1969-07-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who a few days ago suggested that one of the members of the official opposition should attend a university in order to be able to read and understand communiques better than he had been able to interpret one. All the universities we have in this country would not be sufficient to enable anyone to understand what the minister has tried to tell us today. The final sentence in the minister's statement reads as follows:
X regret, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be able to give any precision to the measures of corrective action referred to in the communique.
In a previous sentence the minister said:
* I am encouraged by the constructive approach demonstrated by exporting countries at this meeting.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The minister has told us that the Washington meeting was another failure. This is not encouraging to the western farmer who during the past year or so has found himself under pressure by reason of not being able to deliver grain. The results of the meeting will be no encouragement to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who at the present time is visiting the west in an attempt to bring some kind of message of encouragement to the western farmers. It will be difficult for him to tell them that not only can they expect deliveries to be less but that their income will suffer accordingly.
I have before me a Wall Street Journal report dated June 19 which reads as follows:
As a result, to assure that ends meet, the Argentine government will start buying wheat in the world market. It was announced that a purchase 
DEBATES	July 14, 1969
of 7,348,000 bushels will be made next week. Argentina will seek to buy the wheat from Canada, the U.S., Australia and Russia.
Argentina was among the countries which participated in the discussions. I cannot visualize how a Canadian minister can return from the United States and tell us that Canada has not been successful in concluding a sensible arrangement in respect of marketing our wheat. Apparently Argentina has some idea of how to deal with its marketing situation. In view of the fact a previous Liberal government assured the western farmers that there would be a minimum price of $1.95J a bushel, does the minister not think there is an obligation on the part of the present government to ensure that the Canadian farmer will receive this price? In view of the economic situation today I ask the government whether this might not be a desirable course to follow, especially since the government has suffered a failure not only at the last meeting but at previous ones?
I do not understand how any minister can expect us to begin the summer recess with the realization that we do not know whether there will even be a five bushel quota in many areas. Some farmers with low grades are not even able to obtain $1.48 or $1.45 a bushel. This is the kind of economic situation we face. Yet this government cannot give any assurance to the farmers or to their creditors.
I believe the government has an obligation to the Canadian people. I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to telephone the Prime Minister who is out west and, considering the failure of the minister's mission in Washington, suggest a type of approach that will make the Prime Minister's trip a little easier.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the minister has been able to report to the house today. I am sure he has returned from a difficult mission. Judging from the communique it would seem that he probably is not too well satisfied with the results. The information he gave us is inconclusive. It is not the type of report upon which I could advise the farmers of my constituency to build firm hopes and make firm plans in respect of their general operations as grain farmers.
The International Grains Arrangement has been an ill-starred agreement from the timp it was signed. Whether this is due to the fact that it was not carefully considered or because some of the parties did not feel they wanted to be wholly committed to it, I do not know.
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
The minister's report does not tell us what is going to be done to correct the substantial differentials of 20 to 25 cents a bushel which exist between our grain and grain of comparative quality with which we compete in the markets. The report does not say that the European common market countries are prepared to support this agreement. It merely says that understandings have been reached with the European Economic Community, subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers representing their member countries, whatever that means. This is the area from which the disruption of the agreement has been coming.
The report speaks of constructive approaches, and I hope there are some. What we need from the minister at this moment is a clear statement of government policy toward the wheat producers of this country in view of the fact that the International Grains Arrangement is not working too well. I hope it will work well in the future. I hope it can be shored up and that these other countries will accept their responsibility as Canada has done. We cannot expect the wheat producers of western Canada to hold an umbrella over the International Grains Arrangement all by themselves. I am sure the minister knows very well this cannot be done by this group of wheat producers.
Therefore I think it is time the government told the grain producers of western Canada frankly what its position is. It should make it clear that it will make support available to the grain producers in terms of price and in terms of quantity, and will also take the responsibility along with other nations of the world to see that the International Grains Arrangement does work. I plead with the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, to come down to earth and say that there will be a support price at some level. If it is to be at $1.95i on the basis of the present International Grains Arrangement, let the government say that. If it is going to be $2, let the government say so. Let us not leave the farmers in the limbo of uncertainty in which they find themselves today.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we heard the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) on his return from Washington where he had talks with the representatives of other countries that signed the International Grains Arrangement.
DEBATES	H151
Wheat Market Meeting in Washington Before making any comments, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to remind the minister that we did not receive the French version of his statement, which assuredly causes us some prejudice. Since there are two official languages in this country, it would be normal that a bilingual copy of ministers' statements should be available to us.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the minister's statement, it seems to me that Canada is, with regard to the present situation, prisoner of its own production. Caught in an international context of negotiations and agreements on wheat, Canada has had in the way of imaginative trade, over a number of years, nothing to say but to accept this pernicious situation, as it will no doubt continue to do, and to make wheat producers submit to it.
In the meantime, Canadian wheat producers are faced with hardship in one of the richest agricultural countries, especially with regard to wheat.
On the international level, a situation has developed wherein the big wheat exporters have adopted uniform systems and wherein guaranteed prices higher than Canadian prices have been established. Such prices are often much higher than ours, in the case of France for instance, and consequently exports are subsidized and this Canada cannot do. Competition has caused a decrease in prices and Canada has followed suit as always, so as not to destroy competition.
What to my mind is of primary importance, Mr. Speaker, what may be deduced from the minister's trip, and this seems very clear to me, is that we cannot require the Canadian producers to pay for this government's lack of responsibility.
Since 1949, the cost of products and services used by the farmers of western Canada has increased by close to 50 per cent, while the price of wheat is still below the levels of the 1949-50 crop year. That is one factor of the decline in the Canadian wheat trade.
In such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, price decreases like the recent ones which will not be the last apparently, due to the irresponsibility of this government. Diace on the shoulders of wheat producers a load which they should not be obliged to accept. To conclude my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I find most regrettable that the government, with all its commercial imagination, could only come up with the idea of sending the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) check its popularity rating, rather than the quantities of unsold wheat.

Members' Attire in House Mr. Speaker, in my opinion such a position shows irresponsibility. Before checking on the popularity of the Prime Minister, the government should look into the problem of the wheat producers of western Canada in order to help them. They should not be held responsible for the wheat situation caused by the obvious irresponsibility of the present government.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON MEMBERS' ATTIRE

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we proceed with motions I wonder whether hon. members would mind my reminding them that it has always been the practice in this house that hon. members come into the house wearing a jacket and tie. It may be that in certain circumstances and certain places a turtleneck sweater is acceptable. I suggest to hon. members that it is not acceptable, in so far as my own standards are concerned, in any event. If hon. members were allowed to make exceptions to the rule, they might eventually come into the chamber in shorts and sportshirts.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Sandals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not pointing to any one hon. member at the present time. Hon. members will probably realize that from the chair it is sometimes a little difficult to determine exactly how hon. members are dressed and whether they are dressed in conformity with our practice. I do not wish to be difficult about this matter but I mention it in a general way and hope hon. members will agree with what I am saying. I do not suggest it is applicable today and that anyone is now contravening the rules. However, perhaps on a future day we will have the situation where someone's dress will contravene our practice in this respect, and I hope that what I have said will then be borne in mind.


Mr. Lewis:: Will someone convey this to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Since I am the member concerned, I merely wish to explain to the house that I am now receiving cobalt treatment for my throat and, 
DEBATES	July 14, 1969
according to the physician, circumstances do not allow me to wear a collar and a necktie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The explanation of the hon. member can certainly be accepted-I am sure,-not necessarily by the Chair, because I am here to express the wishes of hon. members. I am sure that I express the wish and the opinion of hon. members when I agree that, due to special circumstances, the hon. member is entitled to be exempted from the application of Standing Orders. The hon. member will enjoy with the unanimous consent of the house an exemption from the enforcement of Standing Orders which remain unchanged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Further to the undertaking given on Friday, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of the reports of Mr. W. S. Martin as adjudicator of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, for April 30, May 15 and May 16.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	How many railroad ears were carried by the C.N.R. Northumberland Strait ferries in 1968?
2 How many of these cars were fully loaded, partially loaded, empty?
3.	What is the cost charged by the C.N.R. Northumberland Strait ferry system against the C.N. Railroad Division for transporting these cars loaded or empty?
4.	When were costs last increased on this service and by what amount?
5.	Is it contemplated that the cost will be increased and, if so, when and by what amounts?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisier of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows- 1 41,774.
2.	21,964 loaded; 19,780 empty.
3.	The cost charged by the ferry system against the railway for services rendered in 1968 amounted to $106,179 based on the
July 14. 1969

average revenue per ton mile on the Atlantic region.
4 and 5. The allocation to D.O.T. varies month by month with increases or decreases in volume and general rate adjustments made from year to year affect average revenues.


ALBANY AND SEVERN RIVER PROJECTS
Mr. Aiken: Has the federal government under construction or study, any projects on the Albany and Severn Rivers, North of Geraldton, Ontario and, if so, for what projects and for what purpose?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: No.


ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,352
Mr. Yewchuk:: Will the government give a definite statement of its intention to regulate the use of electronic eavesdropping equipment in Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The matter of electronic eavesdropping is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I understand that the Committee hopes to table its report soon after Parliament reconvenes this fall. I wish to have the benefit of that report before deciding what legislative recommendations to make to my colleagues in Cabinet.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of the Postmaster General provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimasier General and Minister of Communications):: In so far as
the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. Yes, combined with a public relations program. (a) Costs as follows: 1960-61, $262,258; 1961-62, $312,738; 1962-63, $300,623; 1963-64, $270,943; 1964-65, $377,416; 1965-66, $416,060; 1966-67, $515,387; 1967-68, $583,585; 1968-69, $764,594.
Note: These figures are the expenditures identifiable with the Post Office Information
Questions
and Public Relations program. They include cost of advertising, printing, distribution and, in the case of the years 1964-65 and on, the cost of headquarters salaries.
Salary costs for field personnel are not included as the information cannot be extracted from expenditure records without substantial delay and excessive cost.
Salaries and travel costs for headquarters personnel prior to 1964-65 are not included, since they were not segregated in a separate allotment prior to that year.
2.	Postmark Weekly bulletin
10 issues per year 52 issues per year
	$	$
1960-61	25,280	12,1521961-62	22,033	7,3521962-63	29,660	9,6411963-64	30,637	9,5811964-65	29,170	9,1821965-66	30,985	10,6561966-67	38,832	10,7941967-68	38,328	12,0901968-69	49,915	10,962
Information booklets, rate sheets (indicating revised postal rates), and news releases are printed and distributed when required.
3.	Postmark sent to each employee, total number, 32,350 English; 10,715 French. Weekly bulletin distributed to each Postmaster and Supervisors requiring the information, 18,500. News Releases, distribution governed by the subject material, e.g. all media, dailies only, radio only, weeklies only, philatelists, etc. Rate sheets to each Postmaster and Postage Stamp depots. Distribution of the above is made by mail.
Note: Publication of the Postmark was discontinued with effect from April 1, 1969.


EXCHEQUER COURT-CHANGE IN NAME AND JURISDICTION
Mr. Foriin: 1.	Does the government intend to change the name of the Exchequer Court of Canada to the "Federal Superior Court"?
2.	Is the government studying the possibility of transforming the Immigration Appeal Board into a Division of such Court?
3.	Is the government studying or will it study the possibility of transforming the Tax Appeal Board into a fiscal Division of such Court?


John Napier Turner: 1,	2 and 3. Government policy relating to improvements in the federal administration of justice has not as yet been finally settled.

July 14, 1969
Questions


EMPLOYMENT FOR HANDICAPPED WORKERS
Mr. Robinson: What is the policy of the federal government toward the provision of part-time and/or limited employment for handicapped and/or marginal workers?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Commission has no special policy towards provision of part-time and/or limited employment for handicapped and/or marginal workers.
The Commission does have a special program for the employment on a full-time basis of the mentally retarded. Up to the present, this program has been a pilot project in the National Capital Region. Steps are now being taken to extend it throughout Canada.
For such handicapped persons as the blind, the deaf or hard of hearing, the Commission provides special examination testing arrangements so that such persons can compete on an equitable basis with other candidates. It also provides a special service to assist in the placement of such persons.


POLICY RESPECTING RETENTION OF FINGERPRINTS, ETC.
Mr. Robinson: Is it the policy of the federal government to keep on file the (a) fingerprints (b) photographs (c) records of persons accused of criminal offenses when the charge is subsequently withdrawn or dismissed against first offenders and, if so, for what reason and, if not, when are the (a) fingerprints (b) photographs (c) records destroyed?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: In
so far as it relates to the Department of the Solicitor General, is as follows: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as the National Bureau of Identification and the central repository in Canada for fingerprints and photographs, is responsible for the safekeeping and security of all identification data submitted by various law enforcement agencies.
References concerning withdrawn or dismissed charges against first offenders are expunged from the files of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when a request is received from the individual concerned or his solicitor for the return of the material through the contributing law enforcement agency.


DIVORCE, FOREIGN EVIDENCE-RATIFICATION OF CONVENTIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the federal government entered into negotiations with the provinces concerning ratification of (a) the Convention on the recognition of divorces and separations, and (b) the Convention on the obtaining of evidence from abroad in civil and commercial cases and, if so, what stage has been reached in these negotiations?
2.	If there have been no negotiations, for what reasons?


John Napier Turner: 1.	(a) and (b) No.
2.	All explanatory reports of the "rapporteurs" have not yet been sent by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to the Department. A provisional edition of the Report on the draft Convention on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters has been received on June 10, 1969 and is presently under study. These reports are essential to the interpretation of the draft conventions. However, marriage and divorce are subject matters for legislation by Parliament under the British North America Act.


RENTAL OF N.C.C. PROPERTIES BY PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF
Mr. Mather: 1.	Which members of the staff of the Prime Minister's Office rent properties from the National Capital Commission (a) in Gatineau Park (b) in the Greenbelt (c) in other areas?
2.	What is the rent paid in each case and what was the rent paid by the previous tenant?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. (a) None; (b) None; (c) Not applicable.
2.	Not applicable.


IMMIGRATION-DIRECTIVES RESPECTING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration recently sent new directives to its Immigration Officers regarding applications for immigration to Canada?
2.	If so, what were the details of these directives?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1 and 2. As
indicated in Hansard for June 12, page 10,038, the Department, because of the improved situation in Canada, has been considering various measures or administrative steps by which the immigration flow might be in-
July 14, 1969



creased. All Canadian immigration offices abroad have now been informed of the results of this review. The measures referred to relate to the counselling of immigrants (who qualify under the selection criteria described in the Immigration Regulations) and to the use of assisted passage loans which are made available to immigrants with occupations in relatively high demand, so as to reflect the improved situation in Canada. As another stimulus, promotional and advertising activities are being rescheduled and increased.


PRIVY COUNCIL-STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY SCIENCE SECRETARIAT
Mr. Broadbenl: 1.	What specific studies and reports have been undertaken by the Science Secretariat of the Privy Council Office?
2.	When is it anticipated that the above studies will be completed?
3.	Who are the individuals participating in the above studies?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1, 2 and 3. Studies and reports initiated by the Science Secretariat are confidential to the Privy Council Office. They are, therefore, not published.


STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY SCIENCE COUNCIL
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What specific studies and reports have been undertaken by the Science Council of Canada?
2.	When is it anticipated that the above studies will be completed?
3.	Who are the individuals participating in the above studies?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by the Science Council of Canada as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Studies undertaken by the Science Council to March 31, 1969, along with completion dates and the individuals involved, are detailed on pages 12 to 18 inclusive of the third annual report of the Council deposited with the Clerk of the House on June 26, 1969.
The following studies have been initiated in the current fiscal year: Special Study on Marine Sciences and Technology: Science Council Project Officer, Dr. Roger Voyer. Study Group Co-leaders, Dr. R. W. Stewart, University of British Columbia. Dr. L. M. Dickie, Marine Ecology Laboratory, Dartmouth, N.S. Science Council Committee Chairman, Dr. J. M. Harrison, Deputy Minister, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Questions
Special Study on Fisheries and Wildlife Research: Science Council Project Officer, Dr. W. J. D. Stephen. Study Group Co-leaders, Dr. D. H. Pimlott, University of Toronto. Dr. C. J. Kerswill, Fisheries Research Board, St. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. Science Council Committee Chairman, Dr. P. A. Larkin, University of British Columbia. Special Study on Forestry Research: Science Council Project Officer, Dr. W. J. D. Stephen. Study Group Co-leaders, Dr. J. H. G. Smith, University of British Columbia. Mr. Gilles Les-sard, Department of Forestry, Quebec, Quebec. Science Council Committee Chairman, Dean J. W. Ker, University of New Brunswick. Special Study on Transportation in Canada: Science Council Project Officer, Mr. D. Cass-Beggs. Science Council Committee Chairman, Mr. L. Hynes, President, Canadian Industries Limited. Special Study on Urban Development: Science Council Project Officer, Dr. D. E. L. Massland. Science Council Committee Chairman, Dr. Pierre Dansereau, University of Montreal.
It is planned that the Fisheries and Wildlife, Marine Sciences and the Forestry Research Studies will be completed in the current fiscal year. The Transportation and Urban Development Studies are due for completion sometime between March and July of next year.


AIDS TO NAVIGATION, CARIBOU-WOOD ISLANDS FERRY
Mr. McQuaid: Are aids to navigation at Caribou, Nova Scotia and Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island considered adequate for 24 hour navigation by ferry operators and, if so, is it the intention of the government to extend the hours of sailings of the ferries operating between these two points and thereby provide a more adequate service to the people concerned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, and from May 1st to midMay service period was extended one hour providing two extra round trips daily. From mid-June to the end of June service was extended by one hour providing two extra round trips daily. During the peak summer period service is to be extended three and one quarter hours, providing two additional round trips a day.


PARKING-TORONTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the federal government tender for the automobile parking concession at the Toronto International Airport?

July 14, 1969
Questions
2.	Is the concession awarded by tender?
3.	What revenue does the federal government receive from the parking concession?
4.	What security, if any, is there for the parking operation?
5.	Is the security in the parking operation the responsibility of the concessionaire?
6.	Is it one of the terms of reference that the parking concessionaire provide special security police?
7.	Has the federal government received any complaints about the parking situation at the Toronto International Airport with regard to (a) theft of gasoline (b) breaking and entering of automobiles (c) theft of automobiles (d) theft of contents of automobiles (e) damage to automobiles (f) theft of automobile parts and equipment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. The Department calls for
tenders for the management of the car parking facilities and the operator is paid a fixed management fee.
2.	This is not a concession. It is a service contract and is awarded by tender.
3.	Revenue for fiscal year 1968/69, $1,108,686.
4.	The parking areas are regularly patrolled by the operator's attendants, the airport R.C.M.P., and the Mississauga Police.
5.	Operator is expected to patrol the car parking facilities.
6.	No.
7.	The following complaints have been received in the past six month period, (a) gasoline theft, one; (b) breaking and entering of automobiles, 11; (c) theft of automobiles, none; (d) theft of contents of automobiles, 20; (e) damage to automobiles, nine; (f) theft of automobile parts and equipment, twenty.


ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS-INFORMATION ON LABELS
Mrs. Maclnnis: Is the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare considering introducing a regulation which would require new labels on food products containing cyciamates, the widely used artificial sweeteners, which would specify the amount of cyciamate contained in a normal serving of food or in a bottle of beverage and the upper limits of cyciamate consumption that the Food and Drug Directorate considered safe for adults and children?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in consultation with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is currently examining all aspects of the safety and use of the cyciamates. This

review includes an examination of the labelling of foods containing this material. No decision has as yet been made with regard to the suggestion that the label of foods containing the cyciamates carries a statement specifying the amount of the cyciamate present and the limits considered to be safe for adults and children. Consideration is being given, however, to limiting the concentration of cyciamates which may be added to special dietary foods.


ANGOLA, MOZAMBIQUE, RHODESIA-DISAPPROVAL OF INTERNAL POLICY
Mr. Nystrom: 1 With reference to Questions numbered 1,964 and 2,297, on what specific occasions and which specific channels are used to make "clear our disapproval of Portugese policy respecting Angola and Mozambique"?
2.	What criteria are used to determine whether a question constitutes the "internal affairs" of a
country?
3.	Is the question of NIMBAR in Rhodesia regarded as the internal affairs in that country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canadian disapproval of Portuguese policy respecting Angola and Mozambique has been expressed at each recent session of the United Nations General Assembly, and directly through the Canadian Embassy in Lisbon.
2.	Internal affairs are defined in the United Nations Charter as matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state.
3.	No. The Canadian Government does not recognize the competence of the illegal regime in Rhodesia and continues to consider the territory as within the jurisdiction of Britain. The question of internal affairs does not arise insofar as the illegal regime is concerned. The British Government has shown interest in the views of other members of the Commonwealth on the best solution to the Rhodesia problem. It was in this context that the Canadian Government's NIBMAR commitment was made.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouslci): (Corrected)
What was the tonnage of goods handled during the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-66, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 in each of the following docks or
July 14, 1969

harbours: Riviere-du-Loup (main dock), Riviere-du-Loup (river dock), Gros Cacouna, Rimouski-Est, Pointc-au-Pere, Matane, Trois-Pistoles, Cap-Chat, Sainte-Flavie, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Mont-Louis, Marsoui, Gaspe, Sandy Beach, Chandler, Forest-ville, Baie-Comeau, Sept-IIes, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Bathurst and Dalhousie?
Return tabled.


BILINGUAL GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What is the government policy about advertising which uses both official languages in one advertisement?
2.	How many departments, agencies or Crown corporations use such bilingual advertising?
3.	Are any of the publications in which such advertisements are placed bilingual?
Return tabled.


FREE DISTRIBUTION OF MINISTERS' SPEECHES
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Is it a general practice for Ministers of the Crown to distribute free of charge to a general or extensive mailing list of each Ministry, copies of speeches by the Ministers in English and/or French, including copies of speeches delivered at partisan meetings of the Liberal party, under cover of Ministry front covers?
2.	If not, how many Ministers are in the habit of doing so, and in particular, how many Ministers, by Ministry have done so since September 12, 1968?
3.	What is the average cost of printing and distributing such an issue of a speech, including separate envelopes for the English and French versions addressed to the same addressee?
Return tabled.


INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFFS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many individuals were on the information and public relations staff of each department of government on March 30, 1968?
2.	How many persons are on the information and public relations staff of each department of government today, what are the names of the individuals and the salary received by each?
Return tabled.


TOLL BRIDGES
Mr. Gervais: 1.	How many toll bridges coming under federal jurisdiction are there in Canada and where are they located?
2.	What are the tolls for cars and for the various categories of trucks on these bridges?
3.	What balance remains to be paid on each of these bridges?
Return tabled.
Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS-WORKING CAPITAL RATIO
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the last five years, what was the working capital ratio for each of the proprietory Crown corporations?
2.	If this ratio is below standard, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-NATURE OF CAPITALIZATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the proprietory Crown corporations,	what was	the	percentage	of the	total
capitalization contributed by bond holders for each of the last five years?
2.	For each of the proprietory Crown corporations,	what was	the	percentage	of the	total
capitalization belonging to shareholders for each of the last five years?
3.	Are these percentages normal and, if not, what is being done to improve them?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-INTEREST COVERAGE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the interest coverage for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this ratio satisfactory and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-EQUITY VALUE PER SHARE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the equity value per share for each of the proprietory Crown corporation for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this ratio considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-NET TANGIBLE ASSETS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the proprietory Crown corporations, what were the net tangible assets per $1,000 bond for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this ratio considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.
11158

July 14, 1969
Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS-QUICK ASSETS RATIO
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the quick assets ratio for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this quick assets ratio satisfactory and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-GROSS AND NET PROFITS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the gross profit margin percentage for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
2.	What was the net profit margin percentage for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
3.	Are these percentages considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve them?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the return invested capital for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this percentage considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-NET PROFITS DISTRIBUTED TO SHAREHOLDERS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What was the percentage of net profits distributed to shareholders for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this percentage considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-NET RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the proprietory Crown corporations, what was the net return on invested capital for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this return considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-RETURN ON COMMON EQUITY
Mr. Fortin: 1. For each of the proprietory Crown corporations, what was the return on common equity for each of the last five years?

2. Is this return considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-INVENTORY TURNOVER
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the proprietory Crown corporations, what was the inventory turnover ratio for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this ratio normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-CASH FLOW
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the proprietory Crown corporations, what was the cash flow for each of the last five years?
2.	Is this cash flow considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve it?
Return tabled.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What were the earnings per common share for each of the proprietory Crown corporations for each of the last five years?
2.	Are these earnings considered normal and, if not, what is being done to improve them?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION-MILITARY AND NON-MILITARY SALES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	By country, what was the value of sales of weapons or defence material in which the Canadian Commercial Corporation was involved, in any way, in the years 1965, 1967 and 1968?
2.	For each of these years, what was the value of non-military sales?
Return tabled.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION INFORMATION SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-1968 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?
Return tabled.
July 14. 1969	COMMONS



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question based on an excerpt from the communique which he read. I quote the excerpt: "The ministers-recognized that distortions had appeared and that corrective action would be taken by some exporters to bring prices into proper competitive relationship in the interests of orderly marketing and price stability."
Does this mean that the ministers attending the meeting on behalf of the various countries recognize the right of exporting nations to reduce their prices to competitive levels, and does this constitute a recognition by the ministers that such reductions would not be tantamount to a violation of the International Grains Arrangement and that therefore, in effect, the agreement is a dead letter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the communique recognizes that some exporters were in a difficult situation because of present circumstances which I will not go into. Those exporters who have been doing well recognize that those who have not been doing quite so well have the right to adjust their prices in order to become competitive. That applies particularly to the United States and Canada. This means, I would think, that minimum prices under the I.G.A. are to be de facto temporarily suspended. Exporters believe however that these minimums still have some orderly effect in the sense that they remain an indication of what is fair and reasonable, at least as far as Canadian wheat farmers and the Canadian government are concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the I.G.A. minimum prices appear to have become guidelines only and since our grain farmers, wheat farmers in particular, face a very grim cash situation, what substitute does the government propose for the floor price which everyone thought was guaranteed under the International Grains Arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Since there is no longer any doubt that a new policy will have to be implemented, can the minister indicate to the house when the government will bring in the policy it will implement as a substitute for the floor price that had prevailed under the I.G.A.? It appears that that floor price is temporarily in abeyance.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I heard the minister correctly, he said that exporters were inclined to support the minimums under the International Grains Arrangement. As I recall, that agreement includes both exporters and importers. What is the attitude of the importers? Are they also inclined to support the minimums laid down under this arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the conduct of importers in recent months has clearly indicated that they are not keen to do that. Most of them are keen to buy at the cheapest possible price. In my view these are taking a very short term view of the necessity of preserving an orderly market in the world. The hon. member should not forget, however, that exporters are basically responsible for maintaining stable prices in the world. That was the spirit in which we approached these questions in Washington last week.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement the minister has just made and considering that this is an international agreement signed under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, will the government consider asking the United Nations, under whose auspices these negotiations were carried on, to reconvene the conference in order to discuss this matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in time that may be the right approach to take. At this time I do not think it would be a practical crusade to undertake.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
11160	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the ministers' statements and of the fact that the wheat problem is twofold, having to do with exporting countries and with Canadian wheat producers, and because the problem partly falls on the producers who are now burdened with it, could the minister tell us whether the studies presently considered by himself, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture aim at the establishment of support prices for the production of Canadian wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, at the moment, I do not wish to make any comments about that.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the I.G.A. minimums are no longer effective, at what price below these I.G.A. minimums is the Canadian Wheat Board offering our wheat at the present time in order to meet world competition?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are offering it at the best possible price. What was done in Washington was to prevent a great downward movement and collapse of prices. That was the purpose of our meeting. We thought that some exporters who had been quite successful in recent weeks, and I will not comment on how they went about their business, would restrain their aggressiveness. Some of them have offered to do that. There will be a readjustment of prices but at a lower level obviously than the minimums under the I.G.A. but a higher level than might otherwise have been the case. Exactly what will happen I do not know. We shall have to wait and see. It is possible that some exporters will strengthen their prices and that others will adjust them downwards, thus bringing about a new level of prices. We must also remember that some exporters do not belong to the I.G.A. They must also be taken into consideration.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the meeting was there any indication of how long this present trend will endure? Is relief in sight? Will there be any relief in the next several months? Can the minister indicate whether there will be any relief for the farmers who are growing crops and delivering grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the exercise was to prevent a possible collapse of international prices. We wanted to prevent a greater downward movement of prices and to restore the co-operation among IGA expor-
IMr. Fortin.]
DEBATES	July 14, 1969
ters. On both counts, I am an optimist. I think progress was made. I am not in the habit of telling the house anything except what I feel I am justified in telling it. In this case, and I have said this in answers to previous questions, I am optimistic but without illusions. We are working hard, both diplomatically and commercially, in order to arrest the downward movement which has been going on in this connection.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, will the situation last for the duration of the present crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It depends on how willing exporters are to co-operate and on the will of importers to take a long view of these matters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister correctly, when he answered my previous question, that the Wheat Board is not quoting prices at this time? If that is so, how are we to make sales? Unless prices are quoted to prospective customers, how are we to sell wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Wheat Board is quoting prices at this time. I am also under the impression that importers at the moment are being restrained because of the uncertainty connected with current developments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, then may I repeat my first question. If the Wheat Board is quoting prices, what prices is it quoting in order to sell Canadian wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will send the hon. member a price schedule tomorrow.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did not those at the conference conclude that an agreement among sellers could only stand as long as a sellers' market prevailed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is some truth to that, and it applies not only to wheat marketing. That is true of all other kinds of commercial activity. However, that proposition is not infallible because, as I have said previously, there must be co-operation between exporters. In the long run that will serve the best interests of importers.


George Harris Hees: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, human nature prevails.
COMMONS DEBATES	11161
Inquiries of the Ministry
July 14, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Although I recognize the importance of this matter and although I have displayed great leniency in allowing hon. members to ask supplementary questions, I think it might be a good idea for the house to turn to another subject matter on the understanding, of course, that we might return to the present one later.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government yet received from the Nigerian or Biafran authorities a reply to its offer to provide neutral observers to inspect flights flying into Biafra from points outside Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that particular question is no, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet received any response. Hon. members will have noticed that the discussions are still going on in Lagos. At least one relief shipment by the International Red Cross was approved. We still hope to work out a system which will be acceptable to both sides. If our offer has been helpful, I am sure everybody will applaud.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
We have just learned that the government has lent $1 million to Korea for the development of its milk industry. Would the Department of Agriculture grant similar loans to dairy producers in eastern Canada?


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I think, Mr. Speaker, if we look back on what has been done these past years by the Canadian Dairy Commission, it will be found that grants totalling $125 million are now being handed out to Canadian dairy producers.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Prime Minister accept the condolences of the opposition because of the fact that during the weekend, despite the offer of free food and tencent beer, the joint Liberal rally in Calgary could only attract 400 people?



BOX CAR ALLOCATION-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Thursday and Friday, July 3 and 4, the minister replied to a series of questions I asked concerning the allocation of railway rolling stock to terminal elevators that have space. The minister advised he would have that on his shopping list when he was in Winnipeg on Monday, July 7. I ask the minister to advise the house specifically-I emphasize the word "specifically"-what action the government is taking to require the railways-I emphasize the word "require"-to supply sufficient additional railway rolling stock to allow for the full maximum unload capacity in the terminals at the Lakehead to the used?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, and as confirmed by the acting minister when I was away, this is now being done. The fact is that full co-operation of the railways was requested and is being given.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the house whether he and the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board have given specific figures to the railways as to the additional number of cars that will be required, in addition to those now in service, to meet the five bushel quota by the end of the July and have the railways responded that they will supply these additional cars?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy of the report showing the number of cars needed at the west coast, at the Lakehead and at the interior terminals and mills per day for the whole duration of time until August 1. I will be glad to show it to the hon. member if it will assist him. As the acting minister stated on Thursday, I believe it was, the totals I
11162	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry have here demonstrate that physically it can be done. As is normally said by the Credi-tistes, that which is physically possible can also be politically or materially achieved.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In light of the minister's confirmation of a strong bias favouring the Liberal party in public affairs programming of the C.B.C., will the minister advise whether any record is kept of the political party affiliation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -of persons permanently or frequently employed in the public affairs division of the C.B.C. or of Radio Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order because it contains an allegation. The hon. member knows that a question in those terms is not acceptable.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries arising from a question asked the minister last Wednesday by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Have there been any further developments since last Wednesday in connection with the closure of salmon fishing to commercial fishermen in the Strait of Georgia?
Kon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry): There are no new developments, Mr. Speaker. Fishing is closed for the weekend for commercial salmon fishermen, but not sports fishermen.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister under consideration, in view of the fact commercial fishermen cannot operate on weekends, closing sports fishing from Monday to Friday when the commercial fishermen are allowed to fish?
IMr. Pepin.J
DEBATES	July 14, 1969


Mr. Davis:: It is well known that the commercial fishermen catch 90 per cent or more of the fish. At this stage of the year we do not know how many fish are coming in; therefore we are going slow with respect to the catch.



INDUSTRY


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the rising unemployment in the fine papers industry, especially in areas of the province of Quebec which have been designated as regions of underemployment, is the government reconsidering the tariff cuts affecting this industry, or are any special arrangements contemplated to alleviate the situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will not deny that the advanced cuts have caused some preoccupation in the fine papers industry. I have been so informed, and I agree this is so.
There is quite an intensive study being carried out by my department with regard to the fine papers industry. This study tends to show that Kennedy round cuts are only one of many factors causing the difficulties of the industry at the present time and not the most important. My department is cooperating fully with that industry in order to find some solution to their difficulties.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the tariff cuts affecting the fine papers industry are forcing delays and abandonment of the long-range capital expenditure programs which the industry had planned in order to increase its efficiency and competitiveness to be able to meet the reduction in tariffs which they expected would take place in 1972, is the minister pressing his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to take steps to postpone the coming into effect of these reductions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was under the impression the industry was very keen to get to the root of the problems it faces, right away. Would delay on the Kennedy round exemption acceleration help that to any substantial extent? I'll inquire.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since one of the roots of the difficulties is sitting immediately behind the Minister of Industry, Trade and
July 14, 1969

Commerce, will the minister consider pulling that one?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Since a great number of periodicals had to stop their circulation because postal rates are too high, does the government intend to set special rates for periodicals directly involved with data processing in the field of education?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be put on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Thursday last I asked a question about the quota system imposed by the United States which effectively discriminates against Canadians who wish to move to that country. The minister replied that a committee was being established. Has the committee been established and, if so, is it an officials' committee or a ministerial committee? What is the timetable for that committee to report on this long outstanding problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the ministerial meeting was held in Washington we brought two questions to the attention of the secretaries in the United States administration. One was in respect of the quota system to which the hon. member has referred and the second was the limitation upon Canadian musicians performing in the United States. I think the United States secretaries were sufficiently impressed with the cogency of the representations that they said they would like to establish a joint committee between the two countries to see what could be done to rectify the situation. The hon. member will understand that Congressional action may be required because it is not simply the cabinet which is concerned.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, would the
minister be good enough to table the representations the Canadian government made in respect of the quota system referred to previously? They were sought on two previous occasions. The first was on May 5, 1969, as recorded on page 8295 of Hansard, and the second occasion I believe was February 10, 1969 as recorded on page 5314 of Hansard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to consider the question. As the hon. member knows, it is not customary to reveal exchanges of this nature between two governments, although there is nothing in these exchanges which I would have any hesitation in showing to my hon. friend. There is simply the question of whether one should reveal publicly diplomatic dispatches.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, during this peaceful and unhypocritical question period I should like to direct a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to the first question I asked. When will he table a report, and when can we expect some action on this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Following the ministerial meetings officials are now considering the establishment of a committee which probably will be at the official level. It is most important to establish the terms of reference in such a way as will meet our requirements. That is the only reason there has been any delay.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the following question to the Postmaster General. A week ago today the matter of the awards of Mr. Martin was raised in the house. The minister said he had asked for staff meetings with the postal unions to discuss the effect of one of the awards. May I ask whether or not there have been negotiations between the Post Office Department and the relevant postal unions with regard to the awards tabled today?


Eric William Kierans: Yes. There was a preliminary meeting last week. There is to be another more formal session tomorrow morning.
11164	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether these meetings are limited to the award dealing with the pay of those people who did not go back to the post office at noon hour-I forget the date that award was made-or are these meetings concerned with the general problem of the introduction of new working conditions on February 9?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the meetings are concerned with the general interpretation of the awards tabled today.


EDUCATION
Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I am glad to see he is here. Following the recent statement by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, can the minister advise whether he is contemplating any measures to assist Canadian graduates of Canadian universities to obtain fully and promptly information on employment opportunities on the faculty and staff of the universities of this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating any additional measures to improve the information in this field. We have recently undertaken on an experimental basis a placement service in the various manpower centres and in addition circulate information on job opportunities at the conventions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister consider surveying Canadian graduate students who are studying abroad and the experience of Operation Retrieval with a view to seeing whether the program is in fact effective or whether there are ways in which it could be improved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a good suggestion. We think operation "Retrieval" has had some good results in encouraging Canadians to return to Canada. I think it should be mentioned that regardless of the number of graduates or scholars from Canada who have failed to return there is a general demand for scholars in Canada which cannot be satisfied for some years from the Canadian output.

