1969-07-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, one in which I am sure all members of the house will be happy to concur. It so happens that on July 15, 1870, 99 years ago today, the first four provinces of Canada were joined by the province of Manitoba, the first province to enter confederation after it had been established. This means that today we are entering our one hundredth year as a province of Canada. As members must be aware, plans have been made for appropriate celebrations of this important occasion. Established by a previous government, a commission headed by Mr. Maitland Steinkopf has been working for some time to make plans for the celebration of our centennial as a province. We in Manitoba hope that many thousands of Canadians will visit us during this year, particularly as we approach the historic date of July 15, 1970.
I am sure hon. members will pardon me if I add one footnote, namely, that it is a particular pleasure for me to note that we are entering this historic year with a new provincial government. I am sure all hon. members will want to extend best wishes to our former colleague, who until a few weeks ago was the hon. member for Selkirk, but who today has become Premier Schreyer of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sir, you sometimes say to a member who has raised a question of privilege that he has neglected to follow it with a motion. I do not have a written motion but perhaps it could be assumed I have moved, seconded by all the other members from my province, that the house is happy to extend its best wishes to the government and people of Manitoba as we
enter this historic one hundredth year of our being part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as one who was born in Manitoba and as one who received his education there may I be permitted, although a member from that great city of Toronto, to join in supporting the motion put forward by the hon. gentleman. It is a great pleasure for me to know that my native province is now entering upon the celebration of its one hundredth anniversary. I can say on behalf of the government that I hope we will be joining in that celebration of the accession of such an important province to our confederation.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from Manitoba I wish to join in extending to other members a welcome to Manitoba as it is about to enter its second century as a province of Canada.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR CONSENT UNDER S.O. 43 TO MOTION RESPECTING PRICE, CASH SHORTAGE

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent of the house under Standing Order 43 to make the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be instructed to examine immediately the consequences for prairie grain producers of the failure to restore the minimum International Grains Arrangement price; to consider and recommend measures to ensure a satisfactory minimum price to the Canadian producer; and to consider and recommend measures to alleviate the critical cash shortage facing western farmers.
Under Standing Order 43 I believe I am entitled to give a very brief explanation of the urgent and pressing necessity for this motion. I am sure it is unnecessary to make any such explanation to hon. members who have the interests of the prairie grain growers at heart, as we all have.
July 15. 1969

International Grains Arrangement
The International Grains Agreement is, in effect, a dead letter. Not only has the floor price been effectively abandoned but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), is not even confident that last week's conference has served to stave off another crisis.
Reports are that the price for top quality Canadian wheat may drop by 20 to 25 cents per bushel. Under these circumstances, given unprecedented surpluses of wheat in Canada and the critical cash shortage, the fall-off in retail sales throughout the prairies and the consequent serious threat to the prairie economy, and in view of the failure of the government to announce a policy to meet the emergency, I am sure that no hon. member will dispute that this is a case of urgent and pressing necessity as called for under Standing Order 43, and that no hon. member who is concerned would refuse unanimous consent to proceed with this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the proposed motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
consent.


An hon. Member:: Wait until they hear about this in Winnipeg.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: How will the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) answer that one in Calgary?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: He will probably answer it very well.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 TRADE WHEAT-LACK OF SUPPORT PRICE UNDER INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the collapse of


the International Grains Arangement in guaranteeing a minimum international price support for wheat, as announced yesterday in the house by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the absence of any government policy for maintaining a minimum wheat price support, and the resultant unprecedented danger facing the entire western economy.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26 the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) has given due notice of his request to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing th matter outlined in the motion which has just been read to the house by the hon. member. There is little doubt in the mind of the Chair that the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is of great concern and of the utmost importance to the country as a whole. However, the question before the Chair is one of a procedural nature that must be resolved in accordance with the intention and the provisions of Standing Order 26.
The statement made yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the communique tabled by him dealt with a matter that has been before the house for many weeks. For example at pages 6740 and 6741 of Hansard for March 18, 1969, a number of questions were posed to the minister dealing with compensation for the shortfall of prices under the International Grains arrangement. Again, on May 8, 1969, at pages 8467 and 8468 of Hansard, a number of questions were posed concerning difficulties in the international wheat market. On May 16, 1969, as reported at page 8779 of Hansard, the minister was again questioned concerning the adherence of Australia to the International Grains Arrangement.
The latter part of the hon. member's statement deals with "the absence of any government policy for maintaining a minimum wheat price support". It is suggested to the hon. member that the latter portion of his statement raises a question which, raised in other terms, was resolved earlier this session by decision of the House of Commons. May I refer hon. members to pages 981 to 983 of Votes and Proceedings for May 1, 1969, where a supply motion by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), was proposed as follows:
That in the opinion of this house the government has failed to deal with the seriously deteriorating net income for Canadian agriculture,
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
as a result of which farmers in all parts of Canada are unable to obtain necessary operating capital to finance the 1969-70 crop year.
In amendment thereto the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), proposed as follows:
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Canadian agriculture", the following words:
"which in the prairie provinces is due in the main to declining grain prices and reduced delivery quotas."
This motion gave rise to a far-ranging discussion which in my view covered fairly well the grounds raised in the proposed motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. It is suggested to hon. members that the situation brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member who proposed the motion relating to the International Grains Arrangement is not of recent occurrence. It is, rather, in the nature of a continuing problem. The minister's statement of yesterday, commented upon on motions and examined at length during the question period, does not appear to reveal such new circumstances as would justify a debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a very direct question for the Minister of Finance. I hope he is able to give me a yes or no answer, preferably yes. Is the government now actively considering any special measures on an emergency basis to meet the critical cash position of western grain farmers?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy in this regard will be announced in the house in the usual manner.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Scandalous!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the seriousness of the situation and the present cash shortage on the farms, especially grain farms, and the fact that this has caused farm machinery sales to fall by some 30 to 50 per cent this year, with the accompanying problems, does the government plan any action to meet the emergency that is developing so rapidly?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy will, as normal, be announced when it is determined.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further question in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies of the Minister of Finance. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the statement of the Saskatchewan Implement Dealers Association concerning the serious drop in sales and the very critical condition regarding inventories? If so, what is the attitude of the government of Canada in this regard? Has it, for example, any plans to meet the responsible leaders of the governments most immediately concerned? Has it any plans at all?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Prime Minister is at the present time in the west meeting the heads of the provincial governments there. It is the intention of the government to do all within its power to assist the people of western Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing has been done.


Edgar John Benson: What did you do in the seven years you were in office?



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT TO FARMERS OF I.G.A. FLOOR PRICE-RESTORING OF PRICES-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is on the roster today but is unfortunately absent. Therefore may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated yesterday that there will be a further decline in wheat prices and as the present crop year ends in about two weeks, and since the farmers have a right to know what prices they will obtain, does the government intend to pay the farmers through the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of the floor price under the International Grains Arrangement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in Winnipeg today having discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board upon many of the matters that are being discussed here. So far as I know it is not the intention to fix the initial price at the

Inquiries of the Ministry minimum under the International Grains Arrangement. That international agreement unfortunately is not working as we would like it to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government of the United States has announced that in order to meet the wheat price war it is prepared to subsidize wheat prices to United States farmers, does the Canadian government intend to subsidize our farmers for wheat delivered in the 1968-69 crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the policy of subsidizing wheat exports from the United States is long-standing and is a policy against which we have often protested because it is inimical to the interests of our western farmers. So far as our policy of assistance to western agriculture is concerned, I merely repeat what the Minister of Finance said. When that policy has been determined it will be announced.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since we have had similar replies for some months, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the house when we may expect this statement of government policy with respect to assistance to western agriculture?


An hon. Member:: After parliament has risen.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it will be necessary for the government to make decisions on some of these matters very shortly because of the opening of the new crop year.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is absent today, promised me yesterday that he would produce the schedule of prices that the Wheat Board is charging for wheat, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will table this schedule?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, this information is published every day and there is no difficulty in obtaining it. He can obtain it by inquiring but I will be very happy to see that it is tabled.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then why didn't the Minister of Trade and Commerce give it to us yesterday?

DEBATES	July 15, 1969


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it has been announced that the purpose of the initiative of the United States is to restore prices under the International Grains Arrangement, is the government of Canada going to associate itself with the United States in a concerted and joint effort to restore these prices? In other words, has the government of Canada any plans to support the reported efforts of the United States to restore these prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was on the initiative of Canada that the ministerial meeting was held.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come, now.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of developments which have taken place over the last few years, does the government intend to formulate selling programs that will enable us to move back into the position we occupied previously when we had 25 per cent of the International Grain Market?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the aim of the Canadian Wheat Board to restore this country to that position. That is one of the reasons why the government and the Canadian Wheat Board have emphasized the importance of remaining competitive. Of couse, it is our desire to be competitive at a higher price level but when our competitors lower their prices we must meet their competition.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the International Grains Arrangement was negotiated under the auspices of the Kennedy round initiated under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, has the government considered asking the responsible countries to meet and review the present position of this agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is within the context of the Kennedy round that all these discussions have taken place. We are very much aware, as the hon. member has pointed out, that the International Grains Arrangement was an intrinsic part of the Kennedy round and that the balance of advantage has been upset because certain countries have failed to comply with that agreement. We have these factors very much in mind in all our negotiations with our customers and fellow members in the agreement.
July IS, 1969


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenlre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister to the previous question and in view of the fact that the I.G.A. was negotiated within the context of the Kennedy round, is it the view of the government that this now negates every Kennedy round agreement to which Canada is a party, and does the government plan to take any countermeasures in retaliation for what has happened to the I.G.A.?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our general position is that under the Kennedy round the balance of advantage was very much with Canada apart from the International Grains Arrangement, though this was an added benefit. Therefore we are striving mightily to retain as much of the agreement as can be salvaged.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainty and the vacuity of the answers that have been given in regard to the situation in western Canada, which is serious beyond words, will the Acting Prime Minister say whether the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that what the western farmers should do is to cut down their production of wheat represents the consensus of government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister of Canada speaks he speaks, of course, for the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Acting Prime Minister say whether the government has any intention of bringing in something in the nature of acreage payments? Can we not get an answer from this government? When we are dealing with the western farmers, all we receive is contemptuous disregard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that deserves an answer, but I do know that I should point out to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert that great objection was taken to the Prime Minister going to western Canada at this time. I think it is most important for the Prime Minister to be there and to come with direct answers. I know of no one in Canada who is more concerned about the people and farmers of western Canada than the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Acting Prime Minister say whether the fact that there are only three western ministers in the cabinet
Inquiries of the Ministry has made it impossible for the government to know what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Acting Prime Minister now reconsidered statements made by himself and others of his colleagues in past years in which the western farmers were told: "You grow the wheat and we will sell it"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has been as lenient as possible in allowing these supple-mentaries in view of the importance of the matter, but having now reached the area of debate I think we should pass on to another subject.



MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPE LINE RESEARCH, LIMITED-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FORMATION

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be among the ministers present today, but there are only eight ministers in the house. In any event, since the ministers' parliamentary secretary is here I might give him something to answer.
Will the minister shortly make a statement in the house relative to the formation of Mackenzie Valley Pipe Line Research, Limited, a consortium of four leading oil companies, whose purpose is to determine technological and other feasibility studies on a large diameter oil pipe line from the north slope of Alaska and related Canadian Arctic areas along the Mackenzie River valley to Edmonton, and on to the North American market? As a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The question will only be taken as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask a supplementary question now; perhaps he might ask it later. The question as asked by the hon. member is acceptable under the rules, as he knows, only to the extent that the hon. member is asking the minister when a statement will be made on motions.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, since this question falls
11218	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry within my area of responsibility I will dare to answer it by saying no. However, since hon. members may not remember the beginning of the question, may I say that we certainly welcome this development and will watch it with great interest. I think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remember the beginning of the question.



INQUIRY AS TO SECRET AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES

['Mr. Speaker, personally I have not. It may be that my officials have and I will make inquiries.\n\nDEBATES\tJuly 15, 1969']
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). Now that a prominent senator has publicly stated that the 1967 secret oil agreement between Canada and the United States is illegal, will the minister tell the house whether a more recent secret and illegal agreement has been negotiated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question as asked is in order.



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the misgivings expressed by wildlife conservationists about the possibility of triggering earthquakes along the Pacific coast, has the government of Canada been consulted about the proposed massive underground nuclear tests at Anchitka in the Aleutians next October?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member's earth-shaking question is in order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the matter I wonder whether I might have permission to restate my earthshaking question. Has the government of Canada made any representations to or received any information from the government of the United States concerning the possible ramifications of the proposed underground nuclear tests in the Aleutian Islands?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, personally I have not. It may be that my officials have and I will make inquiries.

DEBATES	July 15, 1969



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the congenial Postmaster General. It is based on the minister's recent pronouncement to the effect that "99 per cent of the people in this country for 99 per cent of the time receive their mail within 24 hours." Considering that for the majority of Canadians there is no mail delivery on Saturday and Sunday, a 48-hour period, can the minister advise whether his statement on speedy mail delivery means that only one per cent of Post Office patrons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is 99 per cent argumentative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister undertaken an investigation into the report that Brigadier General Charles Hamilton, Canadian member of the international observer team in Nigeria, is alleged to have stated that, from all the chronicals of war and personal experience, "starvation is a legitimate weapon of war"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had a report and I can deny that Brigadier Hamilton said the things he was accused of saying.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister made any protest to the government of Nigeria, an officer of which is reported to have attributed this remark to the Canadian general?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not know the Nigerian government was involved. What I received was an account of what the officer had said and it was said in the presence of witnesses. I therefore have no hesitation in saying he was misquoted, but I did not know that the Nigerian government was involved.


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the officer say anything
July 15, 1969

at all about starvation and its relation to carrying on a war? If so, what did he say about it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to obtain the text. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to give it by way of reply or to send it to the hon. gentleman. Mr. Hamilton was being cross-examined by a reporter in a general way. When it came to questions on whether he considered starvation was an appropriate method of ending the war in Nigeria, he said he had nothing to say about it.


David Lewis: May I ask Your Honour's permission for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to table the record of the interview to which the minister has made reference so that all hon. members may see it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be happy to do so.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I wish to direct my question to whoever is acting in this capacity today. Can the Acting Minister say _ what reply has been made to the Canadian Airlines Pilots Association brief in which it is suggested that a national flight safety committee be established? Will the Acting Minister also say whether the Department of Transport has any plans to form a departmental flight safety committee, either internally or at the national level?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will undertake to refer the question to him. I understand the minister will be in the house tomorrow and will probably furnish the answer.


Mr. Forrestall:: I wish to pose a further supplementary-I ask that notice be taken of it-to the President of the Treasury Board who is also supposed to be here today but is absent. In light of reports that the Department of Transport flight safety committee has not been formed because Treasury Board has not authorized funds, will the minister say what the intention of Treasury Board is in regard to this very important matter?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimaster General and Minister of Communicaiions):: I will be glad to bring that question to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board.
Inquiries of the Ministry INFORMATION



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF TASK FORCE

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government received the report of the task force on information, and will the minister advise when it will be tabled in the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the first question. I will make inquiries. I have not personally received it. It may have been received in the Prime Minister's office. However, I am not certain.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are allegations of patronage and news management the reason the government is hiding this report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I add a little more accurately to my reply to a question asked earlier. The report of the task force on information was received in the Prune Minister's office last week. I think the Prime Minister has already given some information to this effect, and I would not want there to be any difference of opinion between him and me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the Acting Prime Minister give the assurance that parliament will have an opportunity to review any changes in government information services, particularly in light of the government's notorious disregard of the rights of a free parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. May I say first that the Secretary of State for External Affairs assumes the post of Acting Prime Minister admirably. Has the government come to a decision about self-government for the Northwest Territories?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of the constitutional future of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is under study. No decisions have yet been made.
July 15, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Howard (Skeena): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as this matter was presented to cabinet last January, can the minister tell us how much longer it may be before a decision is reached or whether he intends to impose closure in the cabinet in order to get the matter through for debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the government completed its review of the reserve forces with a view to determining what their strength will be in the immediate future, and did the government seek the advice of the Conference of Defence Associations on this important matter?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first question is no, Mr. Speaker. This is because we have been consulting with the Defence Associations and we are going to meet again, I believe, early in August. We expect that after that our plans will be clarified and we will be able to announce them.



MINAS BASIN FEASIBILITY STUDY-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I gave the minister notice of this question last week. When does the minister expect the feasibility study on Minas Basin power will be available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as previously indicated in the house, the report is in its final stages of completion. It is being prepared and is expected some time in the autumn.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When this report is made available to the government, will the minister and the government undertake to make it public as quickly as possible?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the report is available, that will be given consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the
Minister of National Defence whether there has been any request or approach on the part of United States officials with regard to the possibility of dispersing SAC bomber sites and locating some of them in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I believe, but no decision has been taken in that regard.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. He will recall that last Thursday I asked him some questions with regard to a program for student employment this summer and he said he would undertake to make a progress report to the house on the subject. I wonder whether he has it today or when he intends to make it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. friend I will carry out the undertaking and will either table a report or give it verbally before the house closes or as early as possible.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is possible for the minister to indicate the date on which he will be ready to make this report? Surely it has been under discussion for some time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be certain to give my hon. friend advance notice so that he will not be caught off guard.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, since the dates for the hearings on Maritimes union have been announced, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the federal government has given any consideration to holding a watching brief or making an appearance in another form during the course of these hearings?
July 15. 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will take the suggestion of the hon. member under consideration.


Thomas Miller Bell: Because of the direct federal involvement in many aspects which may develop and also the fact that a lack of federal interest may be misunderstood, would the Acting Prime Minister give this matter active consideration and even consider telephoning the Prime Minister out west?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Was there any implication in the remark of the Prime Minister last evening on television when he referred to the Manhattan project operating north of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister's comments and certainly as Secretary of State for External Affairs I find myself in full agreement with what he said.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does it have any bearing on the sovereignty of Canada in the north?


Mitchell William Sharp: I perhaps misunderstood the subtlety of the question put by the hon. gentleman. May I say that I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister said to the effect that the voyage of the Manhattan does not reflect at all on the sovereignty of Canada.


Malcolm MacInnis: In view of the fact the
Prime Minister indicated last evening on television that he expects to accomplish nothing on his trip west, does the minister consider it a stupid trip?



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing. In light of the fact that the minister met with representatives from the city of Hamilton when I understand there was a discussion with regard to urban renewal projects, would the minis-29180-709
Inquiries of the Ministry ter advise what transpired at that meeting and whether a firm commitment was given with regard to the Hamilton urban renewal project on York Street?
Hen. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio): No firm commitment was given except that a decision would be made as soon as possible. I hope to announce decisions in respect of urban renewal projects shortly. I had hoped to be in a position to do so today but I find I need further information both within government and from some of the communities. I hope to get on with it as quickly as possible because I realize the delays are causing some difficulty.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I take it from that that the minister does not intend to visit any urban centres prior to the time he makes his announcement but rather will be meeting with the representatives of the urban centres in Ottawa?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not see how any such inference can be taken. It may be necessary for me to visit some centres but, on the other hand, several representatives of the municipalities have been coming to see me. We may work in both ways.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me. May I take it then that the minister will not be able to hand down a decision until-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I cannot bear with the hon. member to this extent. The question is not in order.



AGRICULTURE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of his earlier statement to the effect that the Prime Minister is in western Canada gathering first hand information about economic conditions there, can we be assured that the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the house upon his return regarding the government's intentions and policy in respect of the economic situation in western Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, as was said earlier in reply to a number of questions, there are certain decisions which cannot be long delayed such as a decision in respect of the

July 15, 1989
Inquiries of the Ministry initial price of wheat, oats and barley for the new crop year beginning August 1. So I suggest there will be some decisions announced very soon.



HOUSING


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in charge of housing whether he has met with any or all of the provincial ministers who are his counterparts, as indicated on May 6 in the house?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, meetings are sched-duled to start the last week of July and continue through the first week of August. I will be in a better position to report after these meetings have taken place.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which is really supplementary to that put by the hon. member for York South. In the minister's instructions to his officials concerning the summer employment program for students has he taken steps to ensure that jobs will not be made available to students which otherwise would have gone to unemployed men or women, particularly those with families?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult question to answer offhand. We are doing our best to find jobs for unemployed persons with family responsibilities whether they be students or otherwise. We are trying to meet the requirements of the labour market for both groups.


