoms, and that it will not permit an autocratic government to take away any of our rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: The rules of the House of Commons have been distilled over 900 years. They have been formed in all parliaments as a result of agreements between political parties. Rules have never been imposed on parliaments by governments. They are not government rules. They are rules affecting all members of Parliament, and they apply to all hon. members. That cannot be said of rule 75c. This rule has been introduced for the convenience of the executive. Under the parliamentary system of parliament it is not an acceptable rule. It is a tool of the executive. We have been told over and over again that parliament is not efficient enough. Many people are led to believe that parliament and not the executive runs the nation. The executive may be given responsibility for running the nation, but it has no right to push parliament around and to limit reasonable debate on matters coming before parliament. The government now is saying, "We do not like the rules as they are and want to change them. We want the power to say that in three days a bill is to become law and the House of Commons shall pass that law in that time. Debate is to be limited." Well, Mr. Speaker, the opposition does not go along with that proposition. It will never agree to it.
A great deal of harmony between the parties has been evident during the present session. At Christmas we accepted a new set of rules which were agreed to by members on all sides. In the resulting atmosphere of harmony legislation went through the house with a minimum of debate in most cases. We considered that our opposition was responsible and felt that the government was most fortunate in having its programs considered in an atmosphere of harmony. Then, what happened? We were all told parliament would rise on June 27 and come back in Oc ober. People in the country were saying, "Parliament is adopting a businesslike attitude and it is evident the new rules are working." Then, the government house leader and some of his colleagues made the serious mistake of assuming that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) could be pushed around. They thought after a couple of days debate on any
July 18, 1969	COMMONS
measure his resistance would buckle. Well, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party and the government house leader have discovered that the Leader of the Opposition is not made of stuff that will buckle when principles are at stake. He will not buckle and permit freedom of speech in this institution to be impaired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Because it seemed to the government that not all members of this party held similar views on all pieces of legislation coming before the house, it assumed that our ranks would be divided on this question. They are not. We stand firm behind our leader and members of other opposition parties stand firm behind their leaders. We will fight this legislation to the end, no matter when that end may come.
Although the government is anxious to streamline the rules and to introduce the guillotine, it has not told us why it wants this guillotine.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister
wants it.


Robert Carman Coates: Let the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the house leader and others on the government side tell us why they want these new rules. During the present session there has been no indication that we need new rules, or that we need any but the ones we are now using. Nevertheless, just before we were to rise for the summer the government house leader brought forward for adoption new rules that would give the government virtually unlimited power to do anything it wished within a short time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Carman Coates: The government is anxious to secure this power because it wishes to introduce legislation about which it will not tell the country or this house. That legislation must be most damaging to the public interest. It seems that only after rule 75c has been adopted, and that will only come about if the government forces closure, will we learn what is to happen. Only then will the public learn that all Canadians applying for old age security, a cornerstone in the social justice system of this country, will have to undergo a means test. The people of this country will be told, "If you want to collect the old age security pension, which was yours as of right, you will now have to submit to a means test." Mothers who every month receive in the mail
Procedure and Organization family allowance cheques will be told that henceforth they will have to undergo a means test if they are to continue receiving family allowances. And why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? I say it because the government, as a result of irresponsible spending programs, has backed itself into a corner. It lacks financial flexibility and finds it impossible to undertake those programs it ought to undertake. These programs are necessary if we are to have the just society the leader of the Liberal Party talked so much about during the election campaign and which is further away than ever.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Who in the country today would say the society in which we live is more just than that of June 25, 1968? No one can say that, Mr. Speaker. Any man who on June 25, 1968 felt it was going to be easier to own his own home if the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his party were elected is today in a position where it is twice as difficult, if not impossible to own a home.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Carman Coates: The Prime Minister is finding out from the wheat farmers in the prairies how just they think this society is after he has been one year in office. The fishermen on the east coast are finding out how just this society is after this government has been in office one year. The shipbuilding industry and the shipbuilding workers in this country are finding out how just this society is under the Prime Minister. The veteran, old age pensioner, the blind and disabled, they are all finding out how just this society is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: This has happened after only one year, Mr. Speaker. Heaven help this poor country if we have to put up with this government for four years, and heaven help us if they have 75c to work with as well. There have been other Liberal governments in other eras that have moved in this chamber for awesome powers, powers that Adolph Hitler did not even expect from the Reichstag in Germany. These are powers which are common in communist countries. If rule 75c passes there really will not be much difference between a country that has only one government for which everybody votes because there is no alternative, and a country with a government that has power to say to the opposition any time it wishes, "You have
July 18, 1963

Procedure and Organization three days to pass this bill; have a good time because it will be law before the public knows about it, even with the instant communications of today". That is not the kind of parliament the opposition is thinking about and that is not the kind of parliament we are going to have if we can do anything about it. This would not be parliament, Mr. Speaker, it would be an oligarchy taking unto itself every day in every way new powers.
The government told us that with this new efficiency that would come with the new rules and that the new committee system they had set up there would be much more participatory democracy in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have committees. We have a proliferation of committees. We have so many committees we don't know whether we are coming or going. What a wonderful reception those committee reports receive when they are submitted to this chamber! The government does not even wait until these reports get into the house before they introduce then-own policies, having no regard for the recommendations contained in those reports. The government manipulates other committees so that they do not even report what transpired in the committee. In other committees, such as in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, the government endeavours to usurp completely the role of the chairman and the members of the committee.
This is the committee system we have today. It is as democratic as 75c, and that is all that can be said about it. There must be some steps taken to see that when there is unanimous agreement in a committee the government is forced to take action on the recommendations of the committee. These steps will never be taken by this government because it operates by saying one thing to the public and doing another thing in parliament. It will not be able to perform in that way much longer because the Prime Minister's abortive visit to western Canada I am sure has proven to him that you cannot fool the people by telling them one thing and then doing something else in parliament.
The days of Mackenzie King are gone. He is dead. This is not the same as saying God is dead. Mackenzie King is dead, as well as the philosophy he preached. The same rules must
be applied in all parts of this nation. The same kind of social justice must be available in all parts of this nation. There has to be the same kind of approach to democracy. We are not getting that today. If this government ever secured the powers available under 75c, there would never be any hope that the people of Canada would get social justice because then we would have government by Trudeau, and Trudeau alone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motion, public bills.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There has been some discussion in the house, Mr. Speaker. I think there might be general agreement to suspend the private members' hour for today, and adjourn the sittings today at four o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the house do now adjourn.


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


John Angus MacLean: Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader the business the government proposes to place before parliament next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the business for Monday will be a continuation of the present debate. As the hon. member knows, all house leaders expect to meet on Monday morning for the purpose of discussing further the business for the balance of the week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Once the motion is agreed to, this house stands adjourned until Monday afternoon at two o'clock.
Motion (Mr. Macdonald) agreed to and the house adjourned at 4 p.m.

Monday, July 21, 1969