DEBATES	July 14, 1969


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE PUBLICITY BRANCH-ALLEGED PROMOTION WITHOUT COMPETITION
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning an internal matter within his department. Is he aware that promotions within the publicity branch of his department have been made without competition and therefore qualified officers have been bypassed by this procedure? If the minister is not aware of this, would he look into the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation to the minister and may assume it will be considered.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the way in which the C.B.C. has been turning a searchlight on the dire poverty which faces a great many Canadians, may I ask the minister whether the study or review of all our social security measures which the government has undertaken has yet been completed and when it is completed whether the report will be made public?


John Carr Munro: We hope the review will be completed some time early in the fall. We have under consideration now the question of making it public or not.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Secretary of State. Could the minister advise whether the C.B.C. will be issuing guidelines regarding the allotment of people for political interviews and, if so, whether the guidelines will be established by the minister, or the national leader of the Liberal party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If this question is in order it ought to be placed on the order paper.
July 14, 1969	COMMONS


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I will put my question to his substitute, probably the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Would the minister or whoever is responsible for this field tell the house if the study to establish the so-called designated regions in Canada is about completed? If so, may we expect an enrly statement on this in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question was asked only a few days ago.


POLLUTION
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport perhaps I might address this question to the well informed Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having in mind the action of the Ontario government over the weekend in announcing strict new controls against exhaust from cars and diesel vehicles, I should like to know whether the federal government is considering taking complementary action?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the hon. member's question is of a very general nature which would invite a statement on motions. However, the minister may wish to reply.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, naturally I would consider making a statement. I can answer very shortly today that the Minister of Transport and myself have been in touch with our respective departments on this matter and hope to have something more informative and more detailed for the house in the fairly near future.


EXTERNAL AID
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to Nigeria and Biafra. It has been indicated that the negotiations are continuing, but they appear to be protracted. In the meantime could the Secre-29180-706
Inquiries of the Ministry tary of State for External Affairs indicate the attitude of the government toward assisting Joint Churchaid which is attempting to fly relief supplies into Biafra. Has the minister reached any decision with regard to channelling aid through Joint Churchaid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been looking at all the possibilities. Our main problem, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, is not that relief is lacking but the matter of transportation. This is the problem on which we have concentrated. That is the reason we made our offer to provide neutral observers both inside and outside Nigeria. I am also prepared to recomment to my colleagues, and I think they will accept the recommendation, that an addition be made to the appropriation for relief supplies. However, there are indications that this is not the problem at the moment, and I believe we should wait until we see how the negotiations proceed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister say whether the government is prepared to use Joint Churchaid or will it continue its policy to date of channelling relief solely through the International Red Cross?


Mitchell William Sharp: This really depends upon the outcome of these discussions. I think everyone will agree it would be better for the Canadian government to channel its relief through an agency that supplies relief to both sides, Biafra and other parts of Nigeria. That has been the principle upon which our policy has been founded. If, however, the situation changes the government does not rule out any possibility. Until that situation is clarified I really cannot give any further answer.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs implying that Joint Churchaid does not channel relief to the federally occupied parts of Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, but the application that was made to me was made on behalf of Canairelief which works with Joint Churchaid. They made an application to me and as of the last discussion with them they were supplying aid only to Biafra.


BOX CAR ALLOCATION-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I return to the matter I
July 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry raised earlier. In view of the statement earlier this month by the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the representations made to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on July 4, did the minister acquaint himself with the situation at the Saskatchewan Pool terminals at the Lakehead in terms of car unloadings, and what action was he able to have taken following his visit to Winnipeg to have an increase in the allotment of cars for unloading at the Lakehead?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member referring to the Lakehead or to Vancouver?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was referring to the Lake-head, Mr. Speaker, but Vancouver could stand an increase as well.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this information which I have in my hand could also be the subject matter of a discussion the hon. member and myself could have later. I have figures also in respect of Vancouver indicating the number of box cars needed to reach the 5 bushel quota.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General now in a position to reply to my question about the federal government's participation through grants in supporting the cost of medicare for the R.C.M.P. in the province of Alberta?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the situation in relation to Medicare in Alberta is exactly the same in the R.C.M.P. as it is in the armed forces. I think that deals with the question asked by the hon. member on July 9.


AGRICULTURE
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister's office received a request from the farm unions to meet with the Prime Minister when he is in western Canada and, if so, will he accede to that request and meet them?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will make inquiries of the Prime Minister's office, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


POSSIBILITY OF VACATIONS FOR SOME MEMBERS OF STAFF
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the fact that we could probably get along during the remainder of this session with something less than a full staff, at least in some areas, will the government house leader take up with the appropriate authorities the possibility of letting some of our employees take their holidays while the weather is so good?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that such questions have to be directed to the Chair in writing and that his question cannot be asked in that way.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this rule change-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I thought you had called orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Not yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I did. I apologize to the hon. member as I had called orders of the day. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was recognized and asked another question. I shall now call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 11, 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).
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this
proposed rule change in 75c the government claims that the purpose of the change is to speed up the parliamentary process through the elimination of what it alleges to be unnecessary debate. The opposition parties are convinced that this measure would deny
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
to the opposition, when a majority government is in power, the time for debate which is needed to point out the weaknesses of proposed legislation to the public through the press, in order that public opinion may bring pressure to bear on the government to correct those weaknesses and thus prevent bad legislation from passing into law.
I think every member of the house and all people in this country who pay attention to public affairs will agree that at a time when parliamentary schedules are becoming increasingly heavy, year by year, the parliamentary process should be speeded up if this can be done without denying to the opposition the means of enabling public opinion to bring pressure to bear to prevent a majority government from passing bad legislation into law.
The question facing us today is whether there is any way of doing this. I say that the answer is emphatically yes, and I am going to make three suggestions to cut down the time consumed by parliament without reducing the ability of the opposition to do the job it was elected to do.
The first suggestion deals with time allotted for speeches. The time allotted for individual speeches has not changed in any important fashion ever since the parliamentary session lasted no longer than four or five months a year, compared with a full year now. In those days it was generally considered that an aratorical performance was required by an hon. member to present his views adequately to the house. That was when time was of very little importance, but as we know today all of that has changed. In this day of the computer, space flights and instant replay, long-winded oratory is out and short factual presentations are in.
President Kennedy set the pattern for this new type of presentation when he made his inaugural address in 1961. He startled the governmental and political world by giving that most important address in no more than 1,200 words, which required no longer than 12 minutes to deliver. President Kennedy was fond of saying of speeches that if you cannot get your idea across in 20 minutes it becomes increasingly more difficult to do so after that.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
President Lincoln was another example of a man who expressed himself very well and very clearly in very few words. I think we all remember that one of the most famous speeches known to mankind, the Gettysburg address, required less than two minutes to
29180-706J
Procedure and Organization deliver. We also remember the most famous speeches of Sir Winston Churchill. They were short. When you examine them you see that the words and phrases used were extremely simple. He gave the key to this whole presentation problem when asked how long it took him to prepare a speech. He answered, "It depends on the length of the speech. If I am to speak for two hours, it will take me ten minutes to prepare the speech; but if I am to make a ten minute speech, it will take me two days." I am convinced that in the future we must spend far more time preparing our presentations to the house and take up far less of the time of the house in making those presentations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Therefore my first suggestion is that we do something that will not only greatly reduce the time taken by the house in carrying out the business of the country but will greatly improve the speeches made in the house. They will be more understandable; they will be better reported; they will have far more effect on the government. I suggest that we cut in half the time presently allotted for all speeches in the house. Instead of allowing ministers and leaders of opposition parties unlimited time to make their presentations, they should be allotted the same time as that allowed other hon. members, with ten minutes added. I believe the result of such a move would in itself reduce by at least one-third the time taken by the house to deal with the matters that come before it. In addition to greatly reducing the time spent in the house to deal with the business of the country, we would greatly increase the effectiveness of our presentations. They would of necessity be far better prepared. They would be far more in logical sequence. They would be far more easily understood.
I remember very clearly that when I first came to this house I was very impressed with the presentations made by Mr. M. J. Coldwell, the leader of the then C.C.F. party. I thought his speeches were a masterpiece of clarity. He always started by stating clearly the proposition with which he intended to deal, and then proceeded logically to develop it step by step and come to a conclusion. His speeches were short, they were always effective, they were always well understood by every member of the house.
My second suggestion deals with the long, typewritten speeches that members of the house all too often deliver, to the complete boredom of all other members. These
COMMONS DEBATES	July 14, 1969
Procedure and Organization
speeches are read in their entirety. Members of the house who are still here when an hon. member has finished such a speech are literally bored to death. One can see the effect of this kind of speech on the house by watching hon. members and the members of the press gallery when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) delivers one of his read speeches. People become more and more bored, and often you can hear the snores for blocks away. When members deliver long, read speeches in the house no one pays attention to the most important things in them. The people who should be paying attention from the members' point of view, the ministers of the government and the press gallery, do not do so because the speeches are too dull to merit attention. Therefore, the speeches delivered in this way have no effect whatsoever on debate in the House of Commons.
They have one direct purpose; that is, to advise a member's constituents of his views on matters which are important to them, and what he intends doing to see that action is taken on very real problems. The important thing about these speeches is that they appear in Hansard so that an hon. member may send them home for his constituents to read, and to the newspapers in his constituency so they may be published. In this way his constituents may know he is doing a good job, understands their problems and intends to speak to the minister concerned, or raise the matter later in the house and try to get some action. This gives the member a chance to report to his constituency what he has done.
In reality this is a member's white paper to his constituency. It is very important to him. These speeches should continue to be written and should get into the hands of the newspapers in a member's constituency, or into the hands of his constituents. But I do not believe there is any reason or justification for then-taking up the time of the house and wasting our time, because they have no effect on anybody in the house. If any hon. member has doubt about that, I ask him to look around the chamber when somebody is reading a speech, and he will see the impression the speech is making.
The United States Congress have developed a method of handling this situation without wasting the time of Congress. The United States Congress allow a congressman to file a copy of his speech with the Clerk of Congress. The speech then appears in the Congressional Record just as if it had been delivered in Congress. In this way it does the job it is supposed to do. It is sent to the congress-
[Mr. Hees.l
man's constituents and the newspapers in his riding. His constituents learn what he is doing, they are appraised of his views; but Congress does not waste the infinite amount of time that we in this chamber waste listening to such speeches. Every one of us is bored listening to speeches of this kind and there is no reason or justification for it. No member expects to impress the government, no matter what its political stripe may be, because he is talking directly to his constituents. He is not talking to the government or anyone in parliament; he is not trying to influence parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my second suggestion is that we adopt what I consider to be a very successful practice adopted by the United States Congress many years ago, namely, allowing hon. members who have speeches they feel they must make to their constituents-and it is very necessary that they make this kind of speech, but not in the house-to have them printed in Hansard without then-being read. In this way the speeches could be sent to the hon. member's constituents and the result would be exactly the same, with the advantage that we would not have to spend interminable hours listening to them. The time of the house would therefore be used more effectively and a great deal of the time of this chamber would be saved, thereby allowing more time to deal with the country's business.
I should now like to deal with my third suggestion. It refers to the making of speeches that are intended to influence our debate. Anybody who has been a member of a government will tell you that ministers pay attention to members of parliament only when they are convinced by the delivery of a speech that a member thoroughly knows his subject and feels strongly about it. This can be judged by the method of delivery of the speech. This kind of impression can only be created by a member knowing his subject thoroughly in advance, studying it very carefully and being convinced that what he has to say is of importance to the house in general and the government in particular.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A member wants certain changes to be made. He feels very strongly about it, and has no need to follow a written script because his thoughts are clearly in his mind. In view of this I suggest we enforce a rule which has existed for many years but which has been left unenforced because hon. members did not want it enforced by Mr. Speaker, or the
July 14, 1969

chairman, or whoever was in charge of a particular debate. I say we should ask Mr. Speaker to enforce this rule in our own best interests. If this were done we would be required to learn our subjects better, to get them clear in our minds, to work out a logical sequence in the delivery of our ideas, and to make a brief rather than a wordy presentation. This would have a greater impact on the ministers concerned and on members of the Press Gallery. This latter point is important, because if our speeches are not reported to the public they really might as well not be made. So I say that in order to make our debates far more effective, in order to obtain far better coverage in the press, we should adopt the suggestion I am putting forward.
At present we often make our speeches so dull, so poor and so mixed up that members of the press cannot figure out what we are trying to get at. Nor do we give ourselves as good a chance to persuade members of the government to make the changes we believe are needed to improve legislation and consequently conditions in the country generally. It is only when our speeches are reported to the nation that public opinion is influenced by our views. Then in turn, through reports and editorials in the newspapers, the government, if it is not influenced by our presentations on the floor of the house, can be influenced by what appears in the newspapers or by what is said in the news media generally, as feedback develops following editorial comments and column features.
These are the three suggestions I make. I believe we should allow ministers to read quotations or statistical material. This, of course, is necessary. If the rule to which I have referred were strictly enforced, speeches would be briefer and far better. As we know, many speeches are now read in their entirety much to the boredom of the house. Far more attention would be paid to them by members of the government and members of the press if they were delivered without notes, or with the aid of very brief notes.
Speaking as a former minister I know that it is only when a man stands up and speaks with conviction and clarity that one begins to take note that he is calling attention to matters to which attention ought to be paid. I also know, having for many years talked to members of the Press Gallery that they are only impressed when they believe a man really understands his subject and speaks with conviction. It is only then that they pay attention to what he says and report it.

Procedure and Organization
If we were to adopt these three changes I believe we could cut the time required to deal with legislation and other matters to about one third of what is spent today. In addition to accelerating the processes of parliament I believe we would make this house a far more effective place. Our speeches would be easier to listen to and carry more weight with Ministers of the Crown; they would be far more likely to influence debate than they are today. I therefore strongly urge all members to give consideration to these suggestions on measures we can take to help ourselves to run our own affairs better.
I come, now, to this question: if it is the desire of the government, as we are told it is, to speed up the processes of parliament, why has there been no inclination on the part of the government to move in the direction I have indicated? I have mentioned three things which could have been done long ago to improve the effectiveness of parliament. Yet the government has shown no interest in making any of these changes. Instead, it seeks to introduce a change which would completely nullify the effectiveness of the opposition in dealing with a majority government.
The answer is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not interested in accelerating the processes of parliament. He wants to control parliament. He is far more interested in controlling and in programming parliament than in speeding up parliament. He wishes to treat parliament as he treated his classroom when he was a teacher. I know the Prime Minister would like to play the role of a little colonel in parliament; he would like to crack the whip and have parliament jump to attention. He would like to know that on a certain date certain things would be accomplished, just as he would announce a lecture for a certain time and date, or say that on another date an examination would be held and that everything had to be cleared up in accordance with a timetable set out in advance. He sees parliament operating as an assembly line or as a computer, legislation being fed in at one end and laws coming out at the other in a certain form, that form being the way in which the government wants them to come out, irrespective of the views of the opposition.
The Prime Minister seems to think that he can operate in parliament by utilizing methods which dictators have developed to a very high degree. He does not want any opposition in parliament. He simply wants to squeeze it and have it jump. He wants to call the tune and have us dance to that tune. That is not the way to run a modern parliament.
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization
Parliament is not a computer; it is not a classroom, an assembly line or a sausage factory. It is a forum for debate. Debate in parliament must be carried on for as long as is necessary. It must be carried on until the opposition has had a chance to bring to the attention of the press and other media, which in turn will communicate with the people, the weakness of any piece of legislation being considered.
There must be time for newspapers and periodicals to comment. Our people read what is written in our newspapers and magazines about legislation under consideration, and "get the message". Then they write letters to the newspapers, to the Prime Minister or the government minister concerned, and the government "gets the message" that the people do not think the legislation being considered is good and that it should not be passed. This process takes considerable time.
e (3:30 p.m.)
I want to mention three examples to show why we must have time for debate. The first of these, Mr. Speaker, was the transport bill presented to parliament two years ago. At that time the opposition thought a great deal was wrong with the bill and that many of its clauses should be changed. As we know, debate lasted several weeks. During that time about 100 amendments were proposed, many being accepted by the government. Of course, we had a good minister of transport then; Mr. Pickersgill was a man who appreciated the rights of hon. members. After listening to their arguments he agreed that certain parts of the bill should be changed, and the changes were made.


Mr. Bell:: A great Canadian.