John Edward Broadbent: The specific question I asked is whether the minister gave instructions to his department that unemployed men and women should be given preference over students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the
Canadian manpower centres we have been operating for a good many years under well recognized international standards of selection. We do not intend to import any kind of discrimination.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. Would the hon. gentleman table the draft policy statement on Indian Affairs that he prepared when he held another position?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will have to give that question a great deal of consideration.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the house? He is outside the chamber answering questions on television when he should be in the house.



SECRETARIAL STAFF-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PAY INCREASES

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting President of the Treasury Board which he can take as notice. Will he make a statement regarding pay increases for the house secretarial staff?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday with regard to whether the Prime Minister's office had received a request from the farm unions to meet with them when he was out west and whether he had acceded to that request?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did make inquiries of the Prime Minister's office and he has received an 'invitation. I do not think he will be seeing these organizations formally but I am quite sure he will see many of their members who will make their views known.
July 15, 1969



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, having in mind the table presented yesterday indicating that the Department of National Defence has no less than 71 public information officers on staff, will consideration be given to introducing a measure of youth again in the services?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be afforded the opportunity of correcting this information. The number of 71 includes all personnel working in the branch and information officers would make up about half that number.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether, apart from the intention to patrol the Arctic waters this summer, the government contemplates any measures extending beyond this summer to maintain an effective Canadian presence in the Arctic?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to note that the Leader of the Opposition approves the policy of the government which is to extend coverage to maintain Canadian sovereignty all around Canada, including the northern Arctic waters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not express approval or disapproval; I asked a question. The minister is one of a few who try to answer questions and I hope he will not lose that reputation.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF ONTARIO COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to orders of the day I should like to call Your Honour's attention to a distinguished group of parliamentarians in the Speaker's gallery from the Ontario legislature, the members of the special Ontario committee on procedure. They have come to Ottawa-


An hon. Member:: They have come to the wrong place.
29180-709J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -to see how
we carry out the official procedures of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, before you call orders of the day I should like to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council. I might say it is very difficult to get any information out of him in respect of both government plans and the business of the house. Will he consider working out a schedule for all private members on the government side which will enable them to discharge their responsibilities in the house and also spend some time at the first Canada summer games in Halifax between August 16 and August 25?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might say that if the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are prepared to withdraw the filibuster they are now conducting we could carry out that suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SUGGESTED DEBATE ON COLLAPSE OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, now that we are discussing procedures and house business I wonder whether I might put a question to the government house leader. There has been expressed on several occasions, notably today, a desire on the part of many members to have a discussion of the collapse of the International Grains Arrangement. Would the government house leader consider trying to ascertain, through the usual channels, whether arrangements could be made for a day to debate this issue? I have no authority to speak for all the opposition parties but I imagine we could agree to the use of one of the two days still standing to us as opposition allotted days. Perhaps arrangements could be made to have such a discussion later this week or one day next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake, as soon as the procedural changes have
11224	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization been enacted by the house, to call that as the next order of business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I point out that this matter should be debated before the crop year is over. But the question I should like to put to the government house leader is, will he answer my question as to whether he will consult with other house leaders to see if such an arrangement could be made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to consult on that point if the hon. member would consult equally on bringing the present debate to an end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's easy. Just remove 75c.



REQUEST FOR LIST OF OUTSTANDING RETURNS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the government house leader whether he would mind getting someone on his staff to look at the number of returns which the house has ordered to be made as a result of questions and motions and to compile a list so that members can see which ones are still outstanding?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should be glad to make inquiries in that regard, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 14, 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).
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining five minutes left to me may I first be permitted to bid a fond welcome to our guests from Ontario who, through some process, have happened to find themselves in the House of Commons to learn from our procedures. I think most of us here envy them. Perhaps nobody has ever put this on record to date. While they think they are underpaid in comparison with us, they have a great way of paying those who work
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
DEBATES	July 15, 1969
on their committees during times apart from the ordinary sessions of parliament. This is unknown to us here.
I had intended to complete my refresher course for my very good friends opposite on Liberalism, the right of free discussion, and free opinion. Unfortunately the Hansard staff did not return a volume on Liberalism and important speeches made by Liberals between 1919 and the present date, so I cannot give them a very fine quotation from the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King in which he pointed out very succinctly, in one of the very best paragraphs I have read about this right of free speech, that when democracy obliterated itself things like Hitlerism were allowed to rise in Europe because people made very light of their parliamentary institutions.
This was a complaint I made yesterday about the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that he was setting himself up as a poseur between the parliamentary process and all the people it is designed to serve and those people who had elected him last June 25. I repeat the argument I made last night by saying that the right hon. gentleman has done a great disservice to himself and to Canada by opposing with the might of his office that prestige and that leadership an important political party could have, by pretending this place was filled with idiots, oafs and buffoons. He has done a disservice, but the disservice will not rest upon our shoulders ultimately. We will have wit to escape this type of approach, and the disservice will rest upon him.
Rule 75c represents tyranny. It is tyranny doubled and compounded, because the right hon. Prime Minister and other gentlemen opposite as well as on this side chose to reject 16a last December. There is no difference between 16a and the new principle of 75c.
9 (3:00 p.m.)
Frankenstein has recreated his monster. He has substituted a consonant for a vowel, made some facial changes, pruned the ears back a little more, and perhaps sharpened the teeth; but the fact is that 75c has exactly the same purpose as 16a. I reject it, my colleagues on this side of the house reject it, and we shall be here all summer rejecting it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -until the conscience of those opposite, who belong to a party that
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
espouses the right of free speech, is reawakened and resurrected to the extent that this invidious and insidious rule will be thrown out.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: It
will not be done under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many minutes I have left. I would like to make three suggestions as to how we can extricate ourselves from this problem. I shall make my remarks as short as possible but I think that perhaps for the first time in my parliamentary life I will ask the indulgence of the house to enable me to complete putting forward these three ideas. I promise not to trespass outside the few notes I have in my hand.
The first suggestion is simply that 75a and 75b be accepted by the house. Some people may have a caveat or rider to attach to that. However, I suggest that those two rules be accepted by the house on a year's trial.
My second suggestion concerns what is popularly known here as the Globe and Mail formula. In an editorial the Globe and Mail-
I think even before we started our deliberations-suggested that the important thing about debate was to give the country a chance to formulate its opinions and make them known to members of parliament. That newspaper suggested that, perhaps not so importantly a member of parliament should initially state those opinions, but somewhere in the parliamentary process the opinions should have a chance to be stated. I think that is a valid point. I do not claim for myself the right to rise and trumpet an opinion that somebody else has put forward, but I think the opinion should be squarely in our minds when deciding collectively what legislation should be passed. I am not a great admirer of the Globe and Mail. I get tired of its sending people from Toronto to Ottawa who go back and do two things.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but I must bring to the attention of the house that the hon. member's time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous agreement of the house. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their courtesy and I shall conclude my remarks as quickly as possible. I get tired of the peregrinations to Ottawa of
Procedure and Organization reporters of the Globe and Mail because when they return to Toronto they do two things. The second thing is that they write about members of parliament receiving $18,000 a year. And the first thing they write is their expense account. They have the right to come here and charge their expenses, but they do not think members of parliament have the right to come to Ottawa from Vancouver, Halifax, St. John's, or wherever it may be, earn this salary and be paid a travelling allowance. I realize that these people probably solve the office space problem by placing two seats in one stall. However, they write their opinions about us. Now for once in my life I recognize that they have a valid point. When looking for a better way of dealing with our business we have to put it on the most orderly basis. In this respect I am in agreement with the Globe and Mail. To achieve this end means obtaining outside opinion.
I present my third suggestion without having consulted anybody, but in the hope we can resolve the situation in which we find ourselves, and leave shortly for a summer recess, although some of us will not have a summer recess because we have to attend committee meetings in August and September. I suggest that the problem of allocation of time and mustering of public opinion come together not really in the House of Commons but in our committee system. I think we can find the answer there. I make this suggestion to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), the Acting Prime Minister, all hon. members and you, Mr. Speaker, as a possible solution to the problem.
I suggest that we form a backbenchers' committee of this place, say of five or six members from either side of the house. In a moment I shall suggest the formula by which they be chosen. These members should consider ways by which the committee system may be made more workable. I am a great believer in the committee system. I think I have probably sat on as many committees as anybody else. I have given the system my all. I said last night, and I firmly believe, that it was of great credit to hon. members on both sides of the house that in the year since the last election we have done our best to receive any subject referred to committee, give it our best thought, discussion and deliberation, and come up with the best answer for the people of Canada.
I still believe in that approach. Nothing in the angry words that people on this or the
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization other side of the house say will ever change my mind in this respect. We can work together. We have proven that we can. We may have come off the track once in a while, but we can get back on it and forget about the little anger we have shown. We can work out a time allocation. A representative group of backbenchers can decide how best this can be done. This does not mean that the government will reach into the committee system. This point has not been dealt with very much in the debate. The fact is that a great many of my colleagues on the back benches are not the beautiful people of the House of Commons; we are not ministers, we are not parliamentary secretaries, we are not chairmen of committees, we are not deputies of this, that or the other.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are just the workers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We are the people who make parliament work. There are about 200 of us. We come from all parties and all provinces of Canada. I throw out this suggestion for the consideration of our important elders, the beautiful people to whom I have just referred. The opposition side should pick the three best committee people from the government side of the house. The government side should pick those they regard as the best three, four or five-whatever number is determined-people from the opposition side of the house. Those people should be given time to consider this problem. There should be consultation with everybody in the chamber. However, I believe this could be done in, say, two months.
The members chosen should be given time to work out some kind of formula for the conduct of committees. It should be a good formula so that anybody who feels himself, herself, or if an association, itself, aggrieved by legislation would at least have the opportunity to appear before us. This suggestion may offend those who think purism exists only in the House of Commons. I do not think it will offend those who believe the committee system is a very valuable part of the proceedings of this place.
This is the suggestion I make, Mr. Speaker. I make it in humility and because I believe that when committees are unfettered and allowed to reach a consensus they will go out and do the job required for the House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before the hon. member resumes his seat would he mind if I
IMr. McCleave.1
asked a question? His second point, as I gather it, is taken from the Globe and Mail editorial. I gather the position of the Globe and Mail is that 75c would be acceptable provided there is a minimum of one month's time with respect to any bill on the order paper. Is that what the hon. member is proposing to the house?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I did not read the Globe and Mail editorial as carefully as I should have, or as carefully as the President of the Privy Council appears to have read it. My second and third suggestions ought to be considered together. In some cases one month may be too long; on the other hand with bills like the Indian Act amendment one month might be far too little. The idea is that there must be enough time for us in parliament to inform the country what is happening and to enlighten public opinion. My approach to this matter, in a way of speaking, is the backbenchers' approach or the committee approach. Our opinions ought to be made known to the country. That is what I was trying to say.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I seldom take part in debates on the rules, usually being content to leave discussions on these matters to others who have become more or less experts on the subject. Some are experts on our complicated procedures and on the involved interpretations of rules as set out by Erskine, May, Beauchesne and others.
May I say in passing that I think part of the time which this measure is supposedly designed to save could be saved if less time were devoted to some of the more abstruse discussions on the rules which take place on occasion. Sometimes we may talk about the rules for several hours during any one week.
As has been pointed out by many in this debate, we can utilize many methods to save time in this house other than the one proposed by the government. In this case, however, we are not embarked on the usual kind of rules debate. This really is an effort by the government to emasculate parliament. It is an effort to take away from the representatives of the people in this chamber their right to discuss a government measure at sufficient length so that its weaknesses may be exposed and so that the general public may become aware of those weaknesses.
I think parliamentary histories and histories of countries demonstrate that only as a
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
result of considerable debate can the function of the opposition in parliament be exercised. Only that way can the beneficial results-and I think we all admit they are beneficial-of a proper opposition in parliament be secured for the people of the country.
One could point to many examples of what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is pleased to call a filibuster. Generally people on the government front benches call them filibusters. In many cases far from being filibusters those proceedings ought to have been called debates, designed to alert the general public to the dangers of legislation being presented to the house and to secure a sufficient interest in the matter so that public opinion might be brought to bear, and in turn so that the government might be brought to realize that the legislation being proposed needed to be changed.
One could point to all sorts of examples in recent years of so-called filibusters, the two most outstanding being the debate on Mr. Howe's proposals to retain certain powers under the Defence Production Act, and the pipeline debate. There is no hon. member here who could not cite many other examples. They all show how necessary it is for opposition parties to be able to debate for a sufficiently long time measures brought forward by the government, in order to arouse public opinion. That such debate is necessary I think is self-evident, and any student or lover of the democratic process will readily admit that there is necessity for such debate.
The ostensible reasons the government has for introducing proposed rule 75c are to save the time of the house, to prevent obstruction in the house by the opposition, and so on. I ask hon. members on the government side who are putting forward this proposal, what obstruction are they talking about? What obstruction has prevailed in the past year that makes necessary a rule like 75c? If they answer that question reasonably and fairly perhaps the only measure they can point to in which there was any obstruction at all was the omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code. In any event I think that proposed rules 75a and 75b would have been sufficient to deal with that situation, and there would not have been any need to invoke rule 75c.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the proposal to introduce rule 75c demonstrates that the government does not like parliament, that it looks on parliament as a nuisance, and that it is determined to undermine it and reduce its power as much as possible. Except in countries ruled by dictators, or that have been in
Procedure and Organization the past ruled by dictators, one will generally find a conflict between the legislative and executive branches of government. The history of almost every country shows that the executive from time to time has tried to take unto itself greater and greater powers and get away from restraints imposed by the legislature.
In the United States system there is a division of powers which is designed to ensure that the executive is shackled by the legislative and judicial branches. In our system of representative cabinet government although it is theoretically possible for members of the house to control the power of the cabinet by threatening to vote its members out of office, in practice when one considers how party discipline has developed that is a practical impossibility.
Since it is almost impossible to make members of the government party vote against the government, we have lost within our legislatures the power to restrain governments. Unless the opposition retains the right to, shall we say, obstruct government if it feels the government is pursuing a course that is against the best interests of the country, public opinion may never become alerted to the danger, and action to correct the danger may not be taken. The legislation may go through parliament before the country is alerted to its danger.
Where is the evidence that this government looks on parliament as a nuisance, and that it seeks to undermine it, Mr. Speaker? One piece of evidence is the roster system for the attendance of ministers. The absence of ministers impairs the effectiveness of the question period, and by this method the government has shown its contempt of parliament. One of the traditional rights of members of the house has been the right to question in the house members of the executive with respect of government policy. Since at best only half our ministers are supposed to be here at any one time under the roster system, the rights of ordinary members have been impaired. But even more clearly does the government show its contempt for parliament when, day after day, only eight, nine, ten or eleven of the 28 ministers show up for the question period. Today, for example, there were eight ministers here for a time, and later nine. This can only be interpreted as thinking that parliament does not amount to anything, that the ministries do not have to account to parliament for their actions, thus generally circulating the idea throughout the

Procedure and Organization country that parliament is no longer an effective or useful body.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
This general attitude on the part of the present government is demonstrated even more forcibly by the absenteeism of ministers and Liberal members during debates. Their absenteeism in this session has been notorious. Last Thursday the house had to adjourn for lack of a quorum. I think it was a very good thing it did, because attendance of ministers and Liberal members has been considerably better since than was the case before. In addition, there has been more life in the house. The house has resembled what it used to be 10 or 15 years ago instead of what it has been during the past months when generally it was dead. Few ministers were here and few questions went back and forth. There was no fight to the proceedings. Since the house had to adjourn last Thursday things have improved from this point of view.
In my view this action should and could have been taken long before. During the last six sitting days of June I noted at times when I was in the house that a quorum was not present, and I do not know how many other times there was not a quroum when I was not in the house. I counted between six to nine Liberal members present, and frequently no cabinet minister. Absenteeism has been going on for a considerable period, but I hope the action taken last Thursday will bring this extreme form of it to an end. I do not think there is any doubt that what this extreme absenteeism demonstrated was nothing but a lack of regard for this institution, the adoption of the attitude that what happens here does not matter.


An hon. Member:: It happens with all parties.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will come to that. Absenteeism has been a problem since I first came to this house in 1945, particularly on Mondays and Fridays. In my early days here there used to be what was known as the Tuesday to Thursday club, people who came here for those three days,, spending the remainder of the week with their law business or something else. This club comprised people who lived within a reasonably short distance from Ottawa. The quorum was maintained on Mondays and Fridays chiefly by members from the west and the maritime provinces.


Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Would
the hon. member permit a question?
[Mr. Harkness.l
DEBATES	July 15. 1969


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: May I
ask the hon. member how many opposition members were present in the house at the time the count was made last Thursday?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was not here at the time so I cannot answer that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not mind admitting that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We pulled out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My point is that there were only 6, 7 or 8 Liberal members. It is the members of the government who have the primary responsibility for maintaining a quorum in the house. They know they were very much at fault on that occasion, as they have been for months as far as attendance is concerned. They are now attempting to escape the odium that naturally falls on them as a result of what happened last Thursday by claiming that members of the opposition were not here in sufficient numbers either. As I said, the primary responsibility for maintaining a quorum rests with members of the Liberal party, not with the opposition.
I make no apology for, or condone for one moment absenteeism on the part of opposition members during the past year, though by comparison it has been much less than among the members of the Liberal party. Attendance of opposition members at times has not been as good as it should, and I would be the last to say that that was not the case. But it has been much better than attendance of government members, and anyone who has kept track must be appalled at how bad is the record of the Liberal party in this regard.
As I mentioned earlier, the excuse given for introducing rule 75c, and also the other rules that have been put into effect to curtail debate in this house during the past number of years, has been that it is necessary to save the time of the house and get through the great volume of work we have to handle. From my experience I contend this is a fallacy to a large extent.
In fact, it works the other way around. You might say there is a law similar to Parkinson's law, which is that debate is always prolonged to use up all of the time allotted. I think the President of the Privy Council and members of the Liberal party should keep that in mind. Since Parkinson's law is now
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
well recognized, I hope that this law, which is similar, will also soon be recognized.
There are plenty of examples I can call upon to show this law is true. For several years during my earlier period in the house there was no time limit on any debate except debate on private members' business. The throne speech debate could go on for weeks if members wanted to prolong it to that extent, and sometimes they did. Similarly the budget debate was unrestricted.
But in actual practice, if you look back over the record, Mr. Speaker, though debates were sometimes long they were also often quite short. On one or two occasions we dispensed with one or two days on the throne speech debate. Since time limits have been imposed on the throne speech debate and the budget debate, practically always the time is fully taken up. There are only two instances that I can remember when the time allotted to those two debates was not consumed. In other words, if time is allotted to a debate, there is a natural tendency to expand the debate in order to use up the time.
It is often argued that in past years there was not nearly as much business to deal with as there is today, and therefore in former days you could take time to have long debates on the throne speech, the budget, or anything else. It is claimed this cannot be done today because there is too much business to get through. The answer that I point to the first post-war session held in 1946. More measures were passed and business completed in that session than in any other session during the 24 or 25 years I have been here. Nevertheless there were no time limits on any of the debates. I think it was some time in February when the session started and it finished about the end of August. Considerably longer sessions than that have been normal in recent years since time limits came in with regard to debates.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The greatest example of the point I am trying to make is that if you put a limit on a debate it is going to expand it. There will not be any time saved at all. It is instructive to look at the question period before any time limit was laid down for it. I took a bound volume of Hansard at random off my shelves and looked to see what the question period amounted to in those years. I picked up volume V for the 1953-54 session.
Looking at the first day which is covered in this volume, Friday, May 7, 1954, we see that there were three questions asked that day.
Procedure and Organization The questions and the answers take up one page in Hansard. The next sitting day, which would be Monday, May 10, four questions were asked. One page of Hansard was taken up with regard to the matter. The record continues: Tuesday, May 11, three questions, one and three-quarters pages of Hansard; May 12, seven questions, three and one-quarter pages of Hansard; May 13, three questions, three-quarters of a page of Hansard; Friday, May 14, four questions, one page of Hansard; May 17, two questions, half a page of Hansard; May 20, seven questions, three and one-half pages. This was typical of the situation with regard to questions and the amount of time taken up with questions for years and years in this house.
It was normal for the question period to take up five to ten minutes and very frequently only one, two or three minutes. One of the reasons for that was that the rules with regard to oral questions were enforced. A question had to be short and of importance. In my opinion the majority of the questions asked today would have been ruled out of order in that period. This, of course, kept the length of the question period shorter.
But when a specific time limit was put on the question period, allotting 40 minutes a day, what happened? Immediately the question period expanded so that it took up the whole 40 minutes. Last Friday is a good example. There were at least two or three dozen questions asked. The question period lasted the full 40 minutes. Possibly Your Honour was a little lenient and it even went beyond that. The questions and answers occupy ten and a half pages of Hansard.
When you start putting limits on debates and question periods, instead of saving time you do the opposite. You prolong debate. This is the point I am trying to make. If rule 75c were used to any extent, it would not save the time of the house. It would have the opposite effect. More time would be taken up in the house to debate the same matters. Every time an allocation of time would be made under this rule, undoubtedly the full time would be taken up. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the basic argument which the government puts forward that this rule is necessary to save time is a fallacy. It is based on a lack of study of what happened in the past, particularly the history of the question period, to see what the situation has been with regard to the throne speech and the budget debate which now have time allocations.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said in his speech last week, the real
11230	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization purpose of the government in introducing this rule is to force certain questionable measures through quickly. It is simply a less blatant measure of closure and one which the government thinks it can use without contracting the odium which the use of our regular rule of closure might bring down on it.
The fact that we have a closure rule makes introduction of rule 75c superfluous and unnecessary. If real obstruction is taking place, of a nature which the general public disapproves of, the government can use closure without fear. When they cannot use it without fear is when public opinion is against them. It is for cases such as this that they want rule 75c, cases when public opinion is against them. When they are wrong, they want to use 75c. I submit it is a thoroughly undemocratic device and one which any government calling itself Liberal should be ashamed to be introducing into this chamber.
A further argument has been put forward against this measure. My time is getting short therefore I will not go into it. The argument is that this proposed rule is ambiguous. This in itself should be enough for the government to withdraw it. There has been a great deal of discussion and argument as to what this rule actually means, how it will be interpreted, and what the general result of it will be. If the government were a reasonable government this should be sufficient reason for it to withdraw the rule.
I believe rule 75c is a thoroughly bad and unnecessary proposal. I hope the government will realize this and end their efforts to force it through the house.


Mr. Hy Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be short, but I hope helpful.
I have a suggestion to make which could possibly shorten this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hyliard G. Chappell: I believe this suggestion has sufficient merit to warrant consideration by the government and the opposition. I look forward to hearing comment on it from some of the members of the Official Opposition now in the house. It is somewhat different from the suggestion reputed to be mine and put forward last Friday by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman).
Rule 75b provides that when there is a majority, that is to say, three of the four house leaders agreeing in respect to the allotment of time, the minister can implement that agreement by a motion. The logic seems

DEBATES	July 15, 1969
obvious enough, namely, that a large or relatively strong majority cannot be delayed in their work by a small minority.
If the Official Opposition and the N.D.P. agreed with the government, the majority would be 248 over 14. If the Official Opposition and the Creditistes agreed with the government, it would be 240 over 22. No one argues in this debate that a group as small as 14 or 22 should hold up a large majority. If the Creditistes and the N.D.P. agreed with the government, there would be 190 in agreement and the other 72, members of the Official Opposition, could not hold up what the 190 wish to get ahead with in the house.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
So far I follow that logic. But there is another combination which has been overlooked, namely the government and the Official Opposition. That would be 226 over 36. As 75b now stands the Official Opposition with 72 members does not have as much weight as the two small groups with a total of 36. Something is wrong. How do 36 members become more powerful than 72 members?
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) when speaking last week said all hon. members are equal in the House of Commons. I would like to agree with him but certainly it is difficult to do so when we see 36 members with more say in respect of allotment of time than 72 members
I say that our thinking is all wrong in two respects. First, we must recognize the importance of the members rather than their parties. There should be no premium or reward in this House of Commons because a member belongs to a third choice or a fourth choice party, or possibly in the future to a fifth, sixth or seventh choice party.
Second, as 75b stands we overlook the essence of democracy, namely, that the party with the greatest majority forms the government. But there is another party that is important, the Official Opposition, the Loyal Opposition, which has carried out that most important role for centuries. It is that party which stands ready to take over should we lose the confidence of this house. No other party in this house can possibly form the government except by a vague hope, and even then only after another election. The small parties may stand ready and hope sometime to become the Official Opposition but they cannot during the life of this parliament. The people elected us, the Liberals, to form the government, and the opposition stands ready to take over. I think we break
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
faith with the people if we do not give the Official Opposition its full responsibility in comparison with the two minor parties.
During the debate on the omnibus Criminal Code bill we listened for weeks to the tedious and useless repetition of the Creditiste filibuster. Just last week the other small party, the N.D.P., caused the waste of a total evening session by calling for a quorum count during the private members hour and then withdrawing themselves from the count. I can hardly comprehend an official opposition being so irresponsible as to waste time by destroying an evening. It is equivalent to a self-inflicted thrombosis in the life blood of parliament.
Then what should be done? There is a simple answer. I put the challenge squarely to the Official Opposition.


An hon. Member:: Put it to yourself first.


An hon. Member:: Who are you trying to kid?


Hyliard G. Chappell: 
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house listened to the suggestion just made by the hon. gentleman and gave it the attention it deserves. It amazes me that an hon. member of the Liberal party would cast aspersions on the N.D.P., the former C.C.F., and speak of that party in such disparaging tones, because they were the nursery which gave the present government its Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and two ministers. That is an attitude which does not indicate that spirit of compassion and consideration which I would have expected of the hon. gentleman. I am sure he could not have been speaking on behalf of the Liberal party for certainly such views border on heresy of the worst kind.
Now, sir, I do not intend to traverse the ground which has been gone over during the last few days. I took the government at its word, very much in the spirit of the Revelation, "I, John, saw a new heaven and a new earth". This government was in power and all was well. The house was going to adjourn on, I believe, June 27.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: June 26.


John George Diefenbaker: Everything indicated that conclusion. Then at the last moment that pathological disease that has affected the Liberal party for a period now of 13 years evidenced itself and along came the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), a man whom one would never dream would try to destroy or participate in destroying this institution. He occupies a high position. You can always find an appropriate reference to Shakespeare. As I look at that hon. gentleman I think of these words of Shakespeare:
-but man. proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape.
It is now the minister's turn to laugh again.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
I cannot understand this government. I find it difficult to recognize in a government a desire on the part of its members to destroy this institution. What is the reasoning for this? I ask this of the ministers and I am faced by a galaxy of two-two ministers sitting across the corridor when parliament is discussing a matter that, if carried into effect,
11232	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization will be the death sentence of this institution. They sit and they smirk. One of these ministers is the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Dube). While veterans all over this country are suffering he does not dare do anything because the Prime Minister has said that it must not be done.
Isn't it a strange commentary that ministers of the Crown today are unable to speak unless directed, and unable to arise unless it is their day to get out of the corral-and they accept it? They glory in it. What a government! Backbenchers talk of the rights of parliament. They cannot call their souls their own. They dare not speak in committee without permission and direction. We must thank the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), who made it very clear what the instructions were that debunked this idea that the committee system was going to work free from any consideration of political bias or prejudice. He pointed out that the direction was, "You will vote as you are told." So much for the backbenchers and their power. I should like to see the backbenchers speak up but they are not allowed to speak.
When the cabinet is throttled, what happens 1o the backbenchers? All they have is the right to vote; all they constitute is the necessary membership to provide a quorum. I was not here last week because I took the government at its word. I am back because I do not want 1he government caught with its quorum down again.
Why do they act this way? I have done a little research and I have read a little about Machiavelli. The Prime Minister was asked shortly after he became the Prime Minister who was his model politician and statesman, and without hesitation he said "Machiavelli".
I have a volume here which describes Machiavelli as having been a talented dissembler, a ready opportunist, a master in the field of human weakness, an accountant of forgotten sentences, a promoter of vanity, a skilful juggler, a lover of cunning and a worshipper of force.
He is the one who has been chosen as the guardian saint of the Liberal Party. I will deal in a moment with the promises made by the Prime Minister. I will not deal with them in a personal way as he is not here. He is out in western Canada and he is finding out what his ministers have not told him.
Just imagine the three silent ministers from western Canada. We have from Winnipeg the hon. gentleman who knows more about wheat, I presume, than any other person in
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
DEBATES	July 15, 1969
this house if not in the country as a whole. Then there is the hon. member from Saskatchewan. He is a general factotum and has knowledge of almost everything, at least according to the number of portfolios he fills from time to time. Then there is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) from Alberta who, when he was sitting on this side of the house in the Social Credit party demanded action from the government in loud and stentorian tones till he got close to the point when he made a saltus; a turn over of views, and gave us a major performance when he finally saw the light and took his place. He was in favour of the two price system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I always hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman and I appreciate that what he is saying is by way of an introduction to his address to the house, but I have to remind him that we are dealing with the amendment to the main motion which has reference to proposed Standing Order 75c. I know that in due course the right hon. gentleman will bare his remarks and direct them to the subject matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was just in the process of showing where the hypocrisy was, and where was the location of the stupidity. The Prime Minister made a statement the other day he ought not to have made, but I know that is the attitude of this government. They want this power for the purpose of carrying out their wishes regardless of the people of Canada. No tyrant could ask for more than this power.
The Prime Minister would go all through the form of having a parliament. He would have it sit, but whenever there was criticism that the government did not like in would come rule 75c to destroy the opposition. I say to you, Sir, that in order to build the argument and to show that this is so, I have the right, I suggest with deference, to point out what is being done here by this government.
Let me go back to Hansard of last fall, September 16, 1968, when the Prime Minister made a dissertation on parliament and revealed his views as to how parliament should act, and also indicated his ideas of parliament in so far as the opposition is concerned. You can read it in Hansard for September 16 at pages 72 and 73. After expressing doubt as to whether parliament is an instiiution that should be maintained, despite
July 15, 1969

the greatness of its past, he ended up with these words:
It goes without saying that any proposal for procedural reform must assist both sides of this house to function more efficiently.
Is that what is going to happen if this rule comes into effect; that the opposition is going to be able to function more efficiently? He talks about hypocrisy. There was hypocrisy then, and there is now. All of this is happening while he is pretending that this proposed rule is to bring about a strenghtening of parliament. Parliament is being undermined and eroded.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The three who are gathered together and are united in this aim are those the Liberal party took over holus-bolus from the N.D.P.-C.C.F. The house will remember that early last year we saw the attitude of the government of Canada as revealed by the Prime Minister. This was after the government had been defeated. The Prime Minister was then minister of justice. The government was defeated. The opposition gave it opportunities for extra days, and so on. If the government had then gone to the country, as it should in carrying out its constitutional responsibility, it would not be in the position it is today. What did the Prime Minister say when he was minister of justice? These were his words:
We are the masters of this chamber. We decide that we are the government.
I repeat, "We are the masters". As that statement finally appeared in the printing of the French translation, it read:
We are the masters of this chamber in the sense that we should manage its business.
In the English version it read:
We are masters of the house in the sense that we have to conduct the affairs of government.
If the statement "We are masters of the house" had been made in the mother of parliaments, it would have brought such a degree of resentment on the part of the government and opposition that it would have had to be withdrawn. This is the philosophy behind proposed rule 75c, namely, "We are the masters".
I quote from another minister to indicate the attitude of the government. These are the words of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who received notice that I was going to deal with him. He is the conscience of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government
Procedure and Organization of today. He is the man who represents the quintessence of the concept, "We are your masters". Very recently he was interviewed by Nathan Cohen on "Twenty Million Questions". I should like to read what this minister of the Crown said, because it indicates the attitude of the government when the Prime Minister says, "We are your masters. You over there are stupid. You have not the right to speak. We do not agree with you". These are the words of the Secretary of State:
I was sitting in the house and listening to these people and I said: "if only the majority of Canadians could hear this nonsense being spoken openly as I hear it tonight, they would see how absurd it is".
These are our masters! He then went on to say that it was nonsensical. Mr. Cohen asked, "What makes their views nonsensical?" The answer was, "Because they are talking nonsense". The minister then revealed himself clearly in these words:
This is a personal judgment, but I make personal judgments and I think I'm right usually when I make them.
There is the picture: the Prime Minister says, "We are the masters" and the Secretary of State says, "They talk nonsense". It must be shocking to the finer sensibilities of those who wander in the intellectual greatness of ivory towers to have to listen to opposition members advancing their views. It was pointed out that the Secretary of State is now responsible for the C.B.C., the National Film Board, the Canada Council, the National Gallery, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
Can you imagine a man having this power and those views? I will mention what he said about the C.B.C. He made it very clear where he stands with regard to that corporation. This is the man who was going to abolish the Queen. This is the man who voted for the principle of a republic. He does not hide the fact that this is where he stands. He said:
Now, with the present management of the C.B.C. I must say that I can discuss with them very freely and I feel no resistance and (that) I feel that I'm in the company of people who want basically the same things that I want myself to achieve.
Is that not a frightful proposition? I have been away from the House of Commons. When I am away I always record my absence. I have been away because I trusted this government to do what it said it would. The
11234	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization Secretary of State says with regard to the C.B.C.:
-I feel that I'm in the company of people who want basically the same things that I want myself to achieve.
How many reports on the C.B.C. has parliament considered? I have listened to the C.B.C. every night and have not heard anything on this subject; there has been absolute silence. You would not know there was a debate in the house that concerns the future and the greatness of this institution. Not a word has been said on the C.B.C. On the other hand the sycophants who praise the government find their way on to the channels of the C.B.C.-those who say the House of Commons is a bore, those who say there is here needless repetition, those who say this kind of thing should end, those who say parliament should be at the whim of the lust of power-grasping individuals. These people are reported; their statements are given on the C.B.C. Last Sunday, the report from Parliament Hill would indicate that everything here was boring. That is because these people have decided that something must be done to bolster up the government. The Secretary of State also said the trouble with us in parliament is that we have not the knowledge:
-I'm a little sick myself of hearing about understanding when knowledge is not even there. And you can't come to understanding without knowledge.
This is the man who sits over there, controls these various organizations, and says that he finds in the C.B.C. a brotherhood of thought and idealism. Is this one of the reasons why individuals come to our country for the purpose of stirring up trouble? I do not refer to all those who come to this country, but there are people who come here to stir up trouble, and they always seem to be able to find a place on the C.B.C. to voice their propositions to the Canadian people. And when they do not come here because they would be asked to leave, the C.B.C. arranges for their views to be broadcast. One individual spoke over the telephone from the United States; the C.B.C. arranged this. The C.B.C. representative said to him, "We are glad to have your views. Be sure to call me up."
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is what is happening here. The government house leader has said, "Oh, do not be afraid. We will not use this rule, except in 1 per cent of cases. In 99 cases out of 100 we will not use it." I ask what has the government in mind? Why is it endeavouring to

DEBATES	July 15, 1969
foist this on us at this time? What is the purpose, what is the objective? Why the rush? Who wants what?
Over and over again in this house the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) and the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) have asked where the government was held up. The government has not been held up. Nothing has been done for the veterans or for the farmers. Oh, yes, the farmers are to have a visitation from on high. The Prime Minister is in western Canada but he is not there to consult the farmers. This attitude, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the government is the attitude of dictators.
This parliament is a sham. The hon. member on this side of the house who preceded me said that there have been changes over the years. This parliament is dead and if we carry on as we have been we shall become undertakers who are about to bury parliament.
It is the government that refuses to place legislation before the house. The opposition cannot propose legislation. Yet the government cannot point to one piece of legislation that is ready to be put before the house. Instead we hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in reply to questions from the Leader of the Opposition say, "We are not going to tell you what is going to happen. It is a secret. Some day we will reveal it." No doubt that will be in the great by and by. When we ask the government what it is going to do, the answer invariably given is, "We are giving thought to the matter." Indeed, it is impossible to understand what the government wants or what it has in mind.
On September 16 when the Prime Minister was speaking about parliament, he said, as reported at page 72 of Hansard:
-whether our systems of government have outlived their effectiveness,-
And, sir, he followed with these words:
-whether .. . new institutions are necessary-
What does that mean? Are we to do away with the parliamentary system and adopt the congressional system of government? Is that the new institution?
This government's attitude was demonstrated when on June 24 the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) directed, contrary to the rules of protocol, that no flag was to be flown at half mast over parliament hill in memory of one of the greatest soldiers of our time, and
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
our former Governor General. Then we discovered that we were blaming the Secretary of State unfairly, because the orders had come from the Prime Minister's office. That was another indication of the government's cavalier disregard for precedent.
The Prime Minister went on to say in his speech:
There is abroad in Canada and elsewhere a spreading concern that the traditional techniques of governments are incapable of responding adequately and in time to the changing needs of society... We are given an opportunity in this place, in this session, which may not again present itself. It is the opportunity to prove to Canadians, ourselves included, that a parliamentary form of government is not only capable of meeting the demands of this complex age, but that it is more capable of doing so than is any other form.
That apparently is what is in the minds of the Prime Minister and his associates in seeking these powers.
Much was made of debates in previous years, but speeches were not read. I know the effect of strong debate on the part of the opposition. I have sat on both sides of the house. On one occasion when I was prime minister we brought in legislation we thought was good, only to discover after three or four members had examined it that something was wrong with it. You cannot have good legislation without debate, and it seems the government wants us to have a total of four days of debate only which is to be spread over a period of ten days. That is what the government wants.
The self-appointed prophets of radio, television, and the press say this matter is not very important. They talk about a mere 1 per cent of cases. It has been interesting to read Mr. Weasel-Westell, I beg your pardon. That was a slip of the tongue. But he and others like him certainly weaseled around and produced a eulogium on what is taking place here. They said to the opposition in effect, "What are you doing? You are boring us." Well, people like that must bore easily because you seldom see them in the gallery.
The attitude of this government has been one of wanting to trample on the rights of the opposition. The hon. gentleman who preceded me should have offered his remedy to the government. After all, it is the government that is all-powerful. The Prime Minister has said that this is a stupid filibuster. Well, the government cannot back up. It is caught in its own tangled web, and it must keep up appearances. The Leader of the Opposition has said that as long as 75c stands, so shall we stand against it.
Procedure and Organization


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Crouse:: That message is loud and clear.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the President of
the Privy Council that while he may cow Liberal members, he cannot cow us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He tries to.


John George Diefenbaker: He will not get away with it. I want to be very fair with the President of the Privy Council. Only occasionally does he make a pilgrimage out in front of the house to tell the nation that he did not say what he is said to have said. Each day ministers treat this house with contempt, disregarding questions or answering flippantly. Sometimes, when they are caught and embarrassed, they rush out and in the ante-room of parliament tell the Canadian people what they did not say.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The government are making a caricature of this institution. They do not care about it. Tyranny has no conscience. Hon. gentlemen opposite want to drive this measure through, but they now find themselves caught.
I realize some hon. members sitting around me believed that all was going to be well in this parliament; that committees would be set up similar to those in the United States where partisanship does not always enter. But under our system of government they have found out that this cannot be. If Liberals on a committee voted contrary to what the government wanted, it would be a vote of non-confidence. Such cannot happen on United States committees.
I was particularly impressed by one of the hon. members from Nova Scotia who spoke yesterday. When mention was made of cooperation, he said that there had been too much co-operation, that we have spoiled the government. I told hon. members that if they fed these people opposite with power they would abuse it. If you compromise with them to reach agreement they will use that compromise as a method of denuding and deflowering the opposition. That has been the lesson over the years.
I like to see young backbenchers across the way laughing at my remarks, because that is about the only contribution they make. There are more young members of ability in this house than one sees in many parliaments. I read their speeches, and I could refer to two in particular that were delivered by Liberal members. Although I did not agree with their
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization views, I do agree that they will make unusually fine parliamentarians.
One of them, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), in a moment of great exhilaration, said in effect that the committee system has been wonderful, that it has revealed the kind of trickeries of government. We now know, said the hon. member, what otherwise we would not have known.
Those of us who have been here for years have a deep and abiding affection for this institution and do not want to see it destroyed. We want to see it made strong and effective, but not by telling the opposition in effect that they have four days to discuss a certain matter and must go to it. That is an old threat.
I remember when the former prime minister, Mr. Pearson, tried to explain away in this house the sterility of the programs that he had brought before parliament. He said that had he had a similar rule to this present proposal he would have been able to do so much. I should like to ask the government what they would do with this power. Efforts to curtail parliamentary power have been characteristic over the years. History proves that autocracy and dictatorships are shadows that forever stand in the wings of parliament.
I should like some minister to tell us what the government are going to do when they get this power. Where are these strong men that form the government? Where is the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp)? Where is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), that wizard on financial matters? What action are these people taking today? With this rule would they have taken any action to forestall the increase to its highest point of the cost of living in this country? Would they have taken action to ensure that the western farmer would not be in the position he now is, with the economy going down and down and retail sales disappearing on every hand? I think sales have slumped 13 per cent during the last six months.
What does the one per cent to which reference has been made mean? Nobody knows. Ministers do not speak, they sit-if they are here. One would expect ministers to rise in their place to defend this proposal. But no; except for one or two speeches there has been silence. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the right hon. gentleman as his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) not here? The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) is a congenial fellow with a knowledge of this parliament that few have. I knew his distinguished father and his distinguished grandfather, and the hon. member is always in the house. I feel more at home seeing him here, and I know he would not say anything to which the government would not want to listen.
So I conclude by asking whether the government intend to bring about the abolition of our parliamentary system. Is the Secretary of State now to be given the opportunity to push through in four days a measure dealing with the abolition of the monarchy? Is this what the government has in mind? There is no question the government could do this under this proposed rule. They have a favourable Senate. In recent years that institution has not shown that independence of which so much is often spoken.
No longer have we a constitution. It can now be amended by a simple vote of the House of Commons and Senate. Would the house leader tell us what he has in mind by his reference to one per cent? This is about the ratio that the legislation introduced bears to the total amount of legislation that should have been introduced by this government. What does the government want to destroy? What is the plan?
Last September the Prime Minister stated that the government would have to find out whether other institutions must take the place of parliament. These days this parliament has an appointment with its own destiny. The question facing it will not be answered by an opposition that grovels and goes on bended knee. Although we are all desirous of taking a vacation let me tell the government they are not going to push this proposal through. What the government has done to this country during the last year has resulted in the greatest fall in support in political history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members used to quote Gallup polls when they told a story in their favour. But look what happened in Manitoba. Down went the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: The Liberals in Manitoba could not stomach this government here and voted N.D.P. That is why we have a change of government in Manitoba today. If Liberal members have been in their constituencies I would have liked to have been present to listen to what their constituents said to them, because the language would not have been parliamentary. I presume that is the reason those members will not place it before the House of Commons.


Mark Willson Rose: It is
a great honour to follow the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I feel somewhat like a conductor of a high school orchestra being asked to perform following the New York Philharmonic. I am delighted to congratulate the right hon. member for a very excellent speech in spite of the fact that he said many of the things I wanted to say. I would like to thank him also for all his kind words about the N.D.P.
This is a speech I hoped I would never be required to make. Before I am through a number of hon. members will probably feel the same way. It should have been unnecessary to make this kind of speech, but the stubborn cabinet seem to delight in this kind of cliff-hanger. We had their Christmas present in terms of rule 16a and now we face the dubious prospect of sitting around here throughout the stifling Ottawa summer.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Incidentally, where is the cabinet?


Mark Willson Rose: An hon. member is asking, where is the cabinet? I imagine the cabinet is reviewing some legislation because that is what it has been doing all year.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They are not in the house.


Mark Willson Rose: I wish to tell hon. members that I for one resent being kept here to prove some point or to save the face of the government house leader. I will stay here night and day-


Mr. Nowlan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Chair to notice that there is not one member of Her Majesty's Privy Council in the chamber at this time.


Mr. Perrault:: That's no point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would not like the member for Burnaby-Seymour, no matter how wise he may be-
Procedure and Organization


Raymond J. Perrault: It is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should be allowed to state his point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to draw to the attention of the Chair that there is not one member of Her Majesty's Privy Council in the chamber. To my knowledge I believe this is a tradition that has been so long in observance it has almost become a rule of this house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I fail to see the point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: As I was saying before the point of order was raised, I am prepared to sit here all summer to debate this amendment, although I would much rather stay here to debate something useful. I suggest the government should introduce some legislation to lower the interest rates. They should make some proposals to deal with the cost of living. We would then gladly stay here to support the government. But they are playing around here with a gag rule, a kind of subliminal closure which is not needed. For all their talk about parliamentary reform what I believe they are trying to do is cow the opposition with a lot of bull.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: I think most Canadians welcome parliamentary reform. I know our party does. We agree to time limits as long as they are reached in consultation and by agreement, and to such rules as 75a and 75b. By the way, for the most part proposed rules 75a and 75b were articulated by my house leader, the phantom of parliament, that muscular member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
We agree there should be a reform in parliament. I do not think there will be any argument in this house that reform is not necessary, but I wish to remind the house that reform in parliament is not everything. What is really needed here is reform in government. When parliament is reformed, it does not automatically follow that government will be reformed and made more responsive to the aspirations and needs of people. We need the kind of government which is much more forthright and open and not the kind which we have now which is furtive and secretive.
How can parliamentary reform guarantee that the government is going to desist from its preoccupation with various "style" issues
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization such as bilingualism and biculturalism, the other sometime in the future. Here we are constitution, and instead, involve itself with frittering our time away on a debate which is the needs and issues that really concern peo- virtually meaningless to many Canadians. We pie? Inadequate housing and employment and are using what little brains God gave most of galloping inflation are the matters that are us figuring out picayune devices like quorum [DOT]currently making a mockery of our egalitari- calls and other phoney stunts designed to em-an ideal. It is time we spent our summer barrass the government in order for it to come .debating issues such as these rather than a to its senses and depart from the stupid posi-gag rule such as 75c.	tion it has taken.
It is obvious to everyone the government will not bring forward legislation to deal with unemployment and inflation, and I do not believe it wants to. In spite of the lesson in Manitoba the government continues to be contemptuous of what the Canadian people are trying to tell it. I wish to quote from an article by Peter Regenstreif which appeared in the June 23 issue of the Toronto Daily Star:
Bilingualism or "the constitution" are irrelevant to the great majority of Canadians. Ask a national sample of voters: "What do you feel are the most important problems government should do something about?" and the answers come back-high taxes, the high cost of living, housing, unemployment. Pose the same question to top officials in government, industry, communications, and to the better educated-in other words to the elites-and the most frequently mentioned reply has something to do with relations between French and English or government.
It is easy to claim that such differences in orientation are to be expected because they spring from the different backgrounds and needs of the various groups involved. Unfortunately, many often go on from this to claim that politics is not simply the business of counting noses but requires what they like to call "leadership." That is, the leaders of a society know best what's good for it and so while the working-class whites in the United States and the mass public in Canada may want something, they shouldn't be allowed to get it unless it squares with what the elite feels it should have.
This argument tends to be heard more often in Canada than in the United States but it hardly matters, it seems to me, what should or should not be the case. If the leadership of a society ever really holds this view for very long, it will find itself without a society to lead.
I did not come to Ottawa to indulge in silly little games like this, Mr. Speaker, but if this is the way the game is played, I guess we will have to play it out to the bitter end. The people of Canada regard parliament and parliamentarians with contempt. When Canadian [DOT]citizens are on the way to their summer cottages, vacations and camping trips, they read about parliament sitting in the oppressive atmosphere of the Ottawa summer squabbling endlessly, not about important legislation but about some obscure, barely understandable rule, some brainchild of the government, designed to limit discussion on something or

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: We have no choice.


Mark Willson Rose: All right. Here we are engaged in a debate in which perhaps everything of real importance has been said in the first four speeches. The value of the contribution by the extra speakers might be judged not in relation to what they say but how long they take in saying it. Any speech shorter than 39 minutes is considered in this debate to be a very poor speech. When the debate on the amendment is concluded we will all be making 39 minute speeches on the main motion just to prolong this war of attrition until something gives and sanity once more is allowed to prevail.
Here we are in the opposition forced into the role of defiant schoolboys, who have been kept in after school in the detention room by an overbearing school principal in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his petulant sabre-rattling hatchet man, the house leader, Mac the Knife, who now has himself manoeuvred into a corner where he can only back down with a tremendous loss of face, accompanied naturally by the justified scorn of the combined opposition, an opposition whose mood of operation I am afraid is now at an end and that now is determined to see this through to the bitter finale whatever and whenever that may be.
It has been said before, but I believe it bears repeating, that this government has had the full co-operation of the opposition all session. Not that we have dealt with anything very radical or new this year. Most of the time admittedly has been devoted to a cleanup of the old Pearson legislation. The major bills such as the drug bill, the Criminal Code amendments and the language bill were in virtually their final form last year when the government was defeated and later dissolved graciously by the new leader. Certainly these pieces can be regarded as important, but what else is new; what else has the government proposed this year that would justify the faith Canadians placed in it last June? What has been accomplished this session to
July 15, 1969

demonstrate the new politics, a new direction, or even to show a glimpse of progress toward a solution of the many problems facing many Canadians today?
Oh, sure, interest rates have been upped through three farm bills, a couple of fisheries bills, and on student loans. In the classic manner of fighting inflation by allowing higher interest rates for the lenders and higher taxes for the borrowers, the government has freed mortgage housing rates to find their own level somewhere in the stratosphere. Concurrently the 3 per cent income tax surcharge has been maintained. Additionally, the magnificent gesture of the added 2 per cent social development tax levied upon wage earners was sanctioned in the name of protecting them from themselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must direct his attention to the fact that we are debating a question of procedure and I would invite him to return to the subject matter which really is before the house.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting to show an example of how we might be using our time here debating something of greater relevance at the moment than 75c. You have said I have strayed too far afield, and I will be guided by your wisdom. I shall try to get back on the track and proceed.
I would suggest that the debate in which we are currently involved has a number of ramifications which have to do with the future of Canada and it has been used as a substitute for the real issues that face the Canadian people. What we are engaged in here is not debate which most people understand but rather a debate in which all the relevant things which concern the people of Canada are deliberately avoided. We are engaged in what to most people is an almost incomprehensible struggle, long after we have completed all the regular government legislation, all the legislation with which we have been asked to deal.
Here we are burning the midsummer oil, so to speak, when most members would prefer to be in their constituencies doing the other kind of work a member of parliament is required to do. While we are here in the house discussing 75c we of course cannot be in our constituencies dealing with the kind of problems which crop up from time to time and which need our attention.
As I say we are burning the midsummer oil because this whole thing has been motivated
Procedure and Organization by a stubborn cabinet determined to save the face of the house leader in respect of what I believe to be a rather dumb move and a heavy-handed attempt to stifle debate on some future legislation of which we know nothing at this time. I am certain many members on the other side of the house share the desire many of us have to adjourn and return to our constituencies. But here we are locked in combat. We will remain here until sanity returns or weariness erodes our will to prolong the battle.
I am sure Canadians would have full confidence in what we are doing here and would grant full support to it if we could demonstrate that this struggle is in the interest of progress, but it is not. We are staying here not to solve the desperate income gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. We are here not to bring in legislation to assist the veterans and the pensioners with a solution to their problems. We are here not to quieten the turbulence of and provide social justice to the native people. We are here not to enact legislation to brighten the employment picture for university students and those just graduating from high school. We are here not to protect our industry and financial institutions from foreign takeovers. Finally we are here not to enact laws to preserve our environment from industrial pollution. In fact we are probably contributing to the air pollution in this chamber at this very moment.
On the contrary we are adding greatly to the costs borne by the long suffering Canadian public because of a naked, unsophisticated power grab by an overwhelming government majority in an arrogant attempt to achieve unilateral control which the government does not need. What is embarrassing for the government is that they have no real issue here. Their problem, even in disciplining their own silent and long suffering backbenchers, is that they cannot point to one example this session in which the people's business has been frustrated by an intractable, irresponsible opposition.
What frightens me, Mr. Speaker, is the reason they want this power. Why do they need it? As the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) said, why do they need the legislative over-kill? What really disturbs me, as it must disturb members on both sides of the house, is that the gag rule will have just as much effect on, and will muzzle members on the other side of the house when they next journey to sit on this side of the house. I know that like Hitler's
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization Reich many Liberals believe they are destined to rule for 1,000 years, but I also know that like Hitler they won't.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When they come over here to sit I wonder how many of them will then be enthusiastic about little old rule 75c. What kind of legislation is the government preparing that they need 75c? Will there be a radical shake-up, a blatant move to the left, to the right, sideways, or up and down, or will this revolutionize the way of Canadian life? I doubt it very much. I do not think this is going to happen. Nothing in the personnel of the government benches or their record thus far would give us any cause to be alarmed on that score.
I think it is more likely that 75c arises from the dissatisfaction of articulate and capable backbenchers on the government side who are frustrated by the fact that there is little for them to say. They sit over there twiddling their hearing aids because the government-and any government would feel this way-is always in some haste to have its legislation passed. Contributions from government backbenchers only prolong the agony.
In emulation of their leader the backbenchers arrived in Ottawa last fall full of "kiss and vinegar" and found to their disappointment and dismay that they were not expected to do very much at all. The front benchers were supposed to do all the talking. The first and most obvious thing to do was get everyone busy on committees. It did not really matter whether the government was guided in any way by committee reports. On the contrary, sometimes the government was not even courteous or political enough to wait for a committee to report before it made decisions in respect of things which were currently under study by the committee. All of us who were members of the transport committee know what I have in mind.
Once committee work became a little dull here in Ottawa the next obvious move was to send 20 or 30 members junketing around the country at great expense, hearing briefs and representations. This had many advantages. It kept at least 11 government members occupied and out of the house, and an almost equal number of opposition members. After all, if there was no obligation to adopt committee reports, to see them translated into legislation, what was better than to entertain government backbenchers at public expense by extended trips around the country? This was at least an appearance of action.

However, there seems to be a growing disenchantment with and cynicism about the committee system. Even government members regard some committees as a sham and a waste of time. This is demonstrated by the difficulty some committees have in finding a quorum in order to conduct their meetings. Everyone knows this is not because the opposition members always fail to show up. This is frequently because government members themselves, even though they are members of a committee, do not regard their presence as vital or essential. As a result the committees often cannot meet because they lack a quorum. This could be deliberate although I would not like to suggest that. However, it is a distinct possibility.
What are we going to do now? That is a problem facing the government. What are we going to do with all these talented backbenchers-probably enough to form three cabinets? They are sitting there languishing in gloom. What are we going to do with them? These backbenchers want to speak. They want to get some things they have to say on behalf of their constituents into Hansard. They want to send copies of Hansard back to the folks at home. In short, they are jealous of the opposition exposure, or the opportunity of the opposition to be exposed to the press and broadcasters during the debates in the house.
These members voice their frustrations in caucus. They want to know what is going to be done. The result is rule 75c. What does this accomplish for government backbenchers? The answer is abundantly obvious. It establishes time limits, and when you have time limits you, Mr. Speaker, are required to recognize hon. members in proportion to the strengths of their parties in the house.
So if a four hour time limit is imposed by the fiat of 75c, the preponderance of speakers will come from the government side. Well over half, or over two of the four hours, will be taken up by spokesmen from that side. This will give government backbenchers more opportunity to take part in the debate. Every time we have time limits, speakers favorable to the government point of view will crowd the debate. This is what 75c is all about. I have not seen many backbenchers from the government side on their feet during this debate. Speakers have come mainly from the opposition. Rule 75c will give the government backbenchers more time and will alleviate their frustration as a result of their being silent minions of the government.
What will be left to the opposition of this four hours if the government takes up more
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
than two hours? It will leave just about time for the leaders of the various opposition parties to make a short statement, and that is all. What opportunity will a new member on the opposition side have, who, like some of the government members, is in the backbenches? What opportunity will he have to make the views of his constituents known? I feel it is my right to speak here on behalf of my constituents. I believe my right to speak here will be severely limited by contemplated rule 75c.
In rising today to speak in this debate I am acutely conscious of what a tremendous impact the proposed changes will have on parliamentary democracy in Canada. As a relatively new member of parliament may I say I was attracted to the party to which I belong because I felt it stood for change, innovation and progress. Since coming to Ottawa I have not been disappointed. The New Democratic Party caucus both now and in the past has shown a marked acceptance of change. Certainly in view of the increasing role of government in our modern society some compromise must be reached. The government is taking over an extended role in the society in which we live and some compromise is inevitable. A compromise must be reached between one or two basically opposing forces.
The first of these forces is the need to bring a heavier legislative program before the house each year. Of course the second is the contradictory force of competition in view of the limited time available and the need to examine more thoroughly legislation and the estimates that come before the house. Everybody understands the problem. I think everyone who is sent here has thought about how to get more done in less time while continuing to ensure the right of hon. members to bring to this house their views and the views of their constituents. I do not think anybody argues about that.
Reasonable men are sympathetic about this problem and are searching for an equitable way to solve it. We know this and we know of the efforts made by the special committee on procedures of this house. This committee provides an example of intelligent discussion by men who sought to bring a century old practice up to date, to meet the needs of modern society. Except for the gag rule in 16a and 75c, which is the bastard child of 16 a, and possibly with some reservations about the committee system approach to supply, the procedure committee work deserves commendation from all corners of the house.

Procedure and Organization All change is not necessarily progress. Our country today is beset with an increasing cynicism about parliament, government and politicians generally. Many people feel that government is too big, that it is too remote, and too much beyond their control. Now do you get closer to the people if you do not let their elected members speak? During the recent election campaign I encountered a large number of people who said they were not going to vote. When I inquired why, their replies added up to a shrug and the expression that it would make little difference. I was often asked what difference would it make who got their votes, and what chance would they have with just one vote to influence government direction.
Alienation of this kind is all too common. I believe it is on the increase. What we need to combat this kind of electoral drop-out-ism is not the imposition of 75c but a greater opportunity for members of parliament to participate, to suggest, and to speak in this house. We do not need the imposition of rules that prevent them from doing just that.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Much of the debate on the committee report, whether or not it has been stated in so many words, has been concerned with the individual member's concept of what parliament is really meant to be. I believe everybody would agree that the root of the word "parliament" means a place where people speak. This is how it was conceived. I remind the government that the people of Fraser Valley West sent me here to speak for them on issues of concern. Further, I was elected in precisely the same manner as any other member of the house, whether he be an opposition backbencher, member of the government party, or cabinet member. We were all elected by popular vote. Therefore, I believe I have precisely the same right to speak as anyone in the house, unless I give it up to accept a suggestion on time limit put forward by my house leader.
I will fight any attempt to take away that right. I am not very pleased when anyone attempts to gag or muzzle me, and proposed Standing Order 75c would do just that. The imposition of rules which are unacceptable to parliament concerns me greatly. We should be very careful to see this does not happen, because alienation will grow, not diminish, if situations such as this are allowed to prevail.
It is all very well to say that we do not move quickly enough in dealing with business
July IS, 1969

Procedure and Organization in the house. I believe we have moved very rapidly this session in respect of legislation brought before us. I said earlier that 75c is clearly a naked power-grab. I am fearful that the government majority next session may be planning to ram down the throats of the opposition legislation that may be complex and far-reaching in its implications, and that will demand a great deal of sober debate and reflection.
It has been asserted more than once to me by Liberal members that they were elected to govern and, by God, that is exactly what they intend to do. No one quarrels with that statement, provided it is not presented with unmitigated arrogance. What makes the government believe they can proceed with papal infallibility? Does all intelligence reside on the other side of the chamber?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They do not say anything, so you cannot tell.


Mark Willson Rose: I ask hon. members to consider for a moment what might happen if the normal checks and balances were one by one removed from our democracy. We would be confronted with the situation whereby an allpowerful government, headed by an all-powerful prime minister, would face a completely de-fanged paper tiger of an opposition. What chance would there be of sober examination of legislation the government wished to rush through the house? How would people then be able to protect themselves and protest the passage of hasty, ill-conceived legislation, or that prompted by the lobby of a special interest group which happened to have the ear of the government?
In his book "The Reform of Parliament" Mr. Bernard Crick wrote a great deal about parliamentary matters. In this excellent book he had this to say about the topic I have been discussing:
The only meanings of parliamentary control worth considering, and worth the house spending much of its time on, are those which do not threaten the parliamentary defeat of a government, but which help to keep it responsive to the underlying currents and the more important drifts of public opinion. All others are purely antiquarian shufflings. It is wholly legitimate for any modern government to do what it needs to guard against parliamentary defeat: but it is not legitimate for it to hinder parliament, particularly the opposition, from reaching the public ears as effectively as it can. Governments must govern in the expectation that they can serve out their statutory period of office, that they can plan-if they choose-at least that far ahead, but that everything they do may be exposed to the light of day and that everything they say may be challenged in circumstances designed to make criticism as authoritative, informed and as public as possible.

Thus the phrase "parliamentary control", and talk about the "decline of parliamentary control", should not mislead anyone into asking for a situation in which governments can have their legislation changed or defeated, or their life terminated ... Control means influence, not direct power; advice, not command; criticism, not obstruction; scrutiny, not initiation; and publicity, not secrecy. Here is a very realistic sense of parliamentary control which does affect any government. The government will make decisions, whether by existing powers or by bringing in new legislation, in the knowledge that these decisions, sooner or later, will find their way to debate on the floor of one of the houses of parliament. The type of scrutiny they will get will obviously affect, in purely political terms, the type of actions undertaken. And the civil service will administer with the knowledge that it too may be called upon to justify perhaps even the most minute actions.
I plead with the government: Don't do it, fellows. Don't try and push this thing through. If you want closure, say so. You have a rule for closure. Use it. At least people will respect you for having the courage to use the rule that is in the book. If there is a real issue and you want to close off debate, use the closure rule. But don't try and sneak in closure by peddling 75c as something you may not use. You know that when the chips are down you will use it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I plead with the government to reconsider this matter; and I wish them a happy vacation!


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like to advise hon. members of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Vancouver-Closing of French radio station; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Water Resources-Hamilton, Ontario- Pollution by Steel Company of Canada, Limited; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr.	McCleave)-Senior Officials-
Department of Finance.
July 15, 1969	COMMONS



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).
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, if I rise now, it is with the purpose of supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which is aimed at sending the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization back to committe with instructions to amend it by striking out rule 75c.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, not only did I follow closely this debate, I also read most of the speeches made in this house in the past ten days. I have been impressed by the statements made on both sides of the house, but especially by the opposition members, who want to protect this institution.
I have also been impressed by the statement of a few government members who, with great obedience, have accepted the idea of their leader of establishing a dictatorship in this parliamentary institution.
As lately as yesterday, a government member, namely the member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said that on June 25, 1968 the Canadian people had decided to give the Liberal party and its leader the necessary power to rule and govern this country.
One could discuss this statement at length, Mr. Speaker, but surely the Canadian people did not give their support to the Liberal party in order to establish a dictatorship in Canada.
This statement made by the hon. member for Bruce is completely illogical even though, as pointed out by the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the reins of government have been given to three socialists I very much doubt that the Canadians were really aware of it.
If as a result of the last election, the government has full authority to enforce a dictatorship, it must be kept in mind that the electoral campaign was conducted with much publicity.

Procedure and Organization
A political party with plenty of electoral funds can easily hire the best publicity experts and that is exactly what the Liberal party did.
Thanks to a well conducted publicity, campaign, one can make the people accept almost anything, with only a few exceptions.
Then, Mr. Speaker, if the majority of Canadian voters supported the Liberal party, the fact remains that many others gave their support to the Conservative party, the N.D.P. or the Ralliement Creditiste.
Under the circumstances, the supporters of the opposition parties asked their members to co-operate in the drawing up of legislation designed to develop this country and to protect the Canadian people adequately against detrimental measures and, as far as we are concerned, we intend to discharge that responsibility.
Opposition parties have their part to play and they have played it since the beginning of confederation. Now, the procedure which it is intended to apply at this time is precisely aimed at abolishing the role of the opposition.
Last December, on the eve of the adjournment for the Christmas holiday, the government brought in, after consideration in committee, rule 16a which is quite similar to the one we are being asked to pass today.
I should like to congratulate the committee which did a very fine job of considering the standing orders and the procedure of the house. I had the opportunity to attend two or three of its meetings and I found out by myself that the proposals made by any committee member were considered with great impartiality and willingness.
However, at the very end, a few members of that committee brought in that famous rule 16a which had the effect of taking the other members by surprise and the committee introduced it as such.
Because of the determination of the opposition against that rule 16a, the government retreated thinking at first that the members opposite would be anxious to leave for the Christmas holidays. The government thought that it could have that amendment passed quickly. However, it was mistaken and had to retreat.
The same thing occurred in June. After having re-established that committee and reconsidered the new standing orders and procedure of the house, at the very last moment, the government through members of the government moved concurrence in rule
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization 75c and being aware of the objections of the other members, put the question against the wishes of the opposition. Since the Liberal members were in a majority on the committee, it is obvious that this majority won, but against the will of the three opposition parties.
Once again, believing the members were anxious to leave for their holidays, this report was introduced-we know how the government managed it-so that the members would lose interest in the proposal and give up.
Mr. Speaker, as far as we, members of the Ralliement Creditiste are concerned, for anybody, we do not intend to give up, because if the rule were passed, there would really be no more opposition. In fact, not only would the opposition disappear, but even government back-benchers would no longer be useful.
And I would even go as far as to say that the Speaker would no longer be useful since only the government would have its say. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not need 28 ministers because five or six would be enough to rule or administer the country according to the wishes of a dictatorial prime minister.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we are justified in opposing such a proposal and we have the support of the Canadian people.
Lately, in my riding, I met a number of my constituents and I was asked the following question: Why is the house sitting at this time? Then, following my explanation, they said: Do not give up; carry on. You cannot give up, protect your rights.
Mr. Speaker, we are sitting at a time when hon. members, to whatever party they belong, should be with their constituents in order to consult them, to hear about then-wishes and to report on their mandate, asking the people if they are satisfied with the legislation which has been passed since the beginning of the session.
It seems that only the Prime Minister can manage to feel the pulse of the people, and according to reports we have heard, there is every reason to believe that he is not getting such a warm welcome. I hope that when he returns, he will have realized that the Canadian voters, especially in the west, are not satisfied with his administration.
Mr. Speaker, at this time we are discussing a matter which has no interest for the Canadian taxpayers while we should be

studying legislation likely to improve the lot of the unemployed. There are too many unemployed in Canada even during the most active period of the year. There are still people looking for work and who cannot find any.
Furthermore, thousands of young students would like to earn a few dollars during their summer holidays so as to pay part of their tuition fees, but they cannot do it.
Many things could be discussed. For example, the producers of industrial milk, especially those in eastern Canada, are faced with serious problems. People are waiting.
The western farmers are also faced with serious problems and the government does not offer any solution. It is studying, it will see, it will inquire. It does not suggest anything to improve this situation.
What could be done to improve the lot of the Canadian workers? Many bills could be introduced in order to improve the situation of our wood workers, miners, construction workers, industrial workers in shipbuilding, transportation and so on. We could do much better than discuss procedure and organization. However, we are forced to hang around here. We are forced to wait and to discuss a subject about which the government knows beforehand it will have to give in.
Mr. Speaker, how can this debate stop the increase in the cost of living? Yet, all the Canadian consumers are asking that this steady increase in the cost of living be curbed because it annoys everybody.
How can this debate solve the housing problem? We constantly get representations from our constituents asking that the government attend to this problem. However, the government does not propose anything. We are forced to hang about and to discuss subjects that are entirely different from those in which our constituents are interested.
Mr. Speaker, on December 10 last, when a similar debate was held on Standing Order 16a, my colleague the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said, and I quote from page 3779 of Hansard:
However, one must not think that parliamentary-reform will solve at once the economic problem of Canadians. A better parliamentary procedure does not necessarily mean a better government, because a government is not judged merely by the value of the measures it adopts. We can have a better procedure and pass legislation more rapidly but, if the opposition is governed by a mediocre procedure, it can hardly do much better. This means that the government must introduce legislation that will meet the needs of the Canadian people.
July 15. 1969	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we need now. Regardless of what Standing Orders the house has, regardless of how we improve them, if the government does not introduce better legislation, that which the Canadian public asks for and needs, all this will be of little use.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the determination of the government and of the submission of the government members in accepting the proposed Standing Order, we have the right to ask ourselves some questions.
One of the questions we ask ourselves-and I repeat that many of my colleagues of the opposition have already done so, as I have too-is this: what is the government hiding to be so bent on having the right to decide, on its own, in such a short time, what legislation it should have enacted?
Since the Prime Minister is trying so hard to prevent the opposition from commenting on the legislation he introduces, we are entitled to believe, that these laws are very unpopular indeed.
In fact, the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), said recently that were there to be now an election, it would be awkward for him to seek re-election because the government has brought forth unpopular legislation. The government is trying, by way of a provision in the rules of the house, to prevent the opposition from giving its opinion on the bills the government wants to introduce because this legislation is unpopular and detrimental to the welfare of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, it is for those reasons that we are firmly opposed to that procedure and to concurrence in that report, which I call a minority report since only one party agreed with the content of rule 75c. If we are so firmly opposed to it, it is because we are afraid of what this government is planning for the future. And, knowing the background of the Prime Minister and of his nearest colleagues, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our fears as to Canada's future, the Canadian people's future, are justified.
In today's edition of Le Devoir, Mr. Claude Ryan deals with this debate in an editorial which he entitles: "A deplorable blunder on the part of the Trudeau government".
In that editorial, Mr. Claude Ryan reflects almost exactly the present state of mind of the Canadian people. He concludes his article with the following words:
As in December last, the opposition parties can rely, in their fight against rule 75c, on the support
Procedure and Organization of public opinion. The government has erred in putting forward this rule. It has only half-corrected its mistake by trying, last Friday, to divide the opposition through an insidious sub-amendment. Now that this last piece of strategy, just as the equally deplorable one that was the Macdonald motion, has failed, there is only one course open to the government and that is to beat an honorable retreat. Otherwise the opposition will be compelled to carry the fight to its bitter end.
Mr. Speaker, may the government know once and for all that we, the members of the Ralliement creditiste, have no objection whatsoever to spending the summer here if need be, but we would prefer to spend it in dealing with legislative proposals to improve conditions obtaining in Canada instead of a government motion curtailing the freedom of expression of the opposition members.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. I do not intend at this stage to deal any further with the report of the committee on procedure and organization, but I may take the opportunity of coming back to it when the report is more closely studied.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi
Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to strongly object to the proposed rule 75c. I can do no better in opening my remarks than to quote an editorial from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of July 14:
How Not to Make Friends
The Liberal government is stomping through a political minefield in attempting to impose parliamentary rule changes that smack of closure.
Because the business of national government is increasing day by day, and decisions on laws require faster action than has been the practice, some method must be found to speed up procedure and schedule the legislative agenda in more orderly fashion.
But the Liberal approach, and it should be pointed out that a substantial number of Liberal MP back benchers are against it, of trying to push through a time limit on debate, and clumsily making it appear that opposition parties are being gagged in the process, is not the way to achieve agreement on rules changes.
Liberal strategists responsible for the current situation ought to be instructed to read two texts: the Commons Hansard for 1956, and "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
The former would certainly remind them it was careless handling of a similar rule of closure on debate that hammered the first nail into the coffin of another Liberal government, branded it (at the time of the pipeline debate) arrogant and dictatorial, and helped banish it from office within months of that episode.
July 15, 1S69

Procedure and Organization
The latter would provide useful hints on the unwisdom of being crudely provocative with people whose co-operation may be useful or even necessary at a later juncture.
That editorial in the Halifax Herald of July 14 will be available in my office as recommended reading for any Liberal member. I will go further and have copies made for distribution among them.
This proposed rule, Mr. Speaker, is an actual desertion from what the government has called participatory democracy. It removes the opportunity for all members of parliament to fully discuss legislation which may come before this house. What is happening to the just society? Who are we participating with and on what? Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) measure up to his promise when he comes into the house for the question period and then runs to his shelter? Are we participating with him? Are we participating with the cabinet when they are under orders to follow a roster system which keeps them out of the house, despite the fact they are elected members and first and foremost are responsible for representing their constituencies? It was evident, during recent months, that one cabinet minister who wished to come into the house to reply to a question was denied that opportunity because the roster which the Prime Minister established did not permit him to be present on that particular day. This is a shameful approach by a government which says, all will participate in this democracy.
This debate is another demonstration of the incompetence and stupidity of the government. First of all the government dictator proposed that 75c be put into the committee report. The Prime Minister dictated to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). The President of the Privy Council dictated to the Liberal majority on the committee. When the report was placed before the house, it was clear the government had painted itself into a corner. Proposed rule 75b was ambiguous. Rule 75b could deliver the government into the hands of a united opposition and this, of course, could not be tolerated by this arrogant government. Even when the President of the Privy Council was in a position to dictate the report, he was too stupid to dictate it correctly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I hear interjections and objections from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I remind these hon. members that the adjective

I used was the one introduced into this house by the Prime Minister, and there should be nothing wrong with quoting this Prime Minister. Any hon. member of the government can say I am wrong. If they do, I am perfectly willing to sit down to hear their objections to a word which their leader, the Prime Minister, introduced into this parliament.
When they realized their mistake, the government brought in their own motion to rectify it. In doing so, the President of the Privy Council made a government tool of the committee chairman, the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). There was going to be a motion of censure of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton moved from this side. I can assure you the motion would have been debated for some time. If the hon. member had the intestinal fortitude, he would resign as committee chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member is probably following the same line as that taken by the other great parliamentarian, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) who, as the chairman of the defence committee, brought into this house a falsified report of what took place in the committee. What he said in committee is recorded, as well as his absolute departure from the truth when he reported to the house. If anyone cares to object to that statement regarding the lies he brought back from committee, they can find the basis for my statement in Hansard.
The President of the Privy Council allowed his motion to stand, and we are now back to the committee report. On Friday the President of the Privy Council tried to patch up his original mistake. He had the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra move a subamendment. I think this was another mistake on his part. This subamendment was ruled out of order. The President of the Privy Council is so stupid that he cannot even draft an amendment which is in order. Out of all the huge staff hired to build the Prime Minister's empire in the East Block, they cannot find a man who can draft an amendment that will be acceptable to the Chair. Talk about stupidity! The President of the Privy Council can now be called, "The minister of stupidity". He was even too stupid to keep a quorum in the house.
If this government is interested in saving time, it would be well advised to drop some of the stupid approaches it has taken under
July 15, 1989

Procedure and Organization
the Prime Minister. The government would be well advised to answer the questions which are asked in all sincerity. Questions are asked, an answer is promised, then after a lapse of three months when the same questions are again put to ministers they sit glued to their seat, just as the Prime Minister has this past week.
When government supporters speak of having ample time under rule 75c to examine legislation, they are making a ridiculous statement. It would take this government a day to answer the questions I have put to them, and which they have failed to answer in any way, shape or form. To study legislation is not enough. Members should be informed so that they are aware of the results of the legislation once enacted. I could refer to Bill C-135 but I am sure the majority of members on the other side do not even know what Bill C-135 is. For their benefit I inform them that it is the bill that set up the Devco Crown Corporation to look into the affairs of the ailing Cape Breton coal industry.
Very little of that legislation could be changed. For the most part, it is very good legislation. However, how many members are aware of what has resulted from it? Members on all sides of the house cannot be faulted because this legislation has brought about discrimination among those it was intended to help. On recent visits to my home I have taken advantage of the occasion to explain that all Liberal members of the House of Commons cannot be faulted for the discrimination practised under the early retirement plan of the Devco Crown Corporation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is no fault of members of this house that a piece of government legislation has been used to bring about this discrimination. There is no question or doubt because the minister responsible in this house admitted there are cases of isolated discrimination. Now, I fail to understand how the minister can say in one breath there is no discrimination under the early retirement leave plan of the Devco Corporation and then, the next moment, in answer to a supplementary question say there are isolated cases. I ask hon. members, does it matter whether there are isolated cases? There still are cases. One would imagine that in a just society such discrimination would not be condoned. The passage of legislation under normal circumstances could have prevented such an unfair departure. What will be the result if members are denied the right to study legislation in order to prevent such a
situation from occuring again? Members may say it is unfortunate but it does not concern them. Today it is my turn, but it may be theirs tomorrow.
Bill C-135 seemed to be the answer to many of the problems. I would be very interested in finding out why the retired chairman of the board acted as he did because I have expressed the opinion all along that the legislation provides the answers for which we are looking. However, the implementation of the legislation has been carried out in a way which is entirely unsuitable to the problems in Cape Breton. This becomes particularly evident when one considers that people 59 years of age are arbitrarily dismissed. This practice is supported by a government which is supposedly leading us into a just society. It is unfortunate that this government is acting as it is. It is in the hands of a troika. The Three Wise Men have taken over and are trying to put into practice what a former Liberal cabinet minister felt could be done as far back as 1951. He felt that he, along with the prime minister and the minister of trade and commerce, were the government. Imagine that! This is the attitude adopted today by these Liberals. They feel three men are the government.
Do not let anyone on that side of the house kid himself that this government is not run by three men only. Step out of line and watch out! Soon you will get your lumps. I should like to quote what this former Liberal cabinet minister had to say. He said:
As long as the three of us remain where we are, I think it will be fairly generally agreed across the country that we have an exceedingly good government.
The three wise men must be looking back at this statement and saying to themselves, if a Liberal cabinet minister in 1951 felt that three men made up the government there is no reason they cannot take over in 1969. But they should look at what happened to this former cabinet minister, the minister of trade and commerce and the prime minister. They all went down the drain, if you will excuse the expression. They exhibited the kind of arrogance that we saw here last week and the kind of arrogance that is evident every day in this house.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) can sit there and smirk. He is all ready with the answers to questions before they are asked. He was so pleased to back up his Prime Minister today that he did not even find it necessary to hear the questions. Every
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization day in this house the members of the government have to watch each other in case the troica lowers the boom. The minister will recall that only this afternoon he had to be sharpened up by his house leader.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is an entertaining speech.


Malcolm MacInnis: In reply to the remark of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I say that I assume this is the only reason he is sitting in the house this afternoon. He is not sitting here because his conscience tells him to do a good job for the Canadian people. If he feels I am entertaining him here this afternoon I wish he would send over the price of admission. At least he should pay for what he is getting because he is giving nothing in return to the Canadian people in line with the duties connected with his portfolio. He only got that because of the flip he made last spring in favour of the present Prime Minister. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in sending over a messenger, will not prove himself to be as cheap as I think he is.
This would seem to be the unfortunate attitude of this government. It is headed up by three men. It is unfortunate that the house leader is placed in a position where he cannot think for himself, but is blindly following orders which compel him to allow an unacceptable amendment to be introduced. This supports my earlier remark about a stupid government. Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not wearing out that adjective. The Prime Minister introduced it in the house the other day. If I am not allowed to do so, I will get around to a few others which he used in respect of the Liberals in the not too distant past.
Government supporters would have you believe this proposed rule would streamline parliament and allow for a more efficient parliament. On this, no one is fooled. Backbenchers in the government are not participating now. I repeat that for the benefit of those within hearing. Backbenchers in the government are not participating now, and the more efficient we become the less they will have to do. Members opposite probably do not wish to accept this fact. Perhaps I should support my argument by quotating from the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). I shall quote from page 11174 of Hansard:
However, there are many new members in our party who do not like sitting around doing what they consider to be nothing.
Well, if we have backbenchers on the government side who are complaining now about 
the fact they are sitting around doing what they consider to be nothing, if parliament is programmed and streamlined to the extent intended, then I do not see how they will be employed usefully in any sense of the word. Of course we can go back to the Prime Minister and quote his reference to the Liberal party as "The spineless herd". Probably another delegation of Liberal wives is necessary to see the little man since the Prime Minister has such an appeal, or is it the office that appeals? After all, take away the office and what is left? Just a 50 year old bachelor or, would you believe 51-a bag of bones and a hank of hair.
Now that the Message has been delivered, I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is just as cheap as I assumed he was. It is most unfortunate that Liberals of today cannot follow the dictates of their late spiritual leader, Prime Minister Mackenzie King who said-


An hon. Member:: He was speaking here last night.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: I am glad to note there are a few believers. In any event, he said:
The government must be by parliament and through parliament. It must not be carried on by cabinet ministers in their secret chambers.
That is from your spiritual leader. I hope he talks to you again tonight. Let me quote further from the late Prime Minister who said:
The air of Liberalism is to seek a wider freedom for the masses in social, political, religious and industrial life, to restore the control of the people over parliament and to restore the control of parliament over the executive.
Never was this objective more necessary than it is today. The withdrawal of rule 75c might assure the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King that Liberalism is still what he thought it was, then there would be no need for him to turn over in his grave. Surely, the Liberals cannot ignore words of wisdom that come from this source. If they continue to do so I suppose one will have to call upon the words of another Liberal cabinet minister who said, speaking about a Liberal government:
We are fighting for liberty, we are fighting for democracy and parliamentary institutions. Yet most of our activities are in the hands of little potentates, men of no experience, dictators in the field that has been given to them for administration.
Unless the government sees fit to amend its stupid ways, this indictment by a former
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
Liberal cabinet member of another Liberal government will certainly apply to this government.
Let me refer to the statement of another former Liberal cabinet minister, and this also applies:
If this is to be the funeral of Liberalism I do not wish to be even an honorary pall bearer at the funeral.
Members of this government, in spite of the fact they are dominated by the troika, should consider this move which will destroy this parliament and this country. It is not too late to change for the better, and in this regard Liberals should take a second look at what they are trying to impose upon all members of this parliament, including their own backbenchers. They should change this course of action before it is too late. It is of the utmost importance to each and every member of this house that the proposed rule 75c be withdrawn. What may not appear to be important today could very well adversely affect every individual member of this house tomorrow.
Again I could refer to Bill C-135 and its detrimental effects. Some of these effects were acknowledged by the minister in charge of this Crown corporation. He has placed on record the fact that discrimination has been practised. I say to you, in spite of the fact that this has been acknowledged by the responsible minister, that it is not the fault of any member of this house. I ask the Liberal members to take a good close look at Bill C-135 and the results that have come from the passage of this legislation, which I maintain is good except for a few minor parts.
One result of this legislation has been a report that members of parliament have not had the opportunity to see. Because members have not had a chance to see it, discrimination has been practised in this country. Every member of this house is at fault for not correcting this situation. Certainly, it is within the authority of the government to do so.
In speaking of Bill C-135 I am reminded of the fact that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was the minister of justice at the time this legislation was introduced. I could point to some things in it to indicate that there have been some very obvious mistakes made. These could also be corrected, as it is within the authority of the government to do so. At the time this legislation was drafted no one disputed this particular point. I have in
Procedure and Organization mind the authority given to the Crown corporation. Let me repeat, it was the present Prime Minister who was then minister of justice.
This Crown corporation was given the authority to purchase the lands beneath the sea off the Island of Cape Breton. Bill C-135 dealt with the coal industry. This authority was included in the legislation introduced in this house by the then minister of justice. What did this government and the Prime Minister do a few short months later? He made the arbitrary decision that offshore mineral rights belong to the federal government. He has since worked out a formula, but whether it will be accepted by the provinces is another question. The fact remains that this piece of legislation went through this house and was examined without the use of a rule such as 75c. This legislation authorized the Crown corporation to purchase land beneath the sea.
I cannot understand the sudden reversal in approach, but this reversal was made. It is for this reason I object to rule 75c which will, if accepted, prevent the members of this house from thoroughly examining legislation of the type included in Bill C-135. This right will be completely ignored. This will prevent any proper examination of a legislative measure, and therefore errors such as the kind to which I have referred will not be corrected. There have been stupid, undemocratic and even dictatorial actions taken by former Liberal governments. Perhaps hon. members could learn something from their own history if they study some of the worst possible examples available to them of this type of action.
Let me refer hon. members to the defence debate, and the fact that the chairman of that committee came into this house with a pack of lies in respect of what took place in that committee. He told this house lies in respect of the committee's hearings and then had his own Minister of National Defence stand and use those lies in this house for his own purpose. I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). Of course, he came into national prominence when he went to the press and leaked decisions in relation to the flag debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was referring to the Liberal government as stupid, undemocratic and dictatorial. I said they were looking back to former Liberal governments and following the worst possible examples. I was about to refer to the legislation brought before the house with respect to our defences and the unification of the armed forces. I do not wish to be critical of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), who until very recently seemed to be filling that position with dignity and honour. However, he seems to have backed away from the proposition he enunciated earlier.
With regard to the unification of the armed forces and what the legislation was supposed to do, I would point out that not long after the government took office the direction was suddenly switched and we found the Department of National Defence trying to set up a segregated force for this country. The department was trying to establish segregated crews for some of the ships in our navy, and most recently it tried to set up separate squadrons within our air division. This raises a very interesting question and one which the minister will perhaps answer in the very near future, that is, have there been resignations by French speaking Canadians who do not agree with the principle of segregating the French speaking members of the armed forces?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is now in the house and I think it would be in order to congratulate him on his effort to hold down inflation. This is further proof that-


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit that what the hon. member is now saying has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules. He should resume his seat, because he is not dealing with the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) is aware that we are dealing with an amendment to a committee report in respect of procedure. I invite him to restrict his remarks to that subject, as I invite all hon. members to confine their remarks to the matter before the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the hon. member was hit with enough bricks this afternoon. When [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
dealing with the rules, it is absolutely necessary that we refer to the people who have tried to impose the rules on the house; therefore, we must deal with the government, which is responsible for the rules. I was dealing with the government, and see no reason why the hon. member should take exception to my singling out the generous Secretary of State for External Affairs, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has referred to him as the minister of foreign affairs, as has the minister himself. I was in the process of congratulating the minister for his effort to hold down inflation. I remind him that he has drawn to my attention how easy it is to entertain idiots.
All hon. members should ask themselves this question in respect of proposed rule 75c: Since the Prime Minister is the author of programming and so-called efficiency, why does he not participate in the debate? What has happened to the principle that Canadians should participate in every way, shape and form in the business of government? The Prime Minister has allowed the house leader to take the brunt of the blame in this regard. He is responsible for the attitude of Liberal members toward their house leader, who is no longer looked to for leadership but is pitied for his stupidity. To realize this we have only to recall a remark made by a member of the house leader's party, who today stated that if he were house leader for ten minutes he could clear up this matter.
This is the type of conversation that we hear in the cafeteria, the hallways and elevators. The house leader is bearing the brunt in this respect because of the stupidity of a Prime Minister who said we would have participatory democracy and then ran off to the west. The Prime Minister said his trip to the west was more important than listening to a stupid filibuster. He did not follow up his good intentions in this regard, because last evening in an interview on national television, when asked what he hoped to accomplish in the west he said, "Nothing". It is obvious that the western farmer will gain nothing from the Prime Minister's trip. This is also evident from the arrogant attitude of the house leader, who this afternoon was the only person that refused unanimous consent to debate the crisis facing western Canada. I repeat that he was the only member in the house who objected to discussing the plight of the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
July 15, 1969	COMMONS


Malcolm MacInnis: Ol course, the Prime Minister's trip out west may accomplish something. It may make amends for his derogatory remarks about the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) who accompanied him west. When I refer to them as derogatory remarks, there is no question that they were because the Prime Minister belittled the minister. If the Minister of Supply and Services had the intestinal fortitude to which I referred earlier this evening he would not follow the Prime Minister. The derogatory remarks to which I refer may be found in the Globe and Mail of last December. As reported in that newspaper, the Prime Minister said:
Sure I believe that you should have somebody better, but you didn't elect him.
The Prime Minister was referring to the Minister of Supply and Services. He appointed this man to his cabinet, and having done so had the audacity, carelessness and disregard for the minister to refer to him as the Minister without Portfolio, despite the fact he had given him a portfolio several weeks earlier. This demonstrates the careless attitude of the Prime Minister toward his ministers and parliament generally.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In the Prime Minister's absence a subamendment, which was ruled out of order, was brought before the house. It was clear, if one read that subamendment, that the government was prepared to make concessions. Perhaps it is a good thing the Prime Minister is absent. Perhaps goodwill will once again prevail in his absence. Perhaps when he returns he can be prevailed upon to abandon the roster system and to allow cabinet ministers to attend during the question period. Often fewer than half our cabinet ministers are present for the question period. The Prime Minister's presence does not make up for their absence, nor is it a case as in 1951 that a certain cabinet minister, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) together constitute the government. They may think so but we do not. I also hope that the government will consider seriously rectifying the serious wrongs Cape Breton miners have suffered as a result of legislation passed by this house. The government itself must rectify these wrongs. It is no use looking to the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in the hope that he will correct what is wrong. If one pays attention to rumours flying about one may hear that he is not nearly so interested
Procedure and Organization in his portfolio as in the idea that he may succeed Jean Lesage as Liberal leader in Quebec. Some say the minister wants to become premier of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I wish to remind him that we are dealing with the report of the standing committee.


Colin David Gibson: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The rules of relevancy demand that so far as possible, hon. members restrict their remarks to the subject being considered. I invite the hon. member to do so.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be responsible for having the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) break his hands in pounding the desk. He ought to keep quiet. After all he is deviating from his orders to keep quiet. The Liberal backbenchers have been marvellously silent recently, presumably because the government has told them to keep quiet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is not their fault their Prime Minister called them bums and idiots. Yes, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister called them that. And who are they to take exception to what the Prime Minister said about them. It is he who said they are bums and idiots, not we.
Proposed rule 75c should not be included in our rules because it will apply to government backbenchers as well as to members of the opposition. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have defended Liberals, but I did so on one occasion when I said that, surely to goodness no one in his right mind would countenance what has been done to the Cape Breton miners. I was defending Liberals then. I say to hon. members opposite that it is about time they kicked over the traces in caucus and stood up like independent men. I shall be listening to their whispers in elevators and coffee shops and I shall be waiting to hear them say, "we said to our house leader in caucus that we are going to stand up and be independent; we are going to rectify what is wrong here." We need hon. members to be independent. Hon. members opposite ought to tell the government house leader that they are not prepared to do the damage to parliament that has been attempted in these last two weeks.
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous
agreement for that?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: Closure.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Macln-nis) upon his approach to this entire problem and for the way he chastised this government.


An hon. Member:: Don't be sarcastic.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He criticized the government's attitude vigorously. Yet, even in his bitterness, he had mercy on those who sit on the back benches. He felt for them. He tried to reach out to them and all they did was laugh.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And then my hon. friend for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) pounded the desk. Clearly he is one of the trained seals. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I had the nerve of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and was capable of saying that the government and its supporter are brainless. I wish I had the nerve to say that government supporters are stupid; I wish I had the intestinal fortitude to say they are bums; and, how I wish I had the courage to call them idiots. But, Mr. Speaker, I am a charitable man. I could never stand here and make those remarks. But I can always think them. I can always think they are idiots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will not take much time. I believe that in its debates this house must reach responsible conclusions. I wish to register my protest to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) statement in this house that this debate is stupid. I do not think this debate is stupid; after all, we on this side are fighting for our very lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 
An hon. Member:: What about your
partners?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My partners are ready to shaft you any time you want to stand up. I do not expect too much interruption from the other side, Mr. Speaker, because I am talking 29180-711
Procedure and Organization responsibly. I am concerned at the frightening pattern that is being developed by this government. And I am not the only one who is frightened. Members of the government- those who cannot speak-people on the street, those who sent us here to protect our rights, are becoming concerned at the deliberate trend that appears, to me at any rate, to be leading us ultimately into the realm of dictatorship.
We use this institution to question cabinet ministers on matters of urgent and national scope. But the Prime Minister has said that no matters are national or urgent any longer, and accordingly we have the cabinet roster. Today, there were present six ministers. I should like to know where the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was because I had a question for him. He was supposed to be here today. I also had a question for the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). Where was he today? It was not an earth shaking question, but it was one that I thought would be of interest to the house and the nation.


Malcolm MacInnis: Certainly not hypocritical!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, not hyprocritical.
Another worsening attitude, one I find disgusting, is the flippant manner of ministers during the question period. After all, they are ordinary members of parliament just like the hon. member for Hamilton West. I demand respect from them as I, in turn, give them respect. I am not here to play games. Perhaps they are and that is why they are not here for such long periods. I suppose they might as well get their licks in while they have the opportunity.
Then, there is the rudeness of the Prime Minister. I wish I had the nerve to stand up in my place and tell him a few things. I wish I were the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. When the Prime Minister uses a word like "hypocrisy" in talking about a responsible and loyal opposition, then it goes down very hard, if it goes down at all. He says that this debate is a filibuster, but I do not think he knows what a filibuster is.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A "stupid" filibuster.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, I did not mention the adjective. This is the place for debate. There will always be debate as long as there is an opposition and, believe me, we are going to continue to have an opposition. That is part of the pattern. What about the unwarranted rudeness of the Prime Minister? What about standing committees, Mr. Speaker? This was
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization part of the just society, and participatory democracy.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Have you ever seen such a shambles as the presentation of the Transport Committee report? The most important part was omitted, the part that had to do with the "Newfie Bullet". Where did that recommendation go? I do not want to say anyone was playing hanky-panky in the standing committee. Heavens no! That is a fault we on this side recognize.
Then we come to rule 16a. I will not go over that. Notice the pattern, Mr. Speaker. What about the general disrespect of the opposition? It is becoming increasingly worse. Why? That is what I want to know. Here is an opportunity for some intelligent Liberal backbencher to stand up and tell me why.
What about instructions to government members on standing committees? Legislation is supposed to go to a committee, be discussed and come back in the same state. Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). The great Canadian phrase, untouched by human hands, is applicable. I believe him because I do not think that hon. member would be quoted in the newspapers of this country and face possibility of being checked by his government for telling lies. I believe him.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is very honourable, for a Liberal!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about the pattern? A report that was presented by the chairman of the rules committee was abrogated by that brilliant pussy-footer, the government house leader. He attempted with all sincerity and viciousness, to abrogate that report.


An hon. Member:: Vicious sincerity?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am not really so worried about the chairman as about what he did. He uttered disrespect for a standing committee that was formed by parliament. He said parliament does not count, it is nonsense. This attitude was discussed here to such an extent that the government house leader said, I am sorry; I was wrong. It is a terrible day when he has to say he is wrong, and it is a rare day.
To continue with the pattern, Mr. Speaker, we now have rule 75c, the ultimate in demagoguery! It appears that the philosophy of this government is power for power's sake at 
any cost, even if they have to cut the throat of the opposition. Apparently that is allowed in the new politics on the other side of the house. We cannot and will not accept that philosophy. We are prepared to fight this week, next week, the following week-


An hon. Member:: Merry Christmas!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the hon. member to my left has said, Merry Christmas to you and a Happy New Year!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes indeed, order your Christmas turkey now and get your Christmas shopping done because I tell you we are here to stay!
I must give this great city of Ottawa a plug. I usually talk about Hamilton, but something tells me that September in Ottawa can be very exciting. There is the green belt, the Arts Centre and all the urban renewal that is going on here. I am sorry I cannot get to Hamilton. However, I am still optimistic.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) stated, we have no intention of caving in; we can go on indefinitely. The Leader of the Opposition is a very responsible person. He does not make the statements I do. Do not think that we on this side are playing games or hanky-panky. Our leader has said we can go on indefinitely.
Speaking on behalf of many opposition members, if not all, we welcome such involvement, Mr. Speaker. We have to fight. We have to fight to hang on. We have to fight to protect our role as parliamentarians and, in particular, as opposition members. For a while I was a little concerned about whether this message that we were attempting to project was being received across the country, and whether those who sent us here would understand what we have been trying to do. I was very happy the other day. I received a letter-


An hon. Member:: One letter!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't worry! You just sit there and wait. God, that's an ignorant group over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: At one time, I called many of them my friends-that is outside of the house. When we get in the chamber there are no holds barred. If members on the government side keep on messing around, I am liable to get like the hon. member for Cape
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)! I can be just as vicious. Let me read my letter because this is very encouraging to government members also. The letter is dated July 2, 1969.


An hon. Member:: Pretty good postal
service!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what I call stupidity! The member does not know when the letter was sent or when I received it, and yet he is saying, pretty good postal service. That is the attitude of a member of the government. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I shall now be like the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and say they are stupid. I will now read the letter which I received from Mr. Donald J. Allan. It is dated July 2, 1969:
Dear Mr. Alexander:
I am writing you on a matter of grave concern to all Canadians. The governments bill to set the time limit of debate at all stages through parliament. The government is already equipped with the rule of closure should it want to limit debate, and this is enough power in the hands of any body of legislators. Should the government be given more powers, the day may come when an inept or corrupt government could rule the country in any way they desired.
This is the most important part of this letter. When he refers to me, he is also talking to the leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Creditiste party:
Mr. Alexander, I beg of you, continue opposition to this bill. Fight it with every means at your disposal before the very means themselves are legislated out of existence.
I do not know this person who wrote this letter. Hon. members know I am a man of integrity. They can accept my word for this. I do not know who wrote it, but there are countless other letters like that. We must be concerned now. There is a principle involved. The principle involved is the accepted role of the opposition. Is such a principle valid in a democratic system? Is the accepted role of the opposition valid? The answer unqualifiedly is, yes. The word "democracy" supports the role of the opposition and precludes any other conclusion. Oh, but we have the draftsmen of the just society. I remember that in my maiden speech I said that was a slogan without definition. Yet the draftsmen of the just society and the draftsmen of the other slogan, participatory democracy, would disagree with what I just said. Because of the alleged mandate handed to them last June 25 they have interpreted the new politics of the 29180-711a
Procedure and Organization Prime Minister as meaning there is no role at all for the opposition or, at the most, an insignificant role, whether it be the loyal opposition, the N.D.P. or the Creditistes.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
You know, Mr. Speaker, I think many people across this nation, and all of us on this side, have come to the conclusion that this government is drunk with power and is hung up on this mandate about which they continually talk. I never heard so much talk, until I came here, about the great mandate they received. It is as if this were the end of everything. Do you know what the mandate means to them? To hon. members on the other side, with a few exceptions,-I must be fair in that regard-mandate means the granting of an unrestricted licence to do anything to anybody, regardless of the consequences, solely for the ultimate purpose and benefit of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am becoming sick and tired of hearing hon. members throw across the chamber in a taunting way the reminder that they have a mandate. They are just like a bunch of babies. They seem to suggest they are the masters of the house.
Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker. We are not frustrated because of their mandate. We do not cringe in fear because of their mandate. We are not weak because of their mandate. We shall not be bullied because of their mandate and we shall not be harrassed because of it. We shall not accept rule 75c because of their mandate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why do I say this? There is a relatively simple approach to this matter. We on this side of the house also received a mandate. We, too, in the loyal opposition received a mandate. Do you know what our mandate was? It was a mandate to criticize constructively; it was a mandate to probe government action; it was a mandate to be responsible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A mandate to keep them honest.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It was a mandate to be the defender of the rights of people. It was a mandate which implied a future role as the government of this great country, and do not sell that last one short.
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization
This government, as well as any government in the future, must be aware of the fact that the opposition does in fact legally exist. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to read another quotation. I do not like reading quotations. I must say I am not the most brilliant orator nor am I the most brilliant speechmaker, but when I see something good I like to pass it on. I was going to say "pass it on to my stupid friends", but that would not be parliamentary. I should like to refer to Sir Kenneth Wheare's book entitled "Legislatures". I cannot give the citation, but it is really up to date. It was published by the Oxford University Press, New York and Toronto, in 1968. I wish to quote from page 77. The title of this particular chapter is, "Making the Government Behave".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh! How do you do that?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With the general agreement of the house, perhaps I should read the whole book.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish to refer to just a few paragraphs. The first appears at page 77:
A famous American, Lawrence Lowell, professor of government at Harvard, and later president of the university, wrote in his Government of England: 'His Majesty's Opposition embodies the greatest contribution of the nineteenth century to the art of government.'
Did hon. members in the government know that?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The quotation continues:
We need not settle an order of merit in these matters; we can easily concede that the invention was important. Indeed, it is not too much to say that in the British constitution today the office of Leader of the Opposition is regarded as of no less importance-though it may be less desired-than that of Prime Minister.
Is that not significant to hon. gentlemen? This institution of ours comes from the Mother of Parliaments, and that is what is said by a great historian. Let me carry on a little further. Do hon. members realise that by the Ministers of the Crown Act of 1937 a salary was provided for the Leader of the Opposition? In that same act, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were recognized as being of fundamental importance to the system of government. What is important is that Canada probably was the first country in the world, as far back as 1905, which decided to pay a salary to the Leader of the

Opposition. A great figure at that particular time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then prime minister, said:
The Leader of the Opposition under our present system is just as much a part of the constitutional system of government as the Prime Minister himself.
Where is Mr. Trudeau today? I hope he reads my speech. I am not the best speaker, but I hope he pays me the courtesy of saying, "I wonder what that hon. member said about me". Let me continue with the quotation from this book. I find this very important, particularly when we know this government is attempting to emasculate the opposition. Do the members of the government really know what the opposition is all about? I should like to read from page 79:
-in so far as one of the functions of a legislature is to make the government behave, the chief part in performing that function falls to the opposition and its leader. It is important to stress that they are not expected to undertake the whole of this task. The government's supporters are not supposed to be mere yes-men; influence can be exerted from outside the legislature, as we explained in Chapter 3, by individuals or by organized interests, which help to keep the government up to the mark. But in the legislature itself, though government supporters may grumble behind the scenes and occasionally in public-
Isn't that so true?
-it is the members of the Opposition who are charged with the duty of examining and criticizing what the government has done and proposes to do.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Through questions to ministers in the house, through motions of censure and no confidence, through the debates that accompany the passing of financial legislation and so on, the opposition in the British and other Commonwealth legislatures carries on its task. And the leading idea upon which it is organized is that it offers itself before the country as an alternative government. It criticizes upon the understanding that, given the opportunity, it could do better itself. In this way, so runs the theory at least, it is possible to have not only responsible government but responsible opposition also.
I could say much about the latter, but about the former I am devoid of words. The introduction of 75c gives a minister the power to arbitrarily propose the setting of a time limit on debate. This proposal ridicules the writer, Sir Kenneth Wheare. It ridicules his conclusion and makes a mockery of parliamentary rights.
I must stand up and be counted as voicing my objection to a rule which appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to emasculate the role of the opposition. Rule 75c can only be interpreted as a calculated, selfish, partisan
July 15, 1969

theory for relegating the opposition to a state of impotence. It is a deliberate attempt to abrogate the right to criticize. It is a deliberate attempt to abrogate the right to debate. It is a deliberate attempt to abrogate the right to dissent. All of these are unquestionably time honoured rights of the opposition, through which the opposition is able to make the government behave. The right to criticize, debate and dissent, Mr. Speaker and hon. gentlemen, are fundamental to the opposition's effectiveness. If this is so, and I really believe it is so, how could this government be so naive as to believe that we in the opposition would relinquish these rights without a murmur? Their memory is not very long. They seem to have forgotten December of 1968.
Rule 75c is only a modified version of 16a and it is totally unacceptable. In 1968, after much debate, 16a was withdrawn by the government. Public opinion indicated last December that 16a was not acceptable. Why should a modernized version, equally as vicious and equally as unacceptable, be acceptable now? Why should the government insist on 75c anyway? That is what I want to know. I have listened to some brilliant speeches from both sides of the house but nobody seems to be able to tell me why this is necessary. Have we on this side of the house been irresponsible? Have we not been co-operative? Have we not been reasonable? What is the necessity for 75c?
As a matter of fact, all the legislation the government desired to deal with has been dealt with and there is nothing on the Order Paper except this rules package. What is the necessity for 75c? It has been said that 75c is required in order to get on with legislation. What legislation are we talking about? Is the government talking about assistance to old age pensioners who are being strangled by the high cost of living? Is the government going to bring in legislation to cope with that problem? Is the government talking about the superannuates who are also being strangled by the high cost of living and inflation? Is this what the government is talking about? Is it talking about relief for the farmers in respect of the wheat problem? Is this the type of legislation it is talking about? Is the government talking about the plight of its first citizens? Is that the type of legislation about which this government is talking? Perhaps the government is going to bring in legislation which will determine a great oil policy for this continent. Perhaps, and this is my pet peeve, the government is going to create a
Procedure and Organization ministry of housing and urban development. What a great innovation that would be. Is that what the government is talking about when it talks about legislation?
Is the government talking about housing or is it talking about inflation and high costs? If these are the things about which the government is concerned, it does not need 75c because we will co-operate with regard to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government does not need that rule. I have outlined enough work to keep the government busy for two and a half years. It does not need 75c, and I would say that this government has proved miserably-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for an outstanding contribution to this debate. In a very eloquent fashion, the hon. member tried to persuade some members opposite to change their ways, to change their minds and to repent before it is too late. It seems to me that throughout the address of the hon. member for Hamilton West there was the implication of that saying; hope springs eternal. It seems to me that if hon. members opposite show no sign of response to the very eloquent appeal just delivered by the hon. member, and if the only thing they are capable of is the type of interjection we heard during his speech, then really I am afraid both his and my faith in human nature may drop just a little bit.
This debate is an amazing spectacle. I entered this house in 1968 and I have been a member for a little over a year. It is some 10 months since this present session was convened. We are already witnessing a second major debate on the rules of this house. I noted with interest that the rules changes introduced before Christmas, which included rule 16a as well as quite a large number of other changes, were generally accepted throughout the house. That debate lasted nine
11258	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization days. We have already spent six days on this debate. By the end of this week we will have reached nine days of debate as well. Some 18 days of the time of this house will have been spent debating the rules, all because of the persistence of this government in respect of this one particular matter.
It seems to me, after listening to the speeches by government members and the arguments presented by the government, that much of the motivation is based on occurrences in the last parliament. They are not up to date, and they are not dealing with the situation before parliament now. It seems to me this government is attempting to give the impression that it is moving forward into the future with its eyes firmly fixed on the past.
There are all sorts of images and comparisons which come to one's mind in trying to figure out what this government is trying to do. One image that comes to my mind is that this government somehow gives the impression of a new car hurtling down the road in which there is a beautiful blond sitting alongside the driver who has neither of his hands on the steering wheel. Some of the members might suggest that in this modern technological and technocratic age that car was being operated by remote control. It seems to me there might be some validity in that impression on the basis of the attendance both of cabinent ministers and government members in this house during the question period and during other debates in this house.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Long before I became a member of parliament I was convinced that the rules of parliament needed a thorough overhaul and an updating. In my opinion, parliament needs a safeguard to protect freedom of debate and to recognize the proper, useful and essential role of debate, while at the same time recognizing the needs of the nation and the rule and work to be performed by parliament. Some hon. members will know that prior to my election last year I was an unsuccessful candidate in several federal elections. My first run as a candidate was in the general election of 1957.
I have to confess that on several occasions during the 11 years between 1957 and 1968 I was secretly relieved that I had not been elected. There were occasions when members of the house were called upon to work intolerable, inhuman hours for more than a year at a stretch. There were situations devoid of commonsense and reason. I should not need to recall to members of the house that on several occasions in recent years there was a [Mr. Burton.1
DEBATES	July 15, 1969
general feeling in Canada that parliament was no longer relevant and no longer capable of coping with the needs of Canadian people. There was a feeling that parliament was slowly strangling itself, as well as the nation, as a result of its failure to restructure its operations.
My feelings on this subject were reinforced by one small incident last September. On that occasion, shortly after my arrival in Ottawa, my four year old son commented, on seeing the parliament buildings for the first time, "It's a castle". This made me think: Surely this is the way many young people must feel about parliament. One of the things I looked forward to at the commencement of the session was the prospect that the rules of parliament would be revised to enable the house to cope with an ever-expanding workload occasioned by the increasing scope and scale of public activity and concern. I was mindful of the fact that members of my own party, in particular the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), had long pressed for an adequate revision of the rules. Their concern was based on a recognition of both the desirability and the inevitability of expansion in the scope of governmental activity and concern.
When the session commenced last September I thought there was real reason for hope. Members and spokesmen for the government had indicated that they wanted to improve the rules. There seemed to be a disposition on all sides of the house to update the rules and make them more meaningful and relevant to today's needs. I thought there was real hope that progress would be made, while at the same time safeguarding the basic rights of parliament.
I should have known better than to think you could trust Liberals to have a controlling voice in making such changes. One reason I should have known better was that my father once sat as a member of this house, as well as a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, and had plenty of experience with Liberals. He learned through experience, sometimes bitter experience, to never trust a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wise old Joe.


John Stratford Burton: I am well aware of the background and experience that gave rise to this conclusion and thoroughly justified him in that belief. If any hon. members would like to hear some stories in this regard, I would be glad to tell them either now or on another
July 15, 1969	COMMONS
occasion. I thought times had changed somewhat. I thought: Surely, some Liberals have learned some things over the years; surely some of the Liberals are a new breed of cat who have a more up to date outlook.


An hon. Member:: They have the same meow.


John Stratford Burton: I was rather hopeful about the situation. But these thoughts turned out to be illusions. The Liberal approach to the rules has turned out to be a case of typical Liberal arrogance, autocracy and dictatorial conduct.


An hon. Member:: What about your
attitude?


John Stratford Burton: We are talking about the rules of the house which you are attempting to foist upon parliament and the entire country. Rule 16a before Christmas, and 75c, are being imposed from the top without regard to the fact that the effect will be of crushing any opposition in the path of the Liberal cabinet juggernaut. Hon. members will note that I said "Liberal cabinet juggernaut", because hon. members across the way know, as well as anybody else, that this is the area from which the real pressure is coming. These two rules, 16a and 75c, imposed upon the committee by the heavy hand of the government, have placed many of the government's own supporters in a very difficult position. When I expressed my feeling last fall that there was hope for good rule changes, it was based in part on the knowledge that on the government back benches there are many capable men who are intelligent, well educated and well motivated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Stratford Burton: All hon. members with those characteristics are now being put to a cruel test and a cruel choice. Either they stand up for their convictions and principles by opposing 75c, or they give in to the heavy hand that is bringing pressure to bear upon them and which they know will eventually bring their government to defeat. I look across the way and see many hon. members with the characteristics I have mentioned; the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Borrie) and others. I know these are sincere, hardworking members. But I suggest that each of them, and in fact all members of the House of Commons, reach
Procedure and Organization a point when they have to make a decision whether they are going to fight for some of the principles basic to the good operation of democratic institutions, or whether they are going to give in to the heavy hand that is pressing on them at the present time.
I suggest that if they are content to become puppets in the hands of their leaders, and remain as such, they must make that choice now. This is the turning point for many hon. members opposite. They will have to make a very difficult and important choice. There are other sincere, hardworking members on the other side of the chamber. There is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), who introduced the motion now under debate. He is certainly a sincere, hardworking member. I am sure he is trying to do a good job, but he is operating under a very special difficulty.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I recall when the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton attended the same university as I did a number of years ago. At that time a bright future was already being forecast for the hon. member, that some day he might be a federal cabinet member of the prime minister of the country. One gains the impression that in fact he really would not mind too much if he were brought into the cabinet of the present government. I do not criticize the hon. member for this ambition, but I suggest that he, too, is now in a position where he has to make a very difficult choice. He must decide whether he will bow to the pressures brought to bear upon him by those in inner government circles, or whether he will stand up for his convictions. The hon. member looked very uncomfortable on several occasions when this debate commenced and we were discussing the various points of procedure and order that were raised. I suggest that if any hon. member has in fact such ambitions, in the long run he will be much better off to stand up for his principles and convictions at the present time. History can and does repeat itself. Former Liberal governments have grown arrogant and autocratic with age. This government has developed such characteristics more quickly than Liberal governments in the past. Such attitudes can lead to the downfall of a government, regardless of its political stripe. Some hon. members, particularly on the government side, are prone to think that the public does not care much about such things as rules and rule changes. But, Mr. Speaker, history has shown the public to be far more sensitive to
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization things affecting fundamental rights than politicians are often prone to think. On occasion public response might be slow or tardy; but it is there and any politician ignores it at his peril. Thus government backbenchers are faced with an important and difficult choice. Do they stand up to the autocratic decrees delivered to them by those in control of their party or do they allow their party to slide down the long, slippery slope which eventually leads to political oblivion.
At the beginning of this session, Mr. Speaker, a special committee was established to examine the rules of the house. The report of that committee was submitted to the house before the Christmas recess, and it was debated at that time. Some changes proposed were acceptable on this side of the house. Those included substantial changes in the structure of operations in parliament. The benefits of those changes are now evident in terms of dispatch of business this session. While problems remain, such as the manner and effectiveness of the operations of committees, there can be no question that business has been expedited. There are other questions, as well, that remain to be considered, among them being the whole question of communication between parliament as an institution, individual members in this house and the public at large.
Similarly, the question of whether legislation is adequate in the view of an individual member has nothing to do with the assessment of the effectiveness of these rule changes. Rule changes, just by themselves, do not produce a better parliament, do not produce better legislation or better government programs. These depend on the programs that in fact are introduced by the government, and the effectiveness of those programs. However, Mr. Speaker, in the midst of these very acceptable rule changes which were introduced before Christmas, rule 16a stuck out like a sore thumb, or like one rotten apple in a barrel, to use another type of expression. It was bad in itself and in time would spoil everything around it. As justification for the proposal to give the government arbitrary and sole power to limit debate, government members pointed to the small amount of business disposed of up to that time. In that debate I dealt with this point as will be seen by reference to pages 3896 and 3897 of Hansard for December 12 and pages 3914 and 3915 of Hansard for December 13. I will not go into detail with respect to points I made at that time, but I commend those pages to all members in order that they may 
gain, by reading them, a better picture of the business that had been transacted and dealt with by this house even prior to the rule changes adopted before the Christmas recess.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that from September 12 until the commencement of the rules debate, there were 60 sitting days. Some 36J of these days were consumed with the opening day, the throne speech debate, the first budget and budget debates, supply and interim supply debates the length of which was based on agreement reached between the leaders of the various parties, and one day on which we did not sit. On that day no business was transacted because the house adjourned out of respect for the late premier Johnson of Quebec who had just passed away. Also there were debates involved in establishing the committees on procedure and statutory instruments. Although the Prime Minister stated at that time that only nine measures or bills prior to the Christmas recess had passed through parliament, the actual number of bills was eleven, and consideration had commenced on five other measures.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and others on the government benches, complained about a number of measures which had not received consideration in the house during the present session. However, the President of the Privy Council fails to recognize that the house spent nine days debating rule 16a prior to Christmas; those nine days could have been used to consider other items of business.
I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that some time would have been required for us to consider other arguments stemming from the committee report-indeed, some aspects required further consideration-but there can be no question that the government's attempt to bulldoze rule 16a through the house consumed valuable time. In my view, they cannot have it both ways. If they insist on foisting measures such as rule 16a and rule 75c on the house, they are going to have to accept the consequences.
Hon. members know that the subject of time allocation was referred to a special committee in the new year as a result of the agreement that was reached just prior to the Christmas recess. This occurred after it became clear even to the government that they could not ram rule 16a down the throats of the house or country. Surely, it would have been reasonable to have expected the government to be sensitive to its experience with
July IS, 1969

rule 16a. But, Mr. Speaker, rule 75c demonstrates that such was not the case. Rule 75c introduced following the demise of rule 16a, demonstrates that this government is determined one way or the other to acquire a degree of raw, naked power that goes far beyond what the people of this country conceive as properly belonging to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Stratford Burton: This question must be asked: why do they want this power? What do they intend to bring before parliament in the coming months? Is there legislation coming which will be unacceptable to the house and country, and which the government is going to ram down the country's throat? Can they only do this if they have rule 75c at their disposal?
The manner in which operations of the house are carried on, and the way we can expect the government to use this rule, was illustrated today when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), my colleague, suggested seriously to the government as a result of questions asked both yesterday and today that one of the allotted days the opposition had foregone prior to the end of the session should be used to discuss the serious wheat situation and the consequent farm income situation in western Canada.
This one day, could have been granted without any problem. The wheat question is very important, as is obvious, and as is recognized on all sides of the house. The debate would have lasted one day, and that would have been the end of it. But again we saw how unresponsive the President of the Privy Council is to positive and constructive proposals coming from this side of the house. If this is the type of response we are to continue to get from the government benches, and from the President of the Privy Council, then we have to view with suspicion some of the powers the government is attempting to acquire unto itself. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and other members have already demonstrated that there has been a reasonable dispatch of business during the present session. In fact, had some of the legislation that was presented been more adequate, there would have been less debate, not more. Debate is often occasioned by the inadequacy of the legislation and measures that are placed before the house.

Procedure and Organization now being debated in the house. On December 12 I commenced my speech with these words, as reported at page 3894 of Hansard:
The debate on the rules now before us is of the utmost importance to Canada, it involves critical and essential components of the functioning of a democracy. Consideration of the matters under discussion should not be viewed from the standpoint of the mechanics of the matter, but rather from the standpoint of the principle involved and the consequences of our considerations on our democratic institutions. The mechanics are important in their place, but that place is still secondary to the principles involved.
The very manner in which rule 75c was pushed through the committee, having been introduced at the last moment and voted upon almost immediately, is an example of how the government has not heeded the advice given to it from all quarters of the house during the last rules debate before Christmas. It seems to me we must keep in mind some of the considerations raised at that time.
When the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) moved an amendment to the motion adopting the new rules prior to Christmas, his amendment in fact accepted the principle of time allocation in debates. This principle as such was recognized and accepted, I think, by all sides of the house.
As members will be aware, the key question is: How will this principle be applied? The application of the principle is the important thing. At that time the members of all opposition parties made their stand clear. They made it clear that they were not prepared to accept rule 16a or anything like rule 16a. It now seems that somehow or other their message failed to get through to the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Stratford Burton: Certainly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Trudeau's hatchet man.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to object to the shouting; I think it is quite unbecoming. An hon. member does not have to accept a question, but if he does the hon. member who wants to ask the question should be allowed to do so without being subjected to this kind of conduct.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member, and all hon. members opposite, accepted last December 20 the fact that the committee
should look into the British procedure in relation to allocating time for debates. Would not the hon. member agree that the British procedure is more strict on the opposition than the proposal here?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But we do
not have to accept it.


John Stratford Burton: I agree that this was one of the proposals that the committee was to look into, following its terms of reference agreed to on December 20. The hearings of the committee were held in camera, but I trust that the committee gave full consideration to the British procedures. It seems to me that the terms of reference in no way imposed an obligation or duty on the committee to accept those particular procedures. Although they were valid points for study, anyone who listened to the debate at that time would realize that rule 75c would not have been acceptable to the opposition parties had it been proposed prior to Christmas.
In December, the principle of time allocation was accepted, and this principle was embodied in the wording of the amendment, as I pointed out in the debate at that time. It seems to me we have to be very careful in considering the British procedure and the British parliamentary practice. While we can certainly learn useful lessons from British parliamentary practice, and as all members know the pattern of our parliament is based in large part upon British parliamentary tradition, the fact is that there are important differences between the British parliamentary system and the Canadian House of Commons, our own practices and needs.
We live in a different type of country from Britain, which for the most part is a homogeneous nation where matters can be debated in more capsulized form. Britain does not have our geographical dimension with its many regional interests and concerns. It is at a more advanced stage of economic, political and social development.


Mr. Fairwealher:: The committee chairmen there are also neutral.


John Stratford Burton: As pointed out by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) the committee chairmen there are neutral. In addition, it should also be noted that the British House of Commons has some 625 members, whereas the Canadian House of Commons has 264. This simple arithmetical fact means, it seems to me, that members must

July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization accept a different method of operation in will be successful in vetoing and hold up order to carry on their business.	government business. Several hon. members
I came to Ottawa on the basis that I had have already pointed out the example of the been elected to a democratic institution. I was Criminal Code debate and the extensive elected a member of the House of Commons amendments proposed by members of the in order to participate in debate on public Creditiste Party. This situation could have issues and to make decisions thereon. I was been dealt with under proposed rule 75b. I not elected as the member for Regina East to have no argument with the proposition that accept a muzzle and I do not intend to accept some of the debate on the amendment to the a muzzle under any circumstances. I intend to abortion section of the Criminal Code was fight proposals such as rule 75c in every way unreasonable. I say that as one who in fact possible. When the government and its sup- had some sympathy for some of the amend-porters come to their senses, we can resume ments in respect of abortion. As has been reasonable discussions about the rules and pointed out, this situation could have been urgent items of public business. We can deal dealt with under proposed rule 75b. I am with some of the items referred to in the sure a reasonable agreement could have been question period today at any time the govern- reached.
ment may wish.	If the members of the government do, in
[DOT]	(9-30 m )	fact, hold such fears about what the opposi-*	pm'	tion	is going to do, I suggest members oppo-
The government knows that rules 75a and site should consider that members on this
75b are reasonable and that they have been side of the house have just as much right to accepted in principle by the opposition. They be fearful of what the government is going to provide for time allocation when there is full do, what its intentions are and what actions agreement among the house leaders of the and decisions it will take in the future. Indeed, various parties. They provide for determina- Mr. Speaker, the manner in which the gov-tion of time allocation when all parties but emment has forced debate on this particular one agree on the allocation. Why not accept proposal at the present time, knowing there rules 75a and 75b, find out how they work, was going to be strong opposition to rule 75c, and if they do not meet the need then let the is one example that cannot help but increase matter be discussed further.	fears that the government is going to use this
The government should know by now the rule 75c in an unacceptable way. position of the opposition. As I mentioned in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that previously, rule 16a was voted to a standstill, if we are to have a parliament that is going to Rule 75c will also be voted to a standstill. As practice the principles of participatory soon as members opposite understand this we democracy, about which we heard a good can begin to make some progress. Why not do deal over the past year and a half, we are it now? Why not adopt the slogan of one of going to have to reject firmly the type of the government's own agencies, "Do it now"? proposal contained in rule 75c. As I stated, Why does the government not use intelligence we certainly agree with proposed rules 75a and avoid this senseless confrontation? It is an(j ygg only rule 75c that stands in the way. Rules
75a and 75b represent a reasonable solution. Mr. Speaker: I have to interrupt the hon.
We are reasonable men and women. I sup-	member since his	time has expired.	The	hon.pose I should say woman, because regretfully,	member cannot	continue unless	he	has
Mr. Speaker, there is only one woman in the unanimous consent of the house, house. I can assure all members that the hon. lady is a reasonable woman. If we are reason- {Translation]
able then we will reach agreement by adopt- Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe): ing rules 75a and 75b. Let's get on with the Mr. Speaker, when the measure now before job.	us was introduced, I was far from thinking of
As a result of listening to some hon. mem- speaking to it, first, because I do not consider bers across the way, both in debate and pri- myself an expert on the rules of the house vate conversation, I gained the impression	and secondly, because 1 believe	that	thethat part of their motivation for presenting	objections raised,	both in the house and	outthis particular rule change which we find so side, would make the government understand objectionable is based on fear. It is based on that rule 75c should be withdrawn in the the fear of veto, that somehow the opposition general interest.
11264
July 15, 1969

Procedure and Organization
I must admit today that I was entirely wrong as each and everyone of the government members are still possessed with the arrogance that was always shown by this government. And it is because of the consequences that would result from the concurrence in the proposed rules, that I decided to make some demands which are also, I believe, those of the people I have the honour to represent in this house.
Does the hon. member for Papineau wish to say something?


Mr. George C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: For
Lafontaine.


Mr. Ricard:: The hon. member for Lafontaine could surely abide by the rules and stop interrupting me unnecessarily, besides, no one can understand what he says.


Georges-C. Lachance: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You will make your speech later.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can make his speech in due time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened, without interrupting them, to the members opposite, and I would like the French Canadians, those from the province of Quebec at least, to show me the same courtesy I have shown to all previous speakers, whether on this side or on the other side of the house.
I was sent here by the people of Saint-Hyacinthe to speak on their behalf, and I am sure that as well as the rest of the people in Quebec, they do not approve of the members being gagged. In general, the population does not approve of such methods to silence the members of the house. Our constituents have entrusted us with a specific mandate: to protect their interests and to express their views in the house of commons.
My fellow citizens want their rights to be respected by the government in power, whether it be Conservative, Liberal or other, and they will not tolerate that I be silenced by the will of only one man. They think that if I want to speak, I must have the right to do it as often as I see fit, especially when their interests are at stake, while I respect the rules of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents think that only the Speaker has the power to call me to order and to ask that I sit down if I do not follow the rules.
In its simplest expession, rule 75c means that even before a legislative proposal is known to the house, closure will be forced upon us and after four days of debate, no member will be able to rise in order to enforce the rights and privileges of his constituents.
It goes without saying that I object and that I will object with all my strength to this measure because I think it is a dictatorial one. In addition, I am sure that the people in general are opposed to it, not only because I want to have the right to express in the house the ideas that are dictated to me by my constituents, but also because I want to be sure that those who will come after me will also be able to enforce the interests of the constituents of the St. Hyacinthe areas as often as they see fit.
My constituents believe strongly that the rights which are guaranteed to us by our democracy do not allow the government to resort to dictatorial measures in order to silence their representative.
There is another reason which leads me to oppose the adoption of the measure now under study.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In fact, we know that in 1964, if my memory serves me right, a debate which is now history, took place with regard to the adoption of a distinctive national flag. At that time, closure was imposed upon us and in a circular which I sent out to my constituents, I explained the reasons for the stand which I had taken with regard to the adoption of a distinctive national flag. I stated then that I would object with all my might to the imposition of closure, and I quote:
Closure is an undemocratic measure. I voted against its application because I believe it is unfair to prevent a member from making his views known in the house as often as he deems necessary to do so. Even if such a measure were presented by my party, I would still vote against it.
I cannot miss this opportunity to say that I am against adopting a closure rule. With my colleagues of the Conservative party and the other parties of the opposition I shall do my outmost to try to bring the government to its senses.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the submissiveness of my friends across the way. I
July 15, 1969
fail to understand how they could, deliberat-ly, from sheer wantonness, adopt a measure that will prevent them from speaking on behalf of their electors. If they vote in favour of Standing Order 75c, they will repudiate their commitments towards those who have sent them here. It is unbelievable that party discipline should have them submit so blindly to the will of their boss.
Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary procedure must be improved. Still, it must be recognized that we have, in the last few years, made much progress in that direction. During the present session, the opposition has proved repeatedly its goodwill, its eagerness to co-operate with the government to speed up the business of the house. Others, before me, gave several examples of this.
Allow me to recall one again that we gave up days allotted to the opposition, that we also agreed to shorten our speeches that a greater number of members might be heard.
All this, Mr. Speaker, was achieved by mutual agreement between the members of the opposition and those of the Liberal party. I am firmly convinced that more work can be done, that there can be none agreement if we proceed as we have done until now, that is by mu.ual agreement.
Statistics reveal, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of the debates on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, on the budget and o her important topics, the government members used their right to speak according to their numbers.
But it is rather surprising to see that today those same members in some particular cases, ask that their rights be recognized when they, in the same breath, would like to prevent the opposition members from enjoying the rights given them under the rules.
A few years back, Mr. Speaker, I sat on the committee set up to review parliamentary procedure. This committee included members such as Messrs G. W. Pickersgill, Lionel Che-vrier and, if my memory serves me right, Paul Martin also. I can assure you, that none of these gentlemen would ever have accepted a bill such as the one now under consideration. In fact, when proposals were brought forward to improve parliamentary procedure, which would have prevented somewhat the opposition members from speaking as long as they wished, they cried out loud about dictatorship, if not worse. Their contribution on the committee on parliamentary procedure was strictly limited to the benefits it could bring to their party.
Procedure and Organization
Perhaps is it also relevant to recall some of my first memories from the time when I first came here.
I was elected on June 10, 1957. As you know, we came in after a government known for its arrogance throughout the country if not the world over. The government we replaced had refused for many hours and even for many days to provide the opposition which information it was entitled to. And finally, to prevent the public from knowing some very unflattering things about several friends of the Liberal party, the government we replaced finally resorted to the gag. As a result of that attitude taken by the Saint-Laurent administration in 1956, that government was defeated during the elections held on June 10, 1957. The people took advantage of that opportunity to show in a concrete and tangible way its disapproval as well as its indignation. It refused to trust that government again with the result that the Conservative government, then headed by the right hon. John Diefenbaker, came into power.
I attended in this house the proceedings which begun after parliament met in October 1957-if I am not mistaken-and I can say that the humiliation of defeat has failed to convince the people opposite to put an end to their arrogance. From the way they acted, you could see that they intended to keep on claiming that power was theirs forever by right and to consider the administration of public affairs as their own province.
You should have seen the Chevrier, Martin, Pickersgill and even the right hon. Pearson systematically and continuously challenging the authority of the Speaker, rising on points of orders that actually were not founded, resorting to any means to embarrass the ministers and the government. All they wanted was to filibuster and they made no bones about it.
If the young members opposite really want to learn about the behaviour of those who came before them in this house, they have but to read the official report of the House of Commons from 1957 to 1963. They will realize that the authority of the house was never so much abused as when the Liberal party was in the opposition. It would have been very interesting to see their reactions at that time if the government had tried then to introduce a legislation such as rule 75c, which they are trying to impose upon us now. They would have shouted "tyranny", "dictatorship", if not deplored the death of freedom in this country.

11266	COMMONS DEBATES	July 15, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Today, Mr. Speaker, they want us to swallow this same pill which has been sugar-coated, without a word of protest.
In presenting rule 75c, the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said that he wanted to ensure a more rational, more logical use of the house's time. This reason is far from being very convincing since it has not won the approval of all opposition parties. The solid bloc which the opposition represents, Mr. Speaker, is proof that it is not in the best interest of Canadians to adopt this measure.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 last, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) if it was true that the French radio station in Vancouver was on the point of being closed?
Before making any comments on the changes that have taken place since I asked my question, let me state the facts, because in Canada, history has taught those who have studied it that in olden days, there was the dispersion of Acadians and the 12 Frenchspeaking employees of the C.B.C. in Vancouver had the impression of going through the same experience.
As a matter of fact, a formal complaint had been lodged with the management of the Crown corporation, to draw their attention to what was happening. For those employees, it seemed like the beginning of the end of the French-language station, CBUF-FM.
At any rate, movers had come to the first floor of the Vancouver Hotel where the French network employees had their offices to move the furniture elsewhere and thus scatter
tMr. Ricard.]
the team among the large group of Englishspeaking personnel.
The English network now has 450 employees in British Columbia. For administrative purposes, French-speaking employees come under the British Columbia region. But, according to the policy announced some time ago by the management of the Crown Corporation there are two networks and, in that case, those employees should come under the French network.
The policy which the Director of the English network in that region is trying to apply in Vancouver is therefore contrary to the policy of the Corporation, as stated by the employees who made this information known by telephone.
According to a report, the management felt that a faction was in action. Now, the 14 employees have already signed a first petition in which they object to the break-up. A second petition bearing the signatures of nine of them followed; three people had not signed because one was back in Montreal and a secretary and a technician were on holidays.
The 12 employees put up 20 hours of local production per week, six of which are transmitted over the national network. One of them said, and I quote:
It is important that we work together, to maintain efficiency and also to protect our language. However, we are determined not to let our office furniture be carried away.
Moreover, the employees concerned stated that all those who thought that they would give up their rights can on the contrary be sure that they intend to defend them. As far as I am concerned, I wish also to be on the side of those defenders of the truth, in order that justice be granted to all our people. Otherwise, Canada will no longer exist.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, here is how the incident ended. The employees of the C.B.C.'s French-language station eventually won their battle to stay together and maintain their cultural identity. There was talk of moving members of the CBUF-FM station in an administrative wing with the English-speaking officials, but the announcer Andre Vigeant said:
We have no intention of moving, except as a group.
A compromise was finally arrived at and the station is to keep on operating. However, we must keep our eyes open and be on the look-out.
I have in hand a statement to put on the order paper. I shall read it to you word for
July 15, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	11267
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
word. It follows the government's decision to grant an educational television station to western Canada. Here it is:
The hon. Gerard Pelletier, Secretary of State, has announced that an agreement has just been signed under the aegis of the Department of the Secretary of State between the C.B.C. and the Department of Education of Alberta. Under that agreement, the C.B.C. will ask the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission the authorization to establish a French TV station in the Edmonton area which will also be used to broadcast educational programs provided by the Metropolitan Edmonton Educational Television (MEETA).
The Secretary of State has pointed out that he has recently received a petition with 28,000 signatures asking the establishment of a French TV station in the Edmonton area.
On October 24, 1968, realizing the urgency of the situation, the Secretary of State announced the creation of a task force on educational broadcasting which, among other things, would look for interim measures to be taken before the adoption of the bill.
The agreement which has just been signed, must be considered as a happy one, provided that in reply to the proposal accepted by the government, we do not hear too many statements such as the one I read today in a newspaper article entitled:	The Voice of
Western Canadians Does Not Want French Radio or Television in Edmonton.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker-and unfortunately, I will not have enough time for all I would like to say-such statements should not be made or published in neespapers.
I shall quote a few sentences therefrom, because I do not want anyone to think that I made those statements. However, I wish the whole of Canada to know that, if there are separatists in Quebec, you can also find people who do not accept French Canadians as they should do. I shall therefore quote the opening of the statement:
-A group called "The Voice of Western Canadians" sent a letter to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission stating that the establishment of a French TV station in Edmonton was neither justified nor desired.
Last month, the C.B.C. filed with the C.R.T.C. a petition for a French TV station in the Albertan capital. No decision has yet been announced by the C.R.T.S.
In April, 28,000 Albertans forwarded a petition to the Secretary of State . .. asking him to support the establishment of that station. It is following that petition that the C.B.C. presented its request.
As for the Association canadienne-frangaise d'Alberta, it rates at 40,000 the number of Frenchspeaking Canadians in the Edmonton area alone-
"The Voice of Western Canadians", on behalf of its 400 members, protests against the establishment of that station, and as the
watch-dog of the rights of Canadians, I wanted to ask this question. Whenever our people will be discriminated against-with the hope that the injustice will be quickly corrected-I will always be among the defenders who wish Canada to remain the Canada we know today.


Hon. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Ral-liement Creditiste has said that many in western Canada have their heritage rooted in Quebec. Not only do they wish to be involved in ihe affairs of western Canada but they also wish to retain their relations with other French speaking people in this country. He talked about the establishment of a French language television station in the capital of Alberta, Edmonton, and suggested this is of paramount importance for French speaking people living in that part of Canada. With that I agree. In my own part of Canada, the Northwest Territories, the missions which have ministered to many of our people have come from French Canada and other French speaking parts of the world. The people of western Canada, and particularly of northern Alberta, know how to get along with each other. Thousands of our Ukrainians, Eskimos and Indians have learned how to get along with each other, and that is demonstrated in communities like Lac-La-Biche and St. Paul, where the basic language is French. The French speaking people of these communities know how to get along with their neighbours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt but the parliamentary secretary's time has expired.



WATER RESOURCES-HAMILTON, ONTARIO- POLLUTION BY STEEL COMPANY THROUGH DUMPING OF ACID

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and asked whether his department had investigaged a report to the effect that in February the Steel Company of Canada dumped 150,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid into Hamilton Bay. I asked, if that were so, had a report been made and would it be tabled. I repeat that question this evening.
Other members of this house have talked about the severe pollution problem which presently exists in Hamilton Bay. That area apparently is one of the worst polluted areas
11268	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Canada today, and I am pleased to see members of all parties are taking a keen interest in this problem. I am fully aware of newspaper stories of this incident, and of the investigation carried out by the Ontario Water Resources Commission. However, the federal government also has a responsibility in this particular area of Lake Ontario, and this matter certainly comes within the orbit of several federal departments.
If an investigation has been carried out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or any other federal department, we should certainly be entitled to see the report. If the investigation was carried out in co-operation with other authorities, the report should still be available. If there was no federal participation, then we have every right to ask the minister to tell us why there has not been compliance with the pollution regulations laid down by government. I understand that the Great Lakes system, and its pollution problems, come under federal jurisdiction.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) indicated on May 29 that the government was concerned with the general pollution problem in Hamilton Bay. He stated also that there are certain federal legislative powers in existence which can be used in certain instances. For example, there are powers under the Fisheries Act, under the Shipping Act and under the health act. His own department also exercises certain powers, and there are powers under the International Joint Commission. In my opinion, these powers could have been used to investigate the incident to which I have referred.
If none of the above agencies was used to investigate the acid spill, I ask why this was so. It is the dismal lack of enforcement, even by our present inadequate pollution standards, which is partly responsible for the dangerous pollution hazards that exist everywhere. Why are regulations written by certain departments and then ignored? The acid spill in Hamilton Bay clearly falls within federal jurisdiction and we are awaiting the minister's report. If a jurisdictional problem is involved, I ask the minister to outline it and to tell us what is being done to solve the problem.
Let me just refer to a few of these regulations. Hamilton Bay falls within the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board. Among 
DEBATES	July 15, 1969
the regulations pursuant to that legislation is the following:
Nothing shall toe thrown, drained or discharged into the water, allowed to come in contact with the water, or deposited anywhere within the limits of the harbour, which may in any manner-
(b) cause any nuisance or endanger life or health:-
This regulation clearly includes the pollution that occurred in this case. There are also regulations pursuant to the Fisheries Act, one of which provides that:
No one shall throw overboard ballast, coal ashes, stones, or other prejudicial or deleterious substances in any river, harbour or roadstead, or in any water where fishing is carried on-*
It goes on to provide:
Every person who violates this section is guilty of an offence and liable for the first conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, or to imprisonment for one to six months, or to both.
For the second and any subsequent conviction, he is liable to a fine of $300 to $2,000 or to imprisonment of two to twelve months, or to both.
In addition, the Governor General in Council may make regulations respecting the obstruction and pollution of any waters frequented by fish.
I should like also to put on record part of a letter written by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) that appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 14, 1969:
The federal government has full and comprehensive jurisdiction over Canada's fisheries. Under the British North America Act this covers "sea coast and inland fisheries". From 1868 onwards the federal Fisheries Act has contained clauses dealing with the quality of water and measures designed to protect fish and other forms of marine life.
While some sections of the present Fisheries Act need to be updated, I feel that this particular piece of legislation provides an excellent vehicle for federal participation in the war against pollution, not only on our sea coasts but also in our inland waters as well.
I ask the minister concerned why some of the federal powers in this field have not been exercised. In my opinion, there is no doubt that the spill in Hamilton Bay falls under the jurisdiction of several federal government departments and they cannot escape their responsibility. We need immediate action on pollution problems, not only in Hamilton Bay but everywhere. The federal government cannot escape its responsibility in this field. I urge the minister and the house to make this question one of the top priorities in the years to come. Man and his very existence on earth depends upon the solution of this pollution problem.
July 15, 1969	COMMONS


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is a member of the Energy, Mines and Resources Committee. I hope he speaks for his party when he says that the federal jurisdiction in relation to water management and water pollution must become the concern of Canadians. I hope when the legislation dealing with the Canada water act is introduced into the House of Commons that, apart from the details of the act, we will be able to rely on hon. members across the way for their full and complete support in the event that there are jurisdictional problems.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bring it in tomorrow.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We could bring it in tomorrow, but we would like your support in a way that is meaningful for Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why not do something with the
legislation you now have? Why are you sitting around?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I think the hon. member is aware of the jurisdictional problem. He was once the premier of a province. He recognizes the problems connected with introducing legislation. He should recognize also the problems of jurisdiction between the province and the municipalities. What we are faced with here, at the moment, is the important provincial problem.
We have a report that 150,000 gallons of acid were dumped into Hamilton Bay by the Steel Company of Canada. This has never been confirmed by the Ontario Water Resources Commission or any other source. This happened a month ago. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member, he really has not brought this before the house since that time. However, that is not the point.
The point is that we, as federal legislators, should recognize that water pollution and water management are major problems in this country. Please recognize that it takes a little bit of time to get organized. We recognize that there are jurisdictional problems.


Randolph Harding: Did you investigate it?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We investigated this.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What did you find?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Never mind. We have jurisdictional problems. I look to opposition members
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for support, particularly those who feel so hearty these days because they have some representation in the province of Manitoba. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for recognizing the Manitoba centennial today. We need this support for which I am asking in order to convince the people of Canada that water management and pollution affect the quality of life of all people in Canada. As the result of the major policy statement tonight by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), I assume we have that support.



SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS-DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on June 11 I asked the following question as recorded at page 9997 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to expose senior civil servants in his department to the difficulties and frustrations of the marketplace, as suggested by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer)?
My question arose from a speech the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) made, I believe, in Toronto on June 11 to some cost accountants. Because of the hon. member's recent association with the ministry, I thought it might be relevant to ask that question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). At that time Mr. Speaker said:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is
rather mysterious, as far as the chair is concerned. Perhaps it might be considered in the hour of mystery some time after ten o'clock.
Since we have had some mysterious answers here this evening, I suggest I am not out of place in bringing this question before this huge assembly at this time. One aspect of the suggestion made by the former minister of transport was that senior civil servants should perhaps have a different type of training before assuming their positions. From time to time we hear rumbles that the top level of the public service should rise and fall with the fortunes of government, similar to what happens in the United States where all the top people are replaced when a new president assumes office.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
While I have raised only one question of mystery, upon which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will throw some light, concerning whether the member for Trinity
11270	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion was flying a real balloon, a lead balloon or his own balloon, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would also deal with this other question about which there is a rumour around Ottawa. We will be interested in what he has to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether my remarks will lift or add to the veil of mystery to which Mr. Speaker referred when he shunted the hon. member's question into this late show period. I think it is important to note that the government and its officials do in fact make an effort to be aware of the views not only from the world of business but also from the worlds of labour, the professions and the universities. I think the government has been working to
DEBATES	July 15, 1969
expand the range of these contacts. In my opinion a very important role in this regard can be and is being played by members of parliament like ourselves. We are in a particularly good position to bring the views of groups and individuals to the attention of the government. I think I must conclude by saying if there are to be changes in existing government policies with regard to the role of the civil service, then I am sure the hon. member knows such changes will be announced in due course and in the usual way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about their pensions?
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, July 16, 1969