George Harris Hees: As a result, although debate on the bill was protracted, the legislation coming out of parliament was better than it would have been had there been no lengthy debate. If proposed rule 75c had been in force then it is possible that that debate could have lasted only four days, and we should have had a bad transport bill. Parliament could have done absolutely nothing to improve it.
My second example is the defence production bill of 1955. Hon. members who were here then will no doubt recall that Mr. C. D. Howe asked parliament to give him, under the defence production bill, powers in peacetime that the government had given him in wartime. Those powers would have made him a virtual dictator over Canadian industry in peacetime. The opposition said that no minis-

ter had the right to have powers in peacetime which he was given in wartime, and we fought, fought, and fought for many weeks. Mr. St. Laurent, a great prime minister, at last recognized that the legislation was bad and that no minister of any government had the right to have powers in peacetime that he had been given in wartime.
We said to the government, "If there is any emergency situation or any crisis, call parliament and we shall see that you get adequate powers to deal with the crisis right away." Of course Mr. Howe had tasted power in wartime and he wanted more of that same power. We said he could have it in an emergency, but he wanted it then and there. At last Mr. St. Laurent solved the problem by sending Mr. Howe away for a long fishing week end, giving the opposition a chance to propose amendments. That again shows how important is debate in this chamber.
My third example is the famous pipe line debate. Most of us supported the idea of the pipe line, but when a minister of the Crown, the same Mr. C. D. Howe, said he would not give the opposition information as to what part his friend, Clint Murchison, was to play in building the pipe line, we had to continue protracted debate. In the end Mr. Howe decided to implement closure, and we know what the result of that action was. It led to the defeat of the government eight months later.
I could cite many other examples but these three show how important it is for an opposition to have ample time to bring a case before the people. It needs time to do the job so that the people of the country can become aware, through the speeches of members, articles in the press, editorials and so on, of the importance of a matter. When the people of Canada know what legislation is all about and the government gets a feedback, legislation is amended. This process is good and necessary, and that is why we are going to fight proposed rule 75c right down the line.
I think we all wish to see the parliamentary process speeded up. I have made several suggestions as to how that process could be speeded, and I and others like me will make more suggestions in future. I have made personal recommendations, based on 19 years' experience in parliament, as to how we ought to reduce time spent on various stages of discussion.
We all want to make parliament more effective. Why does the government not try to hurry up parliamentary processes by adopting
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
some of the suggestions we have made? I think they would work very well. Why does it not give our suggestions a try? Let us implement some of this new thinking.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we were told that this session, which apparently is ending with debate on the new proposed rules, was to end on June 27. We were to go home for our summer recess and come back, according to my information, on October 9. If the government has been so held up on its legislative program, why was it willing to give us a recess of 3J months? I am human, I like a 3J month recess, and so does everybody else here. But, Mr. Speaker, if legislation was being held up, if legislation was not moving through parliament as quickly as it ought, why did the government propose such a long summer recess? It is not right under those circumstances that we should be sent home for 3i months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the government wanted us to rise for two reasons. First, it does not like being questioned by the opposition during the question period and, second, Liberal Members of Parliament-and there are many fine, new Liberal members here-do not want to stay around here during the summer months. They feel that being asked to stay here is an imposition on them. Consequently they have exerted great pressure on the government to rise for a summer recess.
I say this to Liberal Members of Parliament. We are well paid on a year round basis and it is our duty to stay here for 12 months of the year if necessary, and do our jobs. We are here to put pressure on the government. Many problems face this nation. We should be considering how to check inflation, and how to stop the rise in the cost of living which is going up at the rate of 10 per cent every year. The government brought in its budget. When I spoke on the budget I think the minister paid attention to me. He answered several of my questions, but there were several he did not answer. I told him that the imposition of new taxes calculated to slow down building in our major centres would have no effect. I said that no builder would wait for two years and have his cost of building increase by 24 per cent, and that sooner than do that a builder would prefer to absorb any extra tax. The minister did not answer that. I also said that the government is doing nothing about controlling inflation.
Procedure and Organization


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing a specific amendment relating to proposed standing order 75c. I think the hon. member should talk about that.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I always bow to your rulings, and will do so at this time. I was dealing with an important matter, but I think I have made my point.
In closing I say to the government that if it is sincere in wanting the parliamentary process speeded up, it ought to consider some of the suggestions which some of us here have put forward. The ones I made would not curtail anybody's rights in parliament. They would still allow the opposition to do the effective job it was elected to do. They would make parliament a far more effective place because the speeches would be shorter, better prepared, and would be listened to by more gentlemen in the press gallery and by ministers of the government who have to make any necessary changes. My suggestions would speed up parliament and make it a far more effective place in which to work. I say to the government: delete this foolish, stupid, dictatorial rule 75c which would hamstring the opposition and make it impossible for them to do their job. It should be thrown out the window so that parliament can be put on the rails once again.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before the hon. member takes his seat, may I be permitted to ask him two questions? He was talking about time limits. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that some of the time limits are 20 minutes. Is the hon. member suggesting they be cut to 10 minutes? My second question-


George Harris Hees: I will answer your questions one by one. Yes, certainly. This was proved during this session when we of the opposition of our own volition on certain opposition days decided that in order to allow twice as many speeches we would cut our speeches to 10 minutes. Do you know what the result was? The 10-minute speeches were infinitely better than 20-minute speeches. The members prepared their remarks and gave excellent speeches. We are very much in favour of 10-minute speeches, so the government can cut them to 10 minutes any time they want.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Does the hon. member agree his 35 minute speech would have been a good one to have been tabled without delivery?
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization


George Harris Hees: I did not understand. I am afraid the minister was mumbling.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I ask the hon.
member whether he agrees his 35 minute speech would have been better tabled rather then delivered?


George Harris Hees: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. As Your Honour and every member sitting in this house noticed, all hon. members were sitting listening to every word I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You bet your boots you were! I was speaking with the sort of notes I said all members should use. We would have far better speeches if all hon. members used them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I suggest to the hon. minister that when he speaks he should try using this method. His speeches will be far more effective as a result.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Are there any further questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The answer has been given.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member. I do not know whether the hon. member had his tongue in his cheek when he said everyone in the House of Commons was listening. In any event, I listened. I want to say that the first 10 minutes of his speech comprised one of the best speeches I have heard in the House of Commons since I have been here. The last 25 minutes were one of the worst. In the first 10 minutes, he made some suggestions that certainly should be looked into by the government. Hon. members should think about these suggestions and perhaps they can be implemented in the future.
First, the hon. member suggested that speeches should be short. He will be pleased to know that the speech I am about to make will be short. I hope it will not be more than 10 minutes' duration. The hon. member emphasized the fact that speeches should not be written. My speech is not. The hon. member mentioned the fact that we should not use notes too liberally. He will be very pleased to

know that I have no notes to assist me in this speech.
Second, the hon. member suggested that we should look into the proposition of filing some of the written speeches that members of the House of Commons might wish to deliver, as is the practice in the United States Congress. I think the hon. member is quite correct in this suggestion because there are members who must get their ideas back to the people at home, the voters, supporters, and citizens they are proud to represent, in order that they will know what a particular member may be thinking. The hon. gentleman was quite correct in suggesting that the government should look at the proposition of filing written speeches.
Third, the hon. member suggested we would have better speeches if they were shorter. In the first part of his address he quoted names such as Lincoln and Winston Churchill. Of course there are innumerable speakers throughout the world who have done a wonderful job delivering short speeches. Quite frankly, I believe it would be a better assembly if the speeches were shorter.
In the last part of his speech the hon. member lectured the government, and, in his absence, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said the Prime Minister wished to use this house as a classroom. He compared him with a professor in college, saying an examination was going to be held on such and such a day and that he expected people to stand at attention whenever he came along; in other words, to act as a dictator.
This is not correct, Mr. Speaker. What my hon. friend, and all members to the left of Your Honour, must realize is that on June 25 one year ago the people of Canada made a choice and, Mr. Speaker, they did not choose those to the left of Your Honour. This is something the opposition are not bearing in mind. They must realize the reason they were not chosen was because the electors did not think they could do as good a job as the people who sit to the right of Your Honour. The right hon. Prime Minister was chosen to lead this country. By attempting to bring this rule into force in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister is attempting to do the job he is supposed to do, namely, lead Canada to a better and just society.
My hon. friend can very well be critical, but this is one of the fundamental points members to the left of Your Honour must appreciate. They were not put in government
July 14, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Procedure and Organization
because the Canadian people did not want them there. They wanted the Prime Minister and his government to lead them and carry out their business.
I believe the thinking behind the government's attempt to bring this rule change into force was that they appreciated the fact they must allow the opposition to debate all bills, regardless of the subject matter, long enough to become acquainted with all the details so that the news media, newspapers, television and radio, would have the opportunity to put these before the people of Canada.
If it is a poor bill, the government may withdraw it. If on the other hand they feel it is acceptable to the nation and themselves, they can pass the bill.
I agree with the last speaker when he says that it is a necessity that the public media must have an opportunity to debate a bill. The question is, Mr. Speaker, how long is long enough? How long should a bill be debated? I know my hon. friend is not thinking in these terms, but obviously we cannot debate one bill in the House of Commons for a year. That would be ridiculous. Obviously it cannot even be debated for three or four months. How long should we have to debate a bill? The hon. member suggested four days.
The hon. member suggested that before a speech is given it should be researched, notes condensed, and the person giving the speech should know what he is talking about. I suggest to the hon. member he should look back over his own notes and do a little research. He says the government can put a bill through in four days. He is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker.


Mr, Hees:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the proposed rule change only one day is allotted for each stage of a bill. At the most four days debate could be spread over ten days. Four days debate spread over ten days!
e (3:50 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is absolutely right, but the hon. member also spoke about the newspapers, television and radio. Surely if this is a matter which arouses public opinion it could be discussed during the week and throughout the country. My hon. friend, perhaps unintentionally, left an impression that the news media and the Canadian public would have an opportunity to discuss a proposed bill for only four days. This is not correct. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the allocation allows for at least three days at each stage of a bill.


George Harris Hees: No. One day.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: On top of that there are the week ends. In some instances there would be two week ends. Therefore it would be quite possible that from the first reading stage until the final stage of a bill two weeks could elapse. In addition there are the committees of the house. Bills would go into the committees. On the committees my hon. friends in the opposition have a larger percentage of the membership than they have in the House of Commons. They have the right at that time to bring any matter which is before a committee to the attention of the press, radio and television.
I suggest there will be plenty of time for the people of Canada to be informed about whatever bill may be under consideration. The various arguments will be recorded in the press and public opinion will be fed back into the House of Commons where government members and members of the opposition will have the opportunity to use their consciences and vote as they see fit.
I do not wish to take too much time on this.
I say that this government was put in office on June 25, over a year ago now, to do a job. It is all very well for my hon. friend to ask what they are holding up, or what they have held up in the past. I think this is a fair enough question. He also went on to say, and I agree with him, that there are many serious problems in Canada. He mentioned inflation. Of course it is a serious problem which must be tackled. There are many other problems. Canada must be developed. We need more people here. There are a great many other problems which could be mentioned.
I might mention the omnibus Criminal Code bill in respect of which there were many, many amendments. When the government sees that it is involved in a very lengthy debate obviously there is no useful purpose in placing a good deal of legislation on the order paper because there would be no opportunity to present it. The government must know where it stands. It must know that within a reasonable period of time a bill will be passed or tossed out.
My hon. friends, particularly those of the Official Opposition, on numerous occasions have mentioned the Mother of Parliaments in England. I think every member of this house will bow to that great parliament which over the last few hundred years has done so much
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization for democracy and the whole world. But what the government has asked for here is far less than what the government has in England. This is something I should like to bring to the attention of my hon. friend.
I feel the government must have an opportunity and the ability to bring matters to a conclusion, whether successful or otherwise. I believe that is the reason the people of Canada chose this government. They wanted a government that would bring in a new way of doing business.
My hon. friend quite rightly said there are many new members in the Liberal party. I respectfully suggest there are more new Liberal members than there are new Conservative members. However, there are many new members in our party who do not like sitting around doing what they consider to be nothing. Therefore, they want some action. We want things done in respect of the development of Canada. We want to know that at the end of so many days, within reason, a bill will be completed so that we can carry on and undertake another job. There are many things to be done in this land.
Some people say that this proposed rule is the same as closure. They say it is not different from closure and therefore, if closure is available to the government, there is no need to bring in this rule. With closure debate can be stifled immediately. Rule 75c gives hon. members the opportunity of advance consultation. As I say there is no comparison between the power given by this proposed rule and the power the government now has in respect of closure.
In respect of what I am about to say I would point out that I have not been in consultation with any of my colleagues, and certainly not with any members of the cabinet. I also say this as one who spent many years in opposition in a provincial legislature. I say that the hon. member was quite right in stating that he does not want to sit around here all summer discussing a measure such as this.
I have gone into the proposal very thoroughly and I am firmly convinced that this is a good thing not only for the House of Commons but also for the people of Canada, by whom we were sent here. Therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think we should sit around this place all summer. I do not think the people of Canada expect us to remain here.
I have just returned from my constituency.
I spoke to a lot of the people there, some of whom are Conservatives. I mention that name 
kindly because we do not have any Creditistes or N.D.P.'s in my riding. Many of these people asked why does the government not bring in closure now and complete this silly debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This is the feeling they have. If you go back to your ridings and if you ask you will find the same feeling. As one member of this house I say I believe that when we have listened to these people in the opposition for a reasonable length of time, another week or a few more days, we should have closure on this matter not only for the benefit of the House of Commons but also for the benefit of the people of Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) a question which is perhaps twofold. I did listen to all his remarks and as he said in respect of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) I too enjoyed the first part of his speech better than the second. I think he made a real attempt to be constructive. I ask the hon. member, as a former member of a provincial legislature, whether he can point to one piece of legislation the government has brought in, or which is on the order paper, which could not have been processed or moved along under rule 75a or 75b? I might refer to the omnibus Criminal Code bill. I suggest that any objective observer would agree that rule 75a and rule 75b would have taken care of that. Secondly, can the hon. member mention one provincial legislature in which there is anything similar to rule 75c? I do not care about the parliamentary system in England, unless the hon. member is willing to adopt all of it.
9 (4:00 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It is a pleasure to answer these questions, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked me whether I know of any legislature in which there is a rule comparable to this. I am not familiar with all the legislatures here in Canada. But I want to say this. If you think as far as shouting-I don't know
the word you would like to use here_______and
pushing legislation through are concerned- and if you think these fellows over here in the Liberal party of Canada are dummies- you should see the way the Tories of Ontario operate, because they are perfectionists. They have been doing this for years and years. I don't know what rifles they operate under, but I tell you it is most effective. I am glad the hon. member brought this up.
July 14, 1969


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: They often sit there until two or three o'clock in the morning until they are worn out and glad to let any bill go through.


George Harris Hees: Answer the question.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I have told you I do not
know everything about all the legislatures here in Canada. I have not done my research, as no doubt the hon. member has, into what is exactly taking place, but I say that the Tories in Ontario really push things through. That is how the Tories do it in Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Because it is good
legislation.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The first question had to do with the omnibus bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We are not so much concerned with talking about 75a and 75b as we are with talking about 75c.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The point is that there are going to be many other bills coming before the House of Commons. I cannot accept the proposition that the Omnibus Bill could have been handled by the three parties. We never know how you people are going to react. How can half of you in the house vote one way in favour of a measure, and the other half vote against it?


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Speaker, I rose to ask a question of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings before he sat down. I should like to ask him that question now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member would require unanimous consent.


George Harris Hees: Let him ask the question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Colin David Gibson: I was very interested in the hon. member's proposition relating to the United States Congress and the fact that some of the speeches there are filed. The hon. member suggested that speeches here might be filed as they are in the United States. Does the hon. member suggest that these be printed in a separate section of Hansard, or would he simply have these filed in the regular way? If they were filed in the regular way would this not lead to a complete ruination of parliament, everybody simply filing their
Procedure and Organization speeches? Would that not make a complete mockery of the whole process?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this does not make a mockery of the legislative system in the United States. As I said in the first place, nobody, but nobody, and you know it, pays attention to these regularly read speeches which just bore everybody in the house. If the house does not hear a speech anyway there would be no loss, and there would be a gain because we would save time. Let us file some of our speeches as representing the views presented by an hon. member of parliament. A member would bring them in and present them to the Clerk of the House. They could then be put in Hansard as though they had been spoken here. Nobody would interject, nobody would find fault, nobody would ask questions. In this way they could be recorded in Hansard and sent home to his constituents, and we would save a great deal of time and a great deal of boredom.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my original intention to speak on the measure presently before this house. In fact the record will show that I did not participate in the rules debate last December. Other members of the Official Opposition participated in the deliberations preceding the tabling of the special committee report. They spoke ably and well on behalf of my party, and it was not necessary therefore for me to participate at that time.
You will recall that during that debate the government showed at least a measure of reasonableness. The bulk of the report was acceptable and good. We in the opposition objected forcefully to the infamous 16a and its restrictions on our rights. It was this objection which eventually caused the government to reconsider its position and decide that 16a should be sent back to the committee.
We were pleased that this coruse was followed because at that time all of us were concerned with national issues. We were looking forward to debating several measures of fundamental importance to the physical well being of Canadians, including the housing report and legislation stemming from it, and I was expecting momentarily the presentation of legislation designed to assist fishermen and the fishing industry. Since I have a special interest in those measures I looked forward to reviewing the provisions of this legislation and hoped to suggest some improvements to the minister when it was brought forward.

Procedure and Organization
At that time we were also looking forward to reviewing the estimates of the departments in committees in order that we might determine the strengths and weaknesses of the government. As a matter of fact it was my understanding that the committee system was to be the cornerstone of the Prime Minister's, (Mr. Trudeau) concept of the just society, a place where duly elected members could take part in the new participatory democracy, and freely express their viewpoint gleaned at the grass root level in respect of matters of national importance. The government would then know the feelings of Canadians in general in respect of legislation placed before parliament. We have since learned otherwise.
There was much to be done and the committees set out on bold new voyages of discovery. For example, the External Affairs Committee went to Europe and returned with its report, a report I might add which was significantly ignored by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. The Agriculture Committee also reviewed at close range the serious difficulties facing the west. Another committee, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, studied the problems of particular interest in the Atlantic provinces, and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry travelled to the west coast to study the problems of the fisheries and forestry industry in that area. At that time those of us on the committee learned that there is more than the Rocky Mountains separating and dividing British Columbia from the rest of Canada.
As we looked forward at the beginning of 1969 to participating in the work of these committees, many members in the house did not speak on the special committee report last December, leaving consideration of these matters to members more practised in procedure, and at that time the government bowed to our objections. However, on this occasion it would appear that the one ingredient necessary to provide good government, namely, common sense, has been thrown out the window. Therefore I feel compelled to speak out about the government's unacceptable and objectionable attempt to ram 16a, by another name, down the throats of members of this house.
_ It is necessary that I speak out against the implementation of rule 75c because my constituents take strong exception to compulsion of any kind. My constituents are rugged individualists. In a free democratic society, they believe they should have the right to choose or reject any government program or 
DEBATES	July 14, 1969
policy. They did not like, for example, the compulsory aspect of the Canada Pension Plan. I received numerous letters attesting to that fact. They did not like the compulsory aspect of the federal medicare plan, and again I had numerous letters attesting to that fact. They do not like the idea of their member of parliament being compelled to sit silent on the order of the President of the Privy Council, or of any other cabinet minister, while legislation is introduced in this house which may not meet with their overall approval.
I believe it is necessary for me to speak out against rule 75c. If this rule should be approved this may well be the last opportunity open to me to speak on any legislation of a controversial nature debated in this house in the future.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This rule seeks to throttle parliament. It will limit and destroy the rights of members of this house whose sole purpose is to represent the views of those who elected them. I believe that what I now say represents accurately the opinions and concerns of some 63,000 people who reside in my constituency. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they do not expect me to speak on every measure brought before the house, because if all members did so legislation would be bogged down in this chamber. But my constituents expect me to reserve the right to speak on any issue. It is that right I hope to preserve by participating in this debate.
My constituents are also concerned that the government should try to muzzle parliament instead of turning its attention to the real problems of Canadians. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), who preceded me, pointed out that his party at the last federal election received a majority and not us, and this gave them the right to determine the time that would be required to debate issues brought before the house. I remind him and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that they represent the government and the government has a majority in the house, which gives them the privilege of sitting on the right hand of the Speaker and bringing down legislation for consideration by the house. But the rules under which legislation is to be examined are, in my view, the prerogative of the house. They are not the prerogative of the government. They are not the prerogative of you, Mr. Speaker, whose duty it is, in my opinion, to interpret the rules and act as a referee.
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
Therefore, the rules can be effective only if they are established by agreement among all parties in the house. As an example of what can happen when there is no agreement, government members need only look at the record of events as they occurred in this chamber since June 27, the day on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated parliament would adjourn. If he were to look at the record, even a man as bull-headed as the President of the Privy Council would get the picture.
Just what is happening at the present time? The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to which the matter of time allocation had been referred, worked with all parties to formulate 75a and 75b which would provide for an allocation of time for government legislation on the basis of consensus and agreement. But this was too orderly for the President of the Privy Council. Since we were nearing the Prime Minister's cut-off date for this session, he rammed 75c through the committee, supported only by government members. Then he sought to bulldoze it through this house, not through discussion of the committee report but by introducing a government motion.
Why did the President of the Privy Council follow this course? I submit that he made a mistake when he drew up 75c and had it incorporated in the committee report. Having noticed this mistake, he wanted to make a few minor changes to the report of the committee, changes which are so slight that you must read very closely the committee report and the minister's motion in order to detect the differences; but changes, nevertheless, which would make Mac the Muzzier the allpowerful czar of this chamber. After the shameful display on the part of the Prime Minister in this chamber on Friday, July 11, I can never agree, and my party will never willingly agree, to the implementation of 75c or to the placing of this kind of power in the hands of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Prime Minister has by his words and actions lowered the dignity of the high office to which he was elected. He has shown contempt for this chamber and its elected members by his arrogant, childish, petulant and intolerant remarks.
Why is the government following this course? We have heard a number of speakers on the government side of the house say they need 75c so they can plan and program their
Procedure and Organization legislation. What arrogant nonsense; what gall! Rotten wood cannot be carved, neither can it be glued nor nailed. We who live on the east coast know that you cannot build the hull of a ship with rotten or faulty materials. You cannot make a co-operative and productive House of Commons, our ship of state, with rotten or faulty rules. This government can get through a substantial legislative program only with the co-operation of the house based on an allocation of time which has been achieved by agreement among all parties in the house.
If the opposition does not co-operate, whether or not 75c is in effect the government cannot hope to get through as much legislation next session as it did in the first session of the 28th parliament. I am not threatening the government when I say this. All I ask hon. gentlemen who sit to the right of the Speaker to do is consider what is happening in the Post Office Department. Your Post Office Department has had rules laid down by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), and they are working to rule.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is only one rule I would remind the hon. member of, and it is that he should always address the Chair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it very interesting when government supporters complain about the length of debate in this session, because there is nothing that indicates more clearly their lack of knowledge about past events here. I am not implying that I am an old, experienced member, but I was first elected to this chamber on June 10, 1957. This represents six federal elections and quite a number of sessions, starting with the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the Liberal party sitting on the opposition side of the house.


Thomas Miller Bell: He was a great Liberal.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It takes me through the
progressive years under the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), through the uncertain years-these are not my views but those of former cabinet members who have written books on the subject-under Mr. Pearson, to the year under the Prime Minister. In all the sessions which I have attended, no government has received more co-operation in the passing of its legislative program than the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
11178	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization Mr. Nowlan: There has been too much cooperation. We have spoiled them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Some hon. members who support the government have already referred to the rules debate as a filibuster. If they want to read about real filibusters I suggest they read some of the drivel that was put on the record during the years 1957 to 1962 by Mr. Pearson, Mr. Martin, Mr. Chevrier and Mr. Pickersgill. If wishing could come true, the men of Apollo 11 would not be the first men on the moon, because I sat here many times and wished these four men would leave this house for another place. In one way or another I suppose my wish has come true.
Let me review the record in that respect. The second session of the 24th parliament in 1959 opened on January 15 and prorogued on July 18 of that year. The third session of the 24th parliament opened on January 14, 1960, and prorogued on August 10 of that year. The fourth session of the 24th parliament opened on November 17, 1960, and did not prorogue until September 29, 1961. These were filibusters carried on by four men. If hon. members look at the record they will see that at one time one of these men filled seven pages of the Hansard Index, while the other three filled six. Heaven only knows how many thousands of words those four men put on the record during that time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the government have received outstanding co-operation during this session from the opposition in regard to the passage of their legislative program. To substantiate that statement all one has to do is to look at the record. According to my recollection only two of our debates were lengthy. First of all, there was the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code. Quite naturally this measure took considerable time since many members were opposed, as I was, to the clauses dealing with abortion and homosexuality. These clauses went to the very basis of moral behaviour and to the very roots of our Christian beliefs. Since it was the government that introduced this kind of legislation to the house, I do not believe that this self same government should have had the right to limit the views of any member who tried to express his objections and the objections of his constituents to the legislation.
The second piece of legislation that took some time was the official languages bill. However, it was also an important piece of 
DEBATES	July 14, 1969
legislation, the implementation of which will have far reaching effects throughout the length and breadth of the country. Surely the President of the Privy Council is not going to state that the rights of members to express their opinions on these matters, in what to date has been a free parliament, should have been curtailed.
Quite frankly, if the government have important legislation that they wish to implement, why do they not bring it forward at this time? As I have just pointed out, the house has sat through the summer on other occasions. I would point out that it was not the Official Opposition that suggested that the Commons adjourn on June 27; this was the cut-off date that was set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We of the Official Opposition agreed to sit extra hours, meeting in this chamber at ten o'clock in the morning, in order to facilitate the passage of government legislation.
It is the bull headed stupidity of the present government in arranging their own program that has brought us to the present situation. Since we will never agree to the acceptance of 75c. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that he withdraw it. And since most of the summer is now over, let him bring on any important legislation that the government have so we may deal with it now. The Prime Minister has called our fight to protect the rights of parliament a stupid filibuster. He has already prejudged 80 per cent of members' questions as sheer hypocrisy and therefore the room that is left to manoeuvre in this parliament is becoming limited.
We as members will insist on our right to be heard. If the Prime Minister and his cabinet are bored with parliament, if it is interfering with their vacation or entertainment plans, or if parliament no longer interests them, then they should at least have the courage and decency to stand in their place and to tell their story to the people who elected them.


Mr. Kaplan:: It is your people who are having the vacation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is now evident that rule 75c is, on second thought, no longer acceptable to the government or to the President of the Privy Council. The interjection by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) is unworthy of comment, since it was the members of his party who were counted out in the house for non-attendance last Thursday.
July 14, 1969

We have seen two retreats already in this debate. The first was made by the President of the Privy Council when he agreed to a debate on the report of the committee rather than on his motion. The second retreat occurred on Friday when the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), the television specialist on filibusters, brought in an amendment to the motion moved by our house leader. It was obvious that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra had the sanction and support of the President of the Privy Council for his action, but it was not found acceptable to the Chair.
Since the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council move members up and down like a yo-yo on a string, it will be interesting to see which member the spider next entices into his web of intrigue to try to trap the opposition-in the words of the Prime Minister-into accepting that which to us is unacceptable.
I say to the President of the Privy Council: Withdraw 75c and bring on your legislation. Parliament and the official opposition have been prepared for months to deal with some of the major problems facing this country. However, it is the government that has been dilatory, ineffective and uncertain about the course that it wishes to follow.
Rule 75c would not do for the government what it suggests it would, even if its adoption were the desirable course to follow. It would not enable the government to bulldoze a large legislative program through this chamber. It would simply enable the government to cut off debate, at a time when it may be vitally necessary to continue debate so that the voice of the people, through their elected representatives, is heard on the matter.
I cannot help but wonder what the government is up to. Just what are those schemers in the cabinet planning? What secretive, cunning, destructive legislation is in the making that requires the type of control that is vested in 75c?
The record to date in this session indicates that this rule is definitely not required for the orderly conduct of the proceedings of this house. In all conscience I ask the government what in the name of heaven are they planning for the next session? What are the government planning for the future that they deem it necessary to have this type of club, this muzzle, this guillotine for silencing parliament? What important program has parliament delayed?
Every day we hear of increasing interest rates, increasing inflation and higher prices. In
Procedure and Organization what manner has parliament held up the government in its so-called fight against inflation? The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has been asking for months about the commission on incomes and prices, and after almost a year the government finally got around to naming the personnel of the commission. And during all this time prices went higher and higher.
In what manner has parliament held up government action on the housing problem? We have plenty of land in Canada. There is all kinds of lumber, bricks, cement, stone, and lots of unemployed men who could usefully be occupied in putting these materials together to build homes. This being the case, why is there a housing shortage in Canada? V/hy was it necessary for a minister of the Crown to resign in disgust over the policies of the present government?
Surely the President of the Privy Council cannot accuse us of preventing him from bringing forward legislation to deal, for example, with the mounting torrent of water pollution in this country. The problem is national in scope and frightening in its over-all effect on the health and food supply of Canadians. Last year the federal Department of Fisheries opened a $3.5 million salmon hatchery on the Saint John River, only to find that thousands of smolt have died in the hatchery this year owing to polluted river water.
In Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, man made pollution has destroyed thousands of tons of fish, as well as the income of hundreds of Canadians, and the federal government has still not embarked on a national water quality program. Such a program was promised by the right hon. Lester Pearson in 1967. This is now 1969 and still there is no leadership in this regard given by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because I am afraid we will get into a pattern whereby hon. members are more inclined to discuss general problems in the country than the proposal that is before the house. I think it is an abuse of the rules of the house if members take half of the 40 minutes that is reserved to them, perhaps even longer, to discuss the aspects of all of the 18 or 20 departments of government. I suggest to hon. members that what they are discussing at the present time is essentially the motion before the house and the amendment thereto. The Acting Speaker reminded
11180	COMMONS DEBATES	July 14, 1969
Procedure and Organization the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings of this a moment ago, and I am in full accord with the opinion he expressed at that time. Certainly I intend to invite hon. members as often as necessary to observe the rules. Since we are debating the rules it is elementary that hon. members observe this fundamental rule in particular.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your advice. I know you will understand our confusion and difficulty. It is hard to know where to cut off debate-how to apply your comments strictly, while at the same time ignoring the tremendous problems which Canadians are facing in the absence of government action to deal with them. I might mention the shipbuilding industry, the fishing industry, the failure to deal with the Woods Report concerning veterans-the list goes on interminably but I will abide by your ruling and avoid getting into a lengthy discussion about these matters.
To suggest that the government needs rule 75c in order to respond quickly by way of legislation to some of the problems to which I have referred is nothing but hypocrisy in high places. The government is aware of these problems but the only action it has taken to deal with them is to set up task forces or royal commissions, or to take them under review. We know the previous Liberal administration left a mess to be cleaned up; the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said it would take some time for him to get his house in order. But he cannot lay the blame, or even attempt to lay the blame, on the opposition for the government's failure to deal with problems which are causing widespread concern and dismay.
When the Prime Minister was minister of justice he was asked when he would decide whether a defeat was not a defeat-before or after a vote. He replied: Before or after the vote; we are the masters of this house. I submit that by this answer the Prime Minister showed us his true colours; he displayed his arrogance and his contempt for parliament. He is now seeking, through the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), to ride roughshod over the rights of private members-not only those who sit with the opposition, but also those who support the government. I ask hon. members who belong to the government party: what opportunity do you believe you will have to take part in debate if, through some miscarriage of justice, rule 75c should become a reality?

When the people in my constituency went to the polls they gave me majority support intending that I should come to Ottawa to speak out on their behalf whenever necessary. This statement applies to every constituency in Canada and to every member of this house. The government of the day will only remain the government of the day as long as it obtains the support of a majority in the house. In my view this places a responsibility on the cabinet for putting their heads together, analysing Canada's needs and coming forward with suitable legislation to satisfy them. If the legislation is well thought out, if it is constructive and beneficial to Canada, no responsible opposition will unduly delay its passage, as has been evidenced to date during the present session. Should the government reach a point at which it is faced with intentional obstruction and wilful delay in the passage of legislation, it has the right to use Standing Order 33, with its power of closure. Then, at the next election, the public can decide whether or not its action was justified.
It is most unfortunate that the cabinet and Prime Minister should have decided to force rule 75c through the house. This decision has already done violence to parliament by lowering the morale of its members and lessening the mutual respect and tolerance which has been built up among representatives of all parties. When passions are aroused and when angry words are exchanged across the floor of the house, how can a rational decision be reached, particularly as it was the stupidity of the government which provoked the row in the first place?
As a Member of Parliament, the only power I have is the right to be heard in this chamber. Any government which seeks to rob me of that power is treading on dangerous ground. The very essence of democracy is the right to debate-the right to speak out and be heard. I am not prepared to abrogate this right to the present government, because those who sit on the front benches opposite have not shown by their actions that they are humble enough to govern Canada; they have not shown that they have enough respect for our parliamentary traditions; they are not kind enough in their views with regard to the major problems facing Canadians, and they are not just in their program of priorities for dealing with these problems.
For all these reasons I ask the President of the Privy Council to seriously consider withdrawing rule 75c so that members may direct their thoughts and energies not toward a debate on the rules but rather toward solving
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization
some of the many urgent problems presently It concerns me to think that a number of facing Canadians.	freshman members, they are scattered
throughout all parties but predominate in the Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West): Mr. Liberal party, should demand that there be a
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have an opportunity to take part in one of the great and important debates which occasionally arise in this house. In my humble opinion the debate which is going on now is the most important one in which we have engaged in the present session of parliament. We are debating the real essence of parliamentary procedure, the very institution of democracy. This is why members on this side of the house have made up their minds to debate the subject fully and do their best to persuade the people of Canada that a rule of the type now proposed should never be written into the Standing Orders of this house.
I should like to examine for a minute or two several of the points raised by previous speakers. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said that a year ago the present administration was elected to govern Canada. No one disputes this. No one disputes the right of a majority party to bring in legislation and get that legislation through parliament. But then the hon. member made another statement. He said that the job placed on the shoulders of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today required that a change in procedure involving 75c be made.
I ask the hon. member for Bruce, as I have asked other hon. members, to name one piece of legislation which has been held up in this chamber, or which could not have been processed prior to the adjournment date on which we had agreed, namely, June 27? No member of this house can rise and say we have held up government legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Harding:: Yet the government is determined to bring in rule changes which will gag not only opposition members but members on the government side as well. We do not change the rules, Mr. Speaker, because we are looking for some immediate gain. That is not the way we ought to operate in parliament. We bring in rule changes because they will enable hon. members of this house to process bills democratically and, possibly, quickly. But we do not need these proposed changes. Nothing that has happened in the past few years indicates that we need rule changes as drastic as these.
gag which will be effective in cutting off debate on some of the most important pieces of legislation that could come before this house. Surely the hon. member for Bruce was speaking with tongue in cheek when he said a few moments ago that four days debating time is ample for the Canadian people to learn what is happening here. How foolish and unthinking hon. members are when they make statements like that. I appeal to hon. members of the house to send these rule changes back to committee. There are 12 men on the standing committee-let us call them reasonable men-who can examine these changes again. Let them wrestle with the problem and bring it back to the house later on. The opposition is as anxious as the government to see Canada well governed. We want good legislation and good government and we are not here to obstruct good legislation. All of us are sent here to do a job, but we do not need the guillotine that is contained in rule 75c to help us do our job.
I wish to refer to something the Prime Minister said in this house last Friday. He said that this debate on the rules change is a stupid filibuster. I have great respect for the Prime Minister, as we all ought to have. The Prime Minister especially should give guidance and leadership at all times to the people of Canada. If anyone is to act like a statesman it ought to be the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: It was with a sense of shock that I heard him describe this debate as a stupid filibuster. I want members on the government side to pay attention. For how long have we been discussing these rule changes? It may seem a long time, because most of us had hoped to go home on June 27. Actually, the amendment before us was introduced last Tuesday. Yet on Friday morning, after three days of debate, the Prime Minister told the Canadian nation that this is a stupid filibuster. I have looked carefully at the record, and I think my figures are accurate. Why did the Prime Minister of this nation say, after we had had three days of debate, that this is a stupid filibuster? We know why you want proposed rule 75c. The government is going to guillotine every major piece of legislation coming before this house. Let us see what has happened since last Monday.
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organisation Last Monday we were not discussing rules. We had a hassle about whether the government house leader or committee chairman should have the honour of beginning this debate. That hassle took the whole day, so on Monday we were not discussing rule changes. And what happened on Tuesday? The government house leader withdrew his motion in order to allow the committee chairman to proceed with his report. On Tuesday ten members took part in the debate which lasted approximately five hours. The lead off speaker, the chairman of the committee, began talking in this rules debate at 2.50 p.m. last Tuesday. Altogether three Liberals, three Conservatives, two N.D.P. and two Creditiste members took part in that debate, one Creditiste member carrying over into the following day. As I say, we had five hours of debating time. On Wednesday five speakers, one of them being the carry over Creditiste member, spoke for three hours. The other speakers included two Liberals, one Conservative and one from the N.D.P.
On Thursday we had two hours of debating time, the house rising early because there were not enough members here to constitute a quorum. There were four speakers including one Liberal, two Conservatives and one from the N.D.P. Altogether up to that time there had been ten hours of debate in the house, and the Prime Minister got up and announced to the nation that this was a filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Randolph Harding: I say to hon. members opposite, it is about time you understood what is going on and did something about it. We are hearing talk today about a filibuster being in progress. Last Friday we debated the rule change for one hour and 55 minutes. If we ignore debating time for today, we have spent less than 12 hours in debating these rule changes, and government members from all parts of Canada are talking about a rules filibuster. I say that if this is your definition of a filibuster-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that he should at all times address the Chair.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this is the government's definition of a filibuster then I am afraid that in future debates this house is in for a lot of trouble.
In summarizing, may I point out that until the end of last Friday's sitting 21 speakers IMr. Harding.]

had taken part in this debate. There were seven Liberals, eight Conservatives, four from the N.D.P. and two Creditistes. Although there has been much talk about a filibuster in this chamber, no one group in particular can be accused of having carried it on.
I support the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He proposes in his amendment to send this matter back to committee so that it can deal with 75c.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Rule changes in any parliamentary democracy should be made by agreement and not by force. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, agreement can be reached on sensible changes required to make a modern parliamentary system work effectively. We have had that agreement. We saw it last fall when major rule changes were made in this house by agreement. It must be obvious to everyone there will never be agreement by the opposition parties to the dictatorial powers proposed by this administration in rule 75c.
I believe this parliament for the most part is made up of reasonable members. They are found in every party. Despite their various political philosophies most hon. members want to make our parliamentary democracy function efficiently and well. I suggest to the house and to the government house leader in particular that rule 75c should be withdrawn by the government and sent back to the committee for redrafting.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Randolph Harding: I will be very happy if Mr. Speaker will permit it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member has suggested that it be sent back for redrafting. He therefore opposes the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who proposes its deletion altogether.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the amendment to send this draft back to the committee. I believe changes can be worked out. That is why this debate has been good. We have been trying to convince the government house leader and others that if these rule changes are to be effective and co-operatively used in the house, they must have the endorsement of all groups. Again I urge the government house leader to consider sending it back. Members are not unreasonable. If the Special Committee on Rules had been com-

July 14, 1969
posed of unreasonable members of parliament, we never would have had the vast changes that were drafted, brought in, and accepted by this house last December.
As I have read rule 75c, it seems to me that the most objectionable feature is the fact that it could effectively gag the opposition on major and controversial legislation. It is not good enough to have the government house leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or someone else stand up in the House of Commons and say, you can trust us, we will make certain this is only used on those rare occasions when debate has exceeded the limits to which we think it should go."
That is not good enough. You do not draft laws that way. You do not draft procedures that way. What would happen if the laws of this country were left wide open in this manner? You must legislate or make changes that cannot be circumvented by people who might want to use them for their own purposes. That is one of the obvious reasons why this particular piece of legislation should go back to the committee.
As I understand 75c, Mr. Speaker, if it becomes operative it will make legal the right of any government to plan and carry out closure in advance. I feel this is a dangerous and dictatorial move that will boomerang on the present administration. It is not worthy of any Canadian political party which is supposed to be based on democratic ideas. It is difficult to imagine how it fits into the government slogan of a just society.
Parliamentary freedom is above both the party and the individual. No one group should ever have the right indiscriminately to deny this basic right to others under our parliamentary constitution. I am surprised that the Liberal Party have asked for this dictatorial power. I am more concerned that not one of their elected members has had the courage to speak out against what is obviously a blatant attempt to gag opposition spokesmen in parliament.
Provision for closure in advance of adequate debate is an insult to every Canadian citizen. It is an insulting defiance of every elector who cast a Liberal vote in the federal election of one year ago. It is another crystal clear sign of the contemptuous attitude being displayed by the government and its leader to our parliamentary traditions.
Again I urge the house to turn down the proposal made by the committee and the government, and to send it back for further discussion with other parties. Reasonable mem-
Procedure and Organization bers in all parties can work out any procedural differences if enough effort is put into resolving them. If a solution cannot be found by these members, then our nation is in a bad way. Perhaps a paragraph from a recent editorial in the December 12, 1968, issue of the Globe and Mail will best illustrate the point I have mentioned, and I quote:
Nothing is more fundamental to democracy than the belief that society is composed of reasonable men. They will have their irrational moments and a system of cheeks and balances will be needed. And there will be occasions when reason seems forfeited to hysteria, opportunism, malice or any number of things. But if faith in the reasonableness of men is lost, then so is democracy. For government must then become authoritarian. It must cast aside all pretence of governing according to the wishes of the people. At its most enlightened, it will govern according to what it considers is best for the people. Although it may be benevolent, it can never be democratic.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our differences on procedure can be ironed out in committee.
I fully support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. The proposed amendment asks that the house refer the report back to the committee with instructions to delete proposed rule 75c.
There is no objection from any of the opposition parties in the house to 75a and 75b. At least I have not heard any objection during this debate. In fact the members of the opposition groups helped to draft these changes in committee and will endorse them now. However, 75c is the undemocratic creation of the government. It is their suggested method of gagging the opposition parties in the House of Commons. The mere fact that the present government, with their large group of freshmen members, insist on this dictatorial rule is a fair indication of their dismay and panic at the loss of prestige suffered in just one year by their administration. They seem to have lost all sense of history and feel that by muzzling the opposition their troubles will go away.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The fact is that this government is in trouble. It is in major trouble, and that trouble is nation wide because of a lack of policy and direction seldom before seen to the extent it has been displayed by the present administration. We have all heard the old theory of the divine right of kings. It was a belief that the king could do no wrong. It would seem to me there has been a rebirth of this old idea so far as the present administration is concerned. The Liberal group in parliament feel that Pierre can do no wrong. This blind faith,
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization as exhibited in the proposed rule changes, will lead to political oblivion for most of them.
The proposals by this administration to muzzle free speech, and slyly to attempt to initiate rules which will force closure in advance of adequate debate are a sure sign that those leading the government are totally unaware of the mood of our present day society. More than ever before those in our society, especially the young people, are demanding more discussion, more information, more answers and more participatory democracy.
These cannot be obtained when those in power try to gag a democratically elected parliament which should give the lead to our people in discussing fully those major problems which will shape the future of the nation. In parliamentary terms, closure is an odious word. It is something that should be used rarely. Closure in advance of adequate debate which proposed rule 75c could well bring about is no credit to those in the present administration who advocate its acceptance.
Complete and utter disregard for our parliamentary democracy has been the earmark of this administration. It was first demonstrated last December in its abortive attempt to foist rule 16a on parliament. It is demonstrated again in its attempt to force rule 75c, which is very similar to rule 16a, on an unwilling House of Commons.
It is interesting to note that last December, when the government was forced to withdraw rule 16a because of Canada-wide opposition, the Prime Minister indicated that the government did not really want it. He claimed that the opposition had been trapped and tripped by the government. He told the press that the opposition was forced to focus on rule 16a so that all the other rule changes would be accepted. He implied that the government had never really wanted to put 16a into effect and that it was used only as a ploy to fool the opposition. However, in view of the introduction of 75c we might well question the credibility of the Prime Minister's statement on the December debate.
If the government did not want another closure rule in December, why does it want one now? As I mentioned before, not one piece of legislation requested by the government had been held up from passage through the House of Commons by the June 27 adjournment date. The only delay in important legislation this session is due to the fact that the various ministers have not prepared and brought into the house for consideration 
some very important legislation promised to the Canadian people many months ago. This government, not the opposition, has delayed legislation. I need only mention the Canada Water Act, the Canadian Development Corporation Act and the proposed legislation on the Woods report recommentations, so desperately needed by the veterans, as fields in which there have been government promises but no action.
We are told that the government needs 75c so that it can program its work. I suggest that the best parliamentary system in the world could not work effectively if an inefficient government were doing the programming. Evidence of inefficiency in programming so far as the government is concerned is to be found everywhere. This current debate on parliamentary rule changes is the most important issue with which this particular parliament will have to deal.
The key issue before us today is a simple one. It is the right of all elected members to speak fully and freely in the house on the issues affecting our nation, and our whole system of parliamentary democracy revolves around it. It is difficult to believe that in Canada today any party or any minister, would dare to ask for the sweeping and restrictive powers outlined in section 75c. It is equally difficult to understand how any member of this house could support this obvious government move to muzzle the opposition.
If rule 75c is passed, private members-we are all in the same position, with the exception of those who sit in the cabinet and the leaders of the various parties-could be effectively gagged in major debates from presenting alternatives to government proposals. The opposition could be denied the opportunity effectively to make the nation fully aware of contentious legislation. The citizens of our nation could be denied the right to hear all sides of contentious issues and might not be given time to make their views known to those who sit in the parliament of Canada. This is the crux of the rule change.
By including this rule we might well eliminate all the citizens of Canada outside the house from participating in the workings of parliament. If rule 75c is passed the government could by law force any piece of legislation through parliament with only four days of debate, including the second reading stage, the committee stage, the report stage and third reading stage. All the talk in the world by government members cannot change that fact. This is evident from a reading of the amendment.
July 14, 1989	COMMONS
It would be possible for major legislation to receive only cursory examination, and entire legislation could be passed through parliament before the Canadian public had any opportunity to express its opinions. In fact, a major piece of legislation could, if the government so desired, receive less than 10 hours of actual debate in the House of Commons, and this would include every phase of a bill.
We could see an unscrupulous government, with the use of 75c, start second reading on a major piece of legislation, perhaps on a Wednesday, when the House of Commons sits only four hours. As usual debate would start after the question period, and in three hours or less the debate on the principle of the bill would be over, with only a handful of members having participated. Surely rules allowing such obvious abuse of our parliamentary democracy will never be enacted by our Canadian parliament. Surely the members on the government benches will never allow rules of this nature to become law.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Once through second reading, the bill in one day could be forced through the committee to which it had been referred, again without full discussion. It would then come back to the House of Commons where another three or four hour debate could take care of proposed amendments and other criticism, and at the end of the day this stage of the bill would be completed, regardless of what remained to be discussed.
The third and final reading of any bill could again be completed in one day, and could be a repetition of the above, with only a three or four hour debate. A total of ten hours or less in the House of Commons could see major legislation ready for the Senate and royal assent. I say again that regardless of the good intention of any party it will be a major political and democratic blunder if the members of this house ever make this proposed rule change legal.
Rule 75c is a dangerous, a vicious and a foolish proposal. It strikes at the very roots of democracy. It gives the ruling party the legal power to effectively gag those who oppose its policies. It could only be the creation of a party which has become contemptuous of both our democratic parliamentary tradition and of the general public. It is another example of the political blundering and inept manoeuvering of the Trudeau administration. It shows how thoroughly Liberal backbenchers have been whipped into line, for none of them dare to raise their voices in protest. If
Procedure and Organization this is a part of the Liberal plan for a just society then our nation is in real trouble. If this Liberal administration needs the type of rule change as proposed in 75c to govern this nation, then one is justified in asking what type of legislation does it have in mind for the future which would require the use of such restrictive measures?
The minister talks about the committee report which was brought in by the chairman, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). Let me put on the record the composition of the committee so that no one will get the idea that 75c was part of any joint report in which other parties participated. The procedure committee is proposed of 12 members. There are 7 Liberals, 3 Conservatives, 1 N.D.P. and 1 Creditiste. The Liberals have a clear majority in the committee. The only members of the committee voting for 75c were Liberals. All the other members were opposed.
To put the whole problem of parliamentary procedure in its proper perspective I feel that a short review of our efforts in this field is necessary. Again I am going to take us back to the fall of 1968 when the first session of this Parliament started.
All parties agreed that some major changes had to be made. An all party committee was set up and a report was brought in. Over 95 per cent of that lengthy report was adopted by the House of Commons. Only one section was rejected, and that was the infamous 16a which is somewhat similar to the measure we are debating today. These major rule changes received the full support of all the members of the house. The opposition parties helped to draft them, and we tried to make them work. We have streamlined much of our parliamentary procedure. We have already drastically reduced the debating time spent on legislation in this chamber. However, we cannot agree to accept the changes suggested by 75c, and no democratic government should insist on proceeding with these changes when they are so unanimously and vigorously opposed by members of all the opposition parties in the house.
We are told by the government that 75c is needed in order that parliament can respond quickly to an emergency situation. This is a complete farce. A closure rule is already on the books and it has been there for over 50 years. We have also heard from the Liberal members that legislation was unduly held up during this current session. Again there is no
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization indication of this, and no member of the government side can point to one piece of legislation that has been held up or stopped from passing because of the work of the opposition in this house.
I spent some time in a provincial legislature and I know the problems which opposition parties have in putting their views forward. I say to the members of this house that this government has had full co-operation from all the parties in the House of Commons in making rule changes and in trying to process the work of this parliament more efficiently and more effectively.
We found last June, or earlier, that a plan had been made to adjourn this house on June 27. All groups agreed that this was a proper date to adjourn and we worked towards that adjournment date, co-operating fully. We sat longer hours in the latter part of June, and we worked out an agreement with the government house leader on private bills. We agreed to limit debate on a number of measures. There is only one group which has broken the co-operative arrangement which had been set up, and that is the government group under the government house leader.
As I said before, if there is any party in this house that has held up legislation it is the government, particularly on major issues some of which have been enumerated by other speakers this afternoon. I do not intend to cover them again.
I should like to point out in closing that all across Canada the feeling is becoming more evident every day, through editorials, newspaper and radio comment, that the people of this nation do not want restrictive measures such as 75c to become legal in the parliament of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I feel I must, as a member of parliament honoured to represent thousands of citizens of Canada who live in Ontario. I cannot see how any man who is determined to make a real, honest effort on behalf of those he represents could in any way support, to any

degree, the measure outlined in 75c. That is why I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I have been impressed with the high calibre of speeches we have had this afternoon from two hon. members, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). You will find that they have pointed out in no uncertain terms what would happen to parliament, and what could be the outcome in respect of the rights of members should such rule changes be passed.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) indicated that all members of parliament should accept proposed rule 75c. The fact that backbenchers on the government side of the house have in the main accepted the gag rule is no reason why we should follow suit. As a matter of fact it is one of the things that makes me very suspicious about 75c. Hon. members opposite speak only when they are allowed to speak. I witness the humility of ministers who come into the house only when they are allowed. It creates great awe in the House of Commons when, by order, ministers absent themselves from the chamber. They, too, are members of parliament. They, too, have the responsibility of representing their constituents. I would never call myself a member of parliament if I allowed anyone in the house, except Your Honour, to order me to vacate my seat for even a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Harold Warren Danforth: Why are we suspicous? It is because we know the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not enough confidence in his members to allow them to carry out their responsibilities, and sets up regional desks to find out what is happening in their areas. These commissars report on what government members are doing and how they are doing it. Is this what we want in a democratic Canada?
A great deal has been said in this debate about committees and the government members who serve on them. We know that if they have dared to oppose the wishes of the government they have been quickly removed from membership of the committee.


Mr. Deakon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the justice committee, and for his information1-
July 14, 1969	COMMONS


Harold Warren Danforth: What is the point of order?


Walter Cyril Deakon: -the members of committees can speak their own minds.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth).


Harold Warren Danforth: The hon. member who has interjected says government members on committees are allowed to speak their minds.
I would believe this if it were done in the quiet of a committee room without members of the press being present so that the rumour would get back to the government only in a committee report, handed down five weeks late in some cases. I have grave doubts about our committee system when chairmen of committees appointed by the government are not allowed to make a report to the house until it is convenient to the government to do so.


Walter Cyril Deakon: You should come to the justice committee sometime.


Robert Muir: What did Steve Otto say about committees?


Harold Warren Danforth: As my colleague has pointed out, the Hansard record shows that instructions have been given to government members of committees. How can we have confidence in a government of this calibre? As a member from Ontario I have the right to oppose in every way possible a measure which I believe would make it impossible for members from that province to put forward adequately in the house the wishes and views of the citizens they represent.
So far we have had in this parliament harmony to a degree that I have not before experienced in the years I have been here. I was amazed and gratified to see how much work could be accomplished when there was a measure of agreement among the leaders of the parties. I believed this was the dawn of a new era. Although many of us were suspicious, we were delighted to see what could happen by agreement. But this harmony has gone. We now have a House of Commons that is ugly in its attitude. Why is this? It is because the government has introduced a measure that we believe will make it impossible for us to perform our duties in the way they should be performed. On every occasion the government asks us to place confidence in it, and breaks that trust. How can we then have confidence in it? The government reiterates that this measure will never be imposed except in extreme circumstances. How can we possibly accept this?
Procedure and Organization
I have always had the greatest respect for the office of the Prime Minister. I still have that respect, but I now have very little respect for the man who holds that high office. Any man who stands in this house and calls a debate on such an important matter as rule changes a stupid filibuster either does not understand our parliamentary system, or cares nothing for it.


Robert Muir: He
cannot be bothered with it.


Harold Warren Danforth: The Prime Minister says that 80 per cent of the questions asked by hon. members are sheer hypocrisy. As far as I am concerned, that statement is the ultimate in hypocrisy. The government has said there is need for rule changes, that we must increase the efficiency of the house, that it has a majority in the house and therefore represents the wishes of the people. I agree that it received a mandate. The members of the opposition have always accepted the fact that the government received a mandate, but it was to bring in legislation and to lead this nation. When the government introduces a new rule which provides that the right of opposition members to speak will be removed, it no longer represents the majority of people in this country.


Mr. Maclnnis:: They do not represent the majority.


Harold Warren Danforth: By way of this legislation the government is asking the opposition parties to agree to leave 12 million Canadians voiceless in their parliament. We can never accept laws of this type which deny the right of Canadians to be heard in their parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: The government talks of limiting debate to four, five or six days. We know that four or five hours a day are devoted to debate. There are 264 members in this house. Each one of us represents a different area of Canada, sometimes a different ethnic group. Does anyone believe we could limit debate to four, five or six speakers a day, from members representing all parties in the house, and adequately express the views of this great nation to the extent that we could form a consensus and vote on important issues?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
What do the new rules mean to me? I try to be reasonable in my approach to parliamentary activities. I agree with those who
11188	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization believe we should conduct ourselves on a businesslike basis. I have watched with uneasiness the continual infringement of the rights of the ordinary citizens of Canada by this parliament to a degree that makes me fear for the future of this country. I have seen bills passed by the government majority in this house giving rights to government appointees that are greater than those given to members of the R.C.M.P. I have seen government appointed individuals protected by statutes to the degree that if anyone challenged these officials they would be liable to fines and a penalty of up to two years in jail. Their power is such that if a Canadian citizen disagrees with a particular decision his only recourse is an appeal to a government appointed arbitrator. Canadian citizens have to appeal a government decision to an appointee of the government. What I particularly object to is the provision that the decision of the arbitrator in question is final, that there is no appeal to, or review by, any other court. In other words, Canadians are losing their right to appeal to the courts of the land.
Under the provisions of another statute, which I shall not identify, an appointed official of the government is given what I as a layman feel are rights that are greater than those given to a Supreme Court judge. Under this statute a deputy minister can issue subpoenas, require oaths to be taken, demand that witnesses give evidence, and accept testimony that would be inadmissible in any court of the land. This power goes beyond the courts and to me is an infringement on my rights as a Canadian, in the same way as this proposed rule is an infringement on my rights as a member of parliament. This is why I cannot and will not accept the approach taken by this government.
I respect the hon. members of this house. I learned long ago that wisdom does not lie within any one particular political party in this house but that all political parties have men of great knowledge and wisdom. Together they form a great parliament. I feel the time will never come when only one party will present the best legislation. Certainly, this cannot be achieved by denying contributions from one half of the members of the house who collectively have wisdom, knowledge and experience. Such a suggestion does not make sense.
As one who has enjoyed the harmony and co-operation that has been evident in the house, I am now beginning to realize what is meant when members declare that, if they are compelled by sheer weight of numbers to

DEBATES	July 14. 1969
accept this particular measure, we must work to rule. This was not a threat; it was said in desperation, after they had pleaded with the government to be reasonable in their approach. This was said after it had been pointed out that 75a and 75b are the tools that have been used to make progress thus far in this parliament. These provisions have made it possible for us to deal with hundreds of issues.
Having listened to hon. members declaring they cannot accept 75c, that they will not accept 75c; that they will find ways of circumventing it if it is adopted, all I can say is: God bless these men for being men, and thank God for Canada that they are in this house. Only in this way can this parliament survive.
We must have the right to speak in this house. It is not good enough for members on the government side to tell me that I have ample opportunity to speak in committee and to discuss bills.


Walter Cyril Deakon: We cannot.


Harold Warren Danforth: The hon. member is right; they cannot tell me this. Having sat in committees for years and seen the committee system in operation under different governments, I would say that the present committees are hamstrung to a degree unprecedented in parliamentary history. Having said that, I will also admit that there are some committees sitting today for which I have the greatest respect, because the membership of those committees have divested themselves of partisanship and are trying to work for the good of the country. We need more men with this approach.
Other committees have but one thing in mind, that is the promotion of government measures irrespective of their value or their weaknesses. This is why I cannot accept the present committee structure. Committees are told that they have the right to summon and hear witnesses, to ask for papers and documents and to travel from place to place, and this sounds good and is well meant. But I have sat in committee meetings dealing with government legislation at which the minister in charge has stated we could summon only government officials. When this happens the committee defeats itself. There are men of learning and experience other than government officials who can improve legislation put before this house. Either we are going to have a democracy or we are going to have a dictatorship. I say this country is not ready for parliamentary dictatorship.
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
This matter first came before the house last December. I thought at that time that the government showed wisdom in accepting the will of this house. But when it was inferred immediately after a decision had been made that the opposition had walked into a trap, I began to lose respect for this government. Up until that time I had thought their proposals were honourable ones. I had thought they were willing to accept the will of the house with regard to proposals presented to the House of Commons. Instead, I became very suspicious, and the measure before the house today proves that my suspicions were well founded.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I cannot, and I will not, accept the implication behind 75c. This is why, as a member of parliament representing the citizens of a riding in Ontario, I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved to delete the proposed rule 75c and to send the report back to the committee. As a member of Parliament, a man who took on the obligation to represent to the best of his ability a large number of citizens of this country, I cannot accept the fact that I shall not be allowed to speak in this house; I cannot accept a situation in which my propositions will not be endorsed by a committee; I cannot accept that the Parliament of Canada must deteriorate because a few individuals in high places so desire.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate some two hours and sixteen minutes earlier than I had expected. I was hoping the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) would continue until six o'clock. He owes me a supper for making me get up before I was ready, though I hope this will not be too obvious to the house in the time remaining before six o'clock.
I am another of those who did not take part in the debate on the rule changes last December. However, I listened to almost everything that was said during that debate, and I carefully read the rest. I was impressed by the arguments put forward from both sides of the house, though I did not agree with those advanced by speakers from the government side. I am sure all hon. members felt greatly relieved that the government was wise enough in the end to withdraw its proposed rule 16a. I thought that would be the end of the matter. In fact, I was convinced it was the end as far as a rule along the lines of 16a was concerned.
Procedure and Organization
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated at that time, as my hon. friend and desk-mate, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has reminded us, that the opposition was trapped. This caused me to believe that the government had decided against bringing in the equivalent of such a rule, certainly not in the present session and probably not during the lifetime of this parliament.
In any case, if a government felt the need for a rule of this kind it could be expected to produce overwhelming evidence to show it was completely justified. As sincerely and seriously as I can, I ask all hon. members who support the government: why do you need this change? What evidence do you have as to the need of such a rule as this? Why do you feel this rule is a proper one for a government to use? Several hon. members have pointed out that the government has failed to provide any evidence of obstruction or failure to co-operate. There has been no evidence that the opposition has deliberately or otherwise delayed the passage of legislation, or engaged in filibusters.
Speaking of filibustering, I hope that following the remarks of my hon. friend from Kootenay West, some hon. member on the government side will give us a definition of a filibustering from his point of view. I think my hon. friend did an excellent job of exposing the remark made by the Prime Minister last Friday. If, in fact, the government's definition of a filibuster is a 12-hour debate, I am all the more convinced that rule 75c has to be opposed all summer and fall if necessary. If this is their definition of a filibuster we can easily see what is in store for us should 75c be passed.
The degree of co-operation forthcoming from opposition parties in this session has been immeasurably greater than in any previous parliament in our history. There is good reason for this. There are more than 100 new members in this house and all of us, as new members, regardless of party, had been feeling parliament was too slow and that its actions were sometimes irrelevant. All of us hoped we could play a part in improving parliament in terms of the speed with which it handles business as well as in terms of the relevancy of its debates.
Since legislation so far has not been unduly delayed or obstructed, the question arises: why does the government feel it must have this rule? There is plenty of evidence to show that opposition parties have co-operated.
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization There is plenty of evidence to show that an imposing amount of legislation and other matters has been dealt with in this chamber since September. It is certainly no fault of the opposition if much of this legislation has not been of great national importance. Some of it may have been valuable in itself, but a lot of it was not legislation to deal with the major problems confronting our country. At any rate, the legislation which was brought forward was dealt with more speedily than similar legislation in previous parliaments.
In some 190 sitting days to date there have been 100 government orders on the order paper. A few have been withdrawn, but all the rest have been dealt with. There are about 18 orders remaining on the order paper now, which means that 85 or so have been dealt with. Abut 50 bills have been passed.
During the debate on the Speech from the Throne last fall, a debate which under the rules can last for eight days, the four house leaders were, I am sure, somewhat nonplussed to find that after five days they were running out of speakers. They were surprised to find that new members of Parliament were not anxious to get up and speak, on the ground that enough had been said already. As a result, the debate lasted only six days. Many of us felt this was enough. The additional two days were made available for the government. The budget debate which took place in the spring could have lasted six days under the rules. Opposition parties agreed that it should last only four days, thus providing two additional days for the government. Counting six days spent on the address, four days on the budget and 16 opposition days among the total to be subtracted from the number of sitting days available, we are left with 150 or 155 days for legislation. During this time some 50 pieces of legislation were dealt with and passed. I submit that is a very good record. How good the legislation is, is another matter. When you consider the number of items that have been dealt with, no one in this country can say this parliament has not been productive.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Proposed rules 75a and 75b have been arrived at by consensus and agreement. I suggest to the silent 66 members in the two back rows on the government side that these two rules ought to be enough to make parliament function more efficiently. But we can only find out if these rules work if we try them for a while. I urge the government, and those 
occupying the two back rows on the government side, to withdraw proposed rule 75c. Let us adopt the motion of the hon. member for Peace River and try to work under proposed rules 75a and 75b. If there is evidence that opposition parties are obstructing parliament, carrying on a filibuster or hamstringing the government I, for one, will not be nearly so vociferous in objecting to the introduction of 75c. But I am prepared to take my chances.
If the opposition obstructs parliament, it will deserve to work under rule 75c. But is it not reasonable for us to see whether we can work harmoniously under the other two proposed rules first? The government has not made out a sufficiently strong case to show that a rule like 75c is necessary. It has not brought forward evidence that might prompt the people of Canada to say, "Go ahead; with an opposition like that you need 75c." Hon. members may talk about debates in previous parliaments, but this is a new parliament. This is supposed to be a new Liberal government. Let us see how it performs. Let us not refer to past history. In this parliament there are many new members who are anxious to see parliament performing its functions more efficiently.
Ever since I was a small boy-we lived in the middle of the Saskatchewan dust bowl-I remember people talking politics and saying that there was a chronic ailment in the Liberal party. For many decades the Liberals have been convinced that they are the only ones who know how to govern and who are fit to govern. They really believe this. This belief constitutes a chronic ailment within the Liberal party and is one reason that party, despite its choice of new leaders, has continued to be called an old time party.
It has been said many times in this debate that the rules of parliament are the rules of every member of parliament and not of the government alone. No reasonable member of Parliament, particularly if he is in opposition, will acquiesce to rule changes such as are proposed. People are asking how long this debate is to continue. Employees of this house come up to me and ask that question. My answer is that it may continue until September, October or November. We may be here until then and we shall continue talking, Mr. Speaker, until this obnoxious rule is withdrawn. I notice that the government is seeking to hold a club over our heads. There is a motion on the order paper to extend sitting hours. Although I may be out of order in my remarks, may I say briefly that it does not matter whether we are to sit four hours a day
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
or fourteen. We shall all be here for quite a while. On this matter no one in opposition is bluffing, and I wish to emphasize to hon. members on the government side that we are not bluffing.
Although it is not quite six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I, since I wish to draw up some more notes for further comments, call it six o'clock at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before we call it six o'clock, may I advise hon. members of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Post Office Department, Vancouver-dissatisfaction of letter carriers with five day delivery; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Unemployment Insurance-government policy respecting modification of operation; the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner)-Water	Resources-diversion	of
waters from Hudson and James Bays.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the 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).
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I imagine the house is not interested in that at this moment. Speak to the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was afraid that by the time I was through Your Honour would have wished I had given an explanation.
At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was asking when and if a government speaker would get up to present some evidence to this house of opposition obstruction, deliberate or otherwise, to their legislation in order to present a concrete case for their need for rule 75c. None have yet done so. Previous Liberal speakers have failed to present any argument or evidence to support any contention for their need of 75c.
Earlier this evening I quoted some figures concerning the performance of this house to date. If I may, I would like to amend those figures slightly. We have sat for 188 days. We have not taken all the fixed days that are permitted under the rules. Six days in September were used for the throne speech debate instead of eight. The other two days went to the government for their use. Six days in October were spent on the budget debate, the full time. Four days this spring were spent on a budget debate, two less than the rules provided for, which meant two more days for the government.
There were 16 opposition days, Mr. Speaker, instead of the 19 to which we were entitled. We agreed we would use 1 of those 19 days as an extra day, so that we might have two days on a NATO debate. The other two days we are still entitled to and have not yet had. We agreed to hold over these two days until, the next session. I have my doubts that we will get them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make a little bet with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we will not get them. There are two more opposition days which we gave up. That is a total of six extra days for the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I voted against public lotteries!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak, for a few moments only as I should not like to hold up proceedings, on the matter now under study.
I will speak this evening in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and especially on proposed Standing Order 75a and b which
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization would reduce from 20 to 10 minutes the time allotted to each member.
I should like to quote only a few excerpts from this Standing Order to show to what extent I agree with it.
I feel that a solution cannot-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I see from the last words of the hon. member that he is drifting away slightly from the topic under study, namely the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River which reads as follows:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be referred back to the committee, with instructions to amend it by deleting therefrom proposed Standing Order 75c.
I therefore ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to this amendment.


Léonel Beaudoin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, an amendment was submitted because a bill or part of a bill must have been discussed. If a bill or part of a bill is to be studied, it must be mentioned according to the rules. As far as Standing Order 75c is concerned, I suggest-and this cannot be repeated often enough-that we must know its contents in order to discuss it sensibly.
I shall revert, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 75c, to say that I support the amendment providing for the deletion of the following words from the said Standing Order:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated-
It is intended to allot a specified number of days and hours for the consideration of each legislation.
I wish to congratulate the government for having considered, while working out that legislation, reducing from 20 to 10 minutes each member's period of time allowed for discussing any bill affected by this procedure. However, I am not at all in agreement on one point-and that is the reason why I feel that the amendment is absolutely necessary-that fact that this section of rule 75c grants so much power to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) or to a minister.
Why should hon. members be gagged by means of rule 75c? Is anyone toying with the idea of becoming a dictator some day? Whatever the government in office, if a man is entitled to decide for how long an hon. member should have the floor and discuss a bill or part of it, I believe that this is the end of democracy.

What are we going to do to democracy with such legislation? What will become of the undeniable parliamentary rights of the hon. members in the house? What will they represent if this motion is voted without any amendment?
As for us, from the opposition, do we not represent part of the Canadian population? What does the government think of the opposition, be it Creditiste, New Democratic or Progressive Conservative? Are we not as important as the gentlemen of the Liberal party? Have we not as they have, been elected by the people?
What on earth are the ministers and the cabinet members thinking about when they want us to adopt Rule 75c? Do they imagine that they alone have seen the light, do they think that they have the monopoly of truth and that the spirit is upon them?
Standing Order 75c, in my opinion, alters everything that has been done, and destroys all friendly and sincere relations established between to government and the opposition.
If the government does no longer want to co-operate with the elected representatives of the people, I believe that democracy is becoming an empty word. The President of the Privy Council, should, in my opinion, bring in an amendment to protect the basic rights of hon. members or future governments. He should do so right now or support the amendment under consideration this evening, and for the past three weeks, in order to come frankly to a cordial, charitable and equitable agreement, for the good of all hon. members and the Canadian people.
I wanted earlier to congratule the government for having reduced the time limit on speeches from 20 to 10 minutes. I shall immediately apply rules 75a and 75b and speak only for ten minutes.
I therefore conclude my speech. This way, I will not be accused of holding up the business of the house with idle speeches. Moreover, I shall be proud to have co-operated in saving time so that the house may adjourn as soon as possible as all hon. members wish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, Mr. Speaker. You could not see our speaker who was behind the curtain.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St.
Bar be): Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer my comments on the motion now before the
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
house. As a new member and a party backbencher I become more and more concerned each day I sit here with the repeated attempts by this government to camouflage democracy. As a matter of fact, there is blatant evidence of disregard for democracy. I wonder how I am supposed to believe the words of the Fathers of Confederation that the fundamental importance of parliament comes from its representative character. It can speak as no other body in a democracy can, for the people.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The House of Commons is supposed to be the great democratic agency of the government of Canada, the great inquest of the nation, the organized medium through which the public will find expession and exercise its ultimate political power. Proposed rule 75c, permitting a time limit on parliamentary debate, strikes at the very base of our democratic system, namely, that there must be full and open discussion of issues in parliament. It means, instead, an end of free speech and free debate.
Just one year ago the Liberal cry was participatory democracy and the need for public involvement and dialogue. So what kind of camouflage is this? The administrative record of the Liberal regime for the past year makes a mockery of any belief that this policy was ever intended by them to be operative. The Prime Minister has sought to downgrade parliament's role, not only in the rule changes intended to upgrade committees but in the other rule changes already implemented.
Just look at what is happening under the government's closed system of constitutional review. What does it do to confirm government's concern for public involvement? Neither the people of Canada nor their representatives have had a voice in the constitutional review process. With the introduction of rule 75c, the government has once again shown its contempt for our form of parliamentary democracy. Rule 75c is merely another indication of the arrogant elitism of the regime of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); it is nothing more than an attempt to establish once and for all the dictatorship of the establishment over the House of Commons. The present grab for power under rule 75c has the effect of emasculating parliament. Ultimately, the people of Canada will be the main victim of the rule if it is passed. The proposed rule permitting a time limit on parliamentary debate strikes at the very base of our democratic system, namely, that there must be full

Procedure and Organization and open discussion of issues in parliament. It means an end of free speech and free debate.
Four parties are represented in the house, and since they reflect differing points of view each deserves to be heard. Moreover, parliament is a national forum and spokesmen from the different regions of the country must be given the opportunity to be heard. It must be remembered that regionalism is an integrating force if accommodated to a certain extent, but if allowed to run wild it quickly becomes a potent divisive force. Rule 75c cannot help but stifle regional voices.
The critical function of parliament is to keep the executive in touch with public opinion. By giving guidance, encouragement, advice and support to the government as well as disparagement and criticism, parliament alerts the government to the opinions of the people of Canada. This presentation and interchange of views makes possible a more exact appreciation of the nature of popular response to government policies.
The companion function of parliament, and one which can scarcely be separated from the first, is to keep public opinion in touch with the problems of government. In this respect the House of Commons is much more than a mere mouthpiece repeating and advertising the views of constituents; it is also an educator and opinion-maker. Many questions are debated in the house on which voters have no certain convictions, or on which they may need further information and guidance. Discussion radiates from parliament in waves; arguments are transmitted, presented, simplified and perhaps distorted, but a common opinion develops and creates new waves which find their way back to parliament.
Rule 75c undermines the basic right of the opposition parties to debate legislation for an adequate time. "Adequate" in this connection means long enough not only to point out any mistakes or dangers in legislation but to make the country aware of them. Unless the opposition that faces an autocratically controlled majority can challenge the government in debates lasting long enough to alert the public to potentially harmful legislation, and to create an opinion throughout the country, parliament itself becomes meaningless and useless. If rule 75c is not defeated, democracy will be replaced by tyranny.
The present regime offers as justification for the acquisition of these tyrannical powers the need for efficiency in parliament. Once again we warn the government that we are not going to fall for this political soft-sell.
July 14, 1969


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Peddle:: I think that short editorial ought to be contained in the records of this house.
The second role of an open parliament is its power in helping to legitimize and make more tangible our polity; that is our central government. This power is more subtle and more hypothetical; it is difficult to speak of but is equally serious. What I term the evocative power is the responsibility of the whole house, and the stakes within the political system are primarily those of the government.
It is now generally admitted that one of the vivid dangers of the large administrative unit of the state or economy stems from an individual's sense of participation or power. Men come to see themselves as instruments or as statistics. Some accept this view, and are thereby emasculated. Others retreat to a life of private happiness, while some reply and are more likely frustrated and in this dissatisfaction alienation is born.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Many of us have asked ourselves whether we want a society whose government systems consistently alienate its people and make them unproductive and hostile. I believe many of us in this house are in politics to help avoid such a fate for the Canadian people, yet this government does not seem to want our help. If we try to revive a sense of integration and dignity for our people, one of the most difficult problems we will have to face will be the alienation of the individual from the political process.
The term "participatory democracy" is not ours. Participatory democracy is healthy. A creative relationship between the state and the citizens is absolutely essential. However, as democrats we believe this evocative and legitimate power cannot adequately or safely be allowed only to the executives. Nevertheless, if this present government feels this power needs to be shared with the legislature to assure its potency and avoid tyranny, then what in the name of heaven is the reason for 75c? For this assembly to have the strength and evoke the trust and commitment on the part of our people, it must be representative in the full sense of the word.
The House of Commons must be allowed to remain a human institution of representation. This seems too costly to this government because if parliament were like that, it could not be fully predictable. The government would not be able to tell on Monday every word that would be spoken or every action
Procedure and Organization that would take place on the following Friday. That would not do for this government. It would be completely and utterly unpredictable. The business of this house cannot be only the business of Treasury Board and frontbenchers because, to be trusted and noticed, it must represent and reconcile the passions, ideals and even the prejudices of the people. That must take place here and it is necessary.
The unity of our country will not be found in business practices or procedures. What is the danger to this and future governments if this house is forgotten and loses its evocative power? In a free society where the commitment of its members requires trust and understanding, due process and power are inter-dependent. If commitment and trust are lost, government loses a great deal of its power. For a positive government the power of its measures is not found necessarily in royal assent, but with the assent of the people governed.
Last fall the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke of the obligation of our public men to avoid the kind of civil disaster for Canada that is being experienced in some parts of the United States. Unfortunately, he has learned a few lessons from this nearby tragedy. Was not the essence of the United States crisis that her Congress was allowed to become irrelevant? Was not the Viet Nam issue forced from the councils of government to the streets of the cities of the United States? I argue that in a democratic society the imposition of rule 75c imperils the strength of government and also the strength and quality of national life.
Among us here, many of the young and all the glib, have decided that business procedure is the one and only measure of parliament. Certainly there is an anxiety to accomplish more. I think we all share this feeling. We have all proven our concern for this objective. In appealing to the positive ambitions of the government, I ask hon. members to deeply reconsider rule 75c to save this government from its arrogance so that it may begin to govern with some degree of wisdom. The government talks about streamlining, Mr. Speaker. They say parliament has to be streamlined but, as an hon. member brought out very pointedly this afternoon, this is a big thing to streamline. Canada is a very large sprawling country, Mr. Speaker, with different regions, races, geographical locations, religions and ethnic backgrounds. How far can they go toward streamlining a parliament of 264 members, bearing in mind the
11200
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization concessions that the opposition have already made? Just how far can they go?
Frankly, I cannot see why this government is so obsessed with its streamlining procedure in view of the degree of co-operation that has already obtained in this parliament from all the opposition parties. It is very interesting to note, and this does not escape many people, the times that the government chooses to try to ram such measures through. First they tried when everyone was starting to be imbued with the Christmas spirit. The bells were ringing, there were jingle bells all over the place and the government brought in its infamous rule 16a. The opposition at that time showed in no uncertain terms that they were responsible. They were not sent here to leave at a certain time, even though everyone is tied up in the custom of Christmas. We flexed our backbones and decided to stay.
At that time the government decided they would not push it through, but would try again at the next opportune moment. They decided to wait until they had the heat of the sun with them. Even though they would not have the Christmas spirit, they would have the holiday spirit as well as temperatures of 80 and 90 degrees. They decided they would push it through in the latter part of June, when house was scheduled to close. Here again, Mr. Speaker, there is too much at stake. This country has a long future ahead of it. The opposition will not capitulate when they feel so strongly about this. We know we have to put up with a little bit of discomfort. Most of us had holidays and other things planned. We had planned tours of our ridings. We have had to change those plans. We had things to do, but those things are insignificant compared to what the effect of 75c would be.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: That is the position our party has adopted. It is the official position adopted by the other two opposition parties and, so far as I can understand, it is the position we will continue to adopt until the government comes to its senses. I say that for such a measure to be introduced at such a time is an insult to the integrity at least of every member of the opposition. Do they assume that we do not take our duties any more seriously than that, for the sake of getting home with our families, we would jeopardize the future of this country and this parliament? If so, they have another think coming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Mr. Peddled


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Parliament is not something archaic which was established some years ago and not heard of since. Parliament has evolved through the years through the process of trial and error. Something has been taken away from it and something has been put in during the process. Through this evolution, we have parliament as we see it today. As I am reminded, may I say that coming from the province of Newfoundland I know about dictatorship.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Even though the numbers in the opposition in the province of Newfoundland are small, I hate to think what would happen in the province without them. This House of Commons is the parent parliament of all Canada. I hate to think of Joey Smallwood trying to copy a page from the book of this government if this rule should go through. There would be no legislature.
I realize that the press is often maligned, but I often wonder if we truly appreciate the real service the press renders to this country. If a government with a great majority were allowed to go its way in this assembly with no one watching them except the opposition, and if there were nothing going out to the people of Canada on which they could formulate an opinion in respect of what was happening, I hate to think what the result would be. The press, in its own way, tends to slow down the process of parliament. If rule 75c were to pass, then someone might get the idea of streamlining a little more. Someone might say, let us get the press out of the gallery up there. They might say, "We do not want too many questions being asked; get them out of here." That could be the next step; there would be a creeping paralysis. Those are the things which worry me and which I think should worry any responsible member of this parliament.
The last member who spoke on behalf of the New Democratic party mentioned the type of government measures which had been introduced in this parliament. Almost the highlight of this parliament was a measure to make homosexuality and abortion legal. Someone said the government was suffering from a hangover. Maybe this is the problem. I think before the summer is over we might supply the cure. The Prime Minister, the hon. gentleman who is retreating and backshrug-ging every day, vanishes following the question period. I have not seen him since the debate started. The other day he said he had no intention of listening to a foolish filibuster.
July 14, 1969

When did he listen to a filibuster in this parliament? Unless he has it piped up to his office, he certainly does not listen to a filibuster in this assembly. Now he has gone, as someone said, to mend fences. Maybe he cannot even do that.
Let the government bring in some responsible legislation, as a previous speaker said, and see how much obstruction will be forthcoming from the opposition parties. Let the government bring in a meaningful bill to help lessen the housing crisis in this country and at the same time take off the 11 per cent tax. Then, government members will see how much opposition there is from this side of the house. Never mind bills which contain a few things the government wants to get through or the sugar coating of a lot of decent measures, after which members are informed they must accept the whole package. This reminds me of when we were kids and had to take our cod liver oil with orange juice in order to take away the taste. Many things are bundled into a bill the size of the Ottawa telephone directory, and then we are placed in the position of voting against some sensible measures because they are contained in one bill.
A lot of sloganizing was carried on during the last election campaign in respect of participatory democracy and a just society.


An hon. Member:: Just for the Grits.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Obviously just for their own party. The majority of the people of Canada are represented on this side of the house. What about the people of Canada whose representatives to a man are willing to sit here all summer, if necessary, in an effort to talk sense into the government in respect of this insidious rule 75c! This is a question I would like to hear answered. Where is the example of participatory democracy? The only way in which the people of Canada have been able to participate in democracy has been by sending 264 members to this parliament. This is the way they participate. They do not participate by buying a ticket for a $50 a plate political dinner. That is participation for those who have 50 bucks. The only way in which the people of Canada can participate in our democracy is by sending their duly elected representatives to this parliament and, as I say, the representatives of the majority of the people sit on this side of the house and object very very strenuously to the adoption of rule 75c.
When there is a government with a big majority, I suppose it is natural to expect
Procedure and Organization that sometimes it will get carried away by the sweet taste of power. More craves more. Once in a while, however, such a government should be reminded that the opposition has a role to play. Our system has evolved over the century by taking away a little and adding a little. In this way we have come to our present system of parliament. Now, the members on the government side of the house want to take the hatchet to this system and chop away almost every right the opposition has. They would place us in the position of being ineffective vegetables which stand up once in a while when called upon, then sit down and shut up. This is not the type of role I envisaged when I sought a seat in this parliament, and it is not the type of role actually that I will tolerate in this parliament notwithstanding 75c. As some member mentioned, if the government insists on voting this thing through, we will find some way to circumvent it and don't you forget it.
We know that the opposition has a role to play. A few days ago an hon. member of the N.D.P. called the attention of the house to the fact that there was not a quorum. Let me call to your attention the magnificent attendance of hon. members since that time. The opposi-ion is doing its part to revitalize parliament.
My time is just about up, but since we are playing by the rules I will probably use the whole of it. I say today that this government, as mentioned by another hon. member, is suffering from a hangover. Does anyone take seriously the statement made a few days ago by the Prime Minister that 80 per cent of the questions asked by the opposition are hypocritical? This means that 80 per cent of the members of opposition parties are hypocrites who engage in stupid, foolish and hypocritical filibusters. The Prime Minister could not stand it, so he went west.


An hon. Member:: He will get his there.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I expect he might face a filibuster out west. We are discussing 75c and I cannot emphasize too much the statement made by my friend in the N.D.P., which I repeat. Let the government withdraw this rule. Perhaps they may not like to do so, but they might look more like statesmen than at any time since the opening of this session. Let them withdraw this rule and bring in some sensible, sound and acceptable legislation. I would almost take the chance of speaking for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield),, and that is taking quite a chance, by saying; there will be no real opposition from this side of the house.
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that after one year of a new parliament the government is permitting this session to end on such a sour note. It could have co-operation in the house right to the end, just as it has had co-operation from the time we gathered here after the election last year. As a matter of fact, it has been one of the most productive sessions ever enjoyed by a Canadian parliament. I have consulted with our law officer, Dr. Ollivier, who tells me that his biggest problem now is whether they are going to print the statutes we have passed during this session in one or two volumes, so great has been our productivity.
Why are we now meeting a demand from the government for a rule such as 75c? Later on if I have time and the opportunity to use my full time-I will use that time and come back on another occasion as long as we are here-I will outline the co-operation we have given.
This whole matter has been scouted before, and it is obvious to everyone here, as I think it is becoming obvious to all Canadians, that nothing has been left undone that we should be doing before we recess for the summer. There is legislation on the order paper, some of which was introduced in order that the public might get a look at it, and some of which has been left on the order paper for reasons only known to the government.
Great occasions bring forth great speeches. Of all those I have listened to during this debate, and when the topic involves an issue that is fundamental one can expect that good speeches will be made, I think the accolade should be given to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That hon. member has been in this house since 1940, with a short hiatus. In other words, he is marking a quarter century of service to his country in this institution. It ill behooves this parliament that a person who did not even have the grace to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other members who have taken part in this debate, should label the message of that hon. member as sheer hypocrisy. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done.
The Prime Minister has not stayed to listen to the debate up to this time, and of course he will not be here to listen to us this week. Perhaps he will have to listen next week or the week after, as long as something such as 75c is before us. Let us look on the year we have gone through. We have had more committees and more committee meetings than ever before. More legislation has been pro-

duced than ever before. Members have been working to the extent that they have had almost no spare time, particularly those who served on two or three committees. We realize the amount we have done, but we must know that the committees cannot work efficiently unless members of the opposition work as hard as members of the government. The record has been a good one for both the opposition and the government. We hammered away at the proposed legislation and we got through it. Some of the committees were not all they should have been and others were absolutely superb. They turned in a job of which we should be proud.
Now, in the final moments of the session, why should whatever carrots were held out before us to lure us on be withdrawn and a whip applied instead. What kind of reasoning is that, and what kind of people are directing the affairs of a once great political party who could believe this is a proper tactic to use in the House of Commons? What kind of people are these who could graciously withdraw rule 16 a, which we were considering before Christmas, and then bring it back as a Frankenstein monster dressed up with a little bit of make-up in order that it will look different, right at the tail end of a session? I suppose they thought we were all tired at this point and after a perfunctory shaking of the fist at this rule we would go our way to visit our constituencies. We will not do that until 75c is slain and is as dead as 16a. It must be slain in the same way.
The latest issue of the New Yorker contains an imaginative article about our Prime Minister. I should like to quote something he is reputed to have told a young reporter, Miss Edith Iglauer. The article quotes the Prime Minister as having said:
I've always dreamt of a society where each person should be able to fulfill himself to the extent of his capabilities as a human being, a society where inhibitions to equality would be eradicated. This means providing individual freedoms-
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Individual freedoms to whom? This is the thought that puzzled me when I read this sugar-coated confection in the New Yorker magazine. This article is not critical at all. It is not even a good, basic piece of reporting, because it does not attempt to examine all of the rather interesting facets of our Prime Minister. I can only conclude that Miss Edith Iglauer is one of that stable of neurotic young women who are rapidly becoming the reporting staff of the New Yorker magazine. During this interview she was having either dinner
July 14. 1969

or lunch with the great man, and while they gazed at the spire of a church on the Quebec side of the river he plied her with a very pleasant, dry, light wine. I suspect that the young lady went back to New York still with her mind floating around cloud nine.
There comes a time when traditional liberalism, or the philosophy of that great political party, should be set forth for the benefit of those who up to now have perhaps forgotten the great heritage they enjoyed in the past. I think logically one starts with John Stuart Mill. In this article in the New Yorker the Prime Minister is quoted as saying he does not read very much of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill was a man who worked for the India Company for a long time. He had a great deal of practical experience. He was one of the most gifted minds of the 19th century. He served as a Liberal member in the English parliament for one term. I suppose that explains why the Prime Minister does not read him. If he does not listen to present Liberal members of parliament, there is no reason why he should read the words of a former Liberal member of parliament who is now dead.
The Prime Minister's reading, as he told the young woman reporter of the New Yorker, is of writers like Dostoevski, whom he enjoys. I suppose those Liberals who wondered why they were called idiots might find consolation in reading that great Russian's works. He enjoys reading Stendahl and Tolstoy. Stendahl's work "The Red and the Black" tells the story of a young man on the make. I suppose it offered useful instruction to a middle-aged, single Prime Minister. But in so far as John Stuart Mill is concerned, the Prime Minister has not read much of his work. I suppose the fact that Mill had served at Westminster, and with the Liberal party, made him suspect.
But one of the great works, one that probably should be on every parliamentarian's desk-and I suppose none of us have it there; we all have to run to the library if we want to read it-is J. S. Mill "On Liberty, Etc." I shall read excerpts from that work because it is important to give a refresher course, even if it is to be only 40 minutes, to my hon. friends on the Liberal side. J. S. Mill, dealing with the principles of the liberty of thought and discussion, has some very interesting observations. I quote from chapter II of his work on the liberty of thought and discussion:
In speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended, that the government,
Procedure and Organization whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst.
In other words, interrupting the flow of that great English writer's thoughts, the argument that the power would never be abused amounts to nothing. It does not go to the heart of the problem with which we are dealing, because it may be abused at some time. It could be abused not at all. It could be abused 100 per cent. But it is not germane to the argument. Continuing with Mr. Mill:
It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it.
Later in this speech, the next or the next, I am going to make the point that the Prime Minister has gone around following a consistent policy of denigrating the institution of which he is supposed to be the greatest champion and upholder. I give him that great line of William Lyon Mackenzie King and say "in spades" on that one, because to me this is the most horrible characteristic the Prime Minister shows, namely, to shrug and pretend he is the great white champion between the people and the House of Commons. But I must not get too enthusiastic about the speech after the next one, and shall continue with the quick refresher course to be obtained from Mr. John Stuart Mill's work:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
Can we not think of examples in this parliament, and more particularly in the last one, where we had more loose fish-I think that was an expression used by Sir John A.
11204	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization Macdonald and my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the great expert in this house on Sir John A., agrees with me-flying around? One of them is now off promoting separatism in the province of Quebec. I do not suppose many of us thought highly of his opinions. Probably few of us found very much sense in those opinions. But certainly the Speaker of the last parliament, and the members of that parliament, gave Mr. Gre-goire every right to express his opinions. In that respect he enjoyed a greater advantage than those who stayed within the recognized political parties in this house. Continuing with this brilliant chapter by Mr. Mill on the liberty of thought and discussion, he makes these points:
All silencing of discussion Is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.
That is a key point to remember when dealing with the Prime Minister, the government house leader and the people promoting this iniquitous doctrine. They and they alone are the great repositories of truth. The rest of us in this chamber just go along for the philosophic ride.
I should like to put some more quotations from John Stuart Mill on the record which may awaken memories of times before these Liberals came to Ottawa to become part of some great sausage making complex:
But I must be permitted to observe, that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility.
It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less, if put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions.
This whole volume is well worth reading and I commend it to my Liberal friends, because sooner or later as this debate goes on they will have to examine their consciences. Our freedoms will in large measure be determined by the stand they take in caucus. We do not expect miracles of them or that they will bolt the party line, but perhaps they will force an early caucus tomorrow and ask themselves whether they are Liberals at heart, whether their ancestor Liberals always fought for freedom of discussion rather than the choking and gagging of the opinions of others. Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, they will say, did have a point to make when he read what John Stuart Mill had to say on liberty of thought and discussion.

DEBATES	July 14, 1969
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Let me put on record some more thoughts for them to take to their caucus. John Stuart Mill continues:
We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested,-
Is that not what debate is all about, the vigorous and earnest contestation of ideas?
-it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension of feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Those are the words of a great Englishman. But even though he was a Liberal member of parliament the Prime Minister does not heed his doctrine.
Where have abuses crept into parliament during the 12 years I have been here? The latest alleged abuse arises from the debate on the Criminal Code amendments, when our friends to the far left put up a battle over the modernization of the law dealing with abortion. I did not share their opinions. Neither did I share the government's formula. But I will certainly defend their right to get what they had to say of! their chests. Perhaps the argument was repetitious and overly long, but at least their constituents can now say that the measure that passed is the law, and that it was well and truly considered in parliament. The issue was fought until it could be fought no more. Every argument that could be adduced was put forward in this chamber.
Then, there was the flag debate. I was not here at that time but I would have joined my colleagues and doubtless spoken at some length. The house was then dealing with an
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization
issue which to many Canadians struck at the very heart of Canadianism, at their cherished belief in a flag that has now gone. They felt that their representatives were in parliament to express their views and to fight the matter as hard as it could be fought. I am sure that those who wanted a new flag felt the same way. After a lengthy battle, the issue was resolved and the new flag was unfurled. No one can say that the issue was not properly or fully debated and fought to a conclusion.
Another of the alleged abuses that has been spoken of occurred during the era of the four horsemen of the "eclipse"-Mr. Pearson, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Chevrier and Mr. Martin. One suffered a certain weariness and dreariness while listening to them as they made their points. I felt some of the sting of many of these points, and in one election campaign they made their points well. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of this chamber say that the lengthy debate in which those people engaged were in the cause of liberalism, though this is not to be permitted when members of other parties do the same thing for some party cause.
The only abuse I can think of at that time, apart from the great waste of parliamentary time, was when Mr. Pickersgill deliberately talked out a motion to appoint several new judges to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia which would have allowed that court to modernize itself by creating both an appeal division and a trial division. This step had to wait for some months because of the deliberate action Mr. Pickersgill took. He took this action not for any great or noble cause; he took it for sheer political reasons. He did not like to think that any Conservative would be appointed to the Nova Scotia bench. I do not know how he gets along now with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), because he has now redressed the inequitable stand that was taken by Mr. Pickersgill.
I should like to go back to an abuse by the Liberal government of the day, one that could be perpetuated time and again if Standing Order 75c where adopted. I refer to the pipeline debate. This debate reflected the quintessence of some gentlemen's ideas about how parliament should be run, how it could be turned into a superb sausage making machine. When closure was imposed the clauses of the bill under debate were rammed through one after the other. The only legislation I might be particularly concerned about, in so far as 75c is concerned, would be the amendment to the Indian Act. I would not
permit any government, so long as I can stand up here and speak, to have those powers which 75c would confer on it. If the Indians went on the war path and right thinking Canadians joined them on the war path, parliament would have to act. I would not like to think what would happen if, through invoking rule 75c, the amendments to the Indian Act were to be disposed of in 11 days or so. After all our Indians have the right to expect the white man to keep his word, and the time permitted under 75c would not be sufficient for us to arouse public opinion. That is the basic issue before us.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We do not trust the Prime Minister; let us be frank, Mr. Speaker. We have no reason to trust him. We trust some members of his cabinet, but we do not trust the Prime Minister. We must resist 75c if we are to maintain a modicum of respect for ourselves and if we are to maintain parliament as a viable institution for those members who will follow us.
I wish to correct an unjust impression that may have been left about the government house leader. He had his knuckles wrapped by various people on this side of the house last week with respect to statutory instruments, as will be seen at page 11035 of Hansard. There was a failure of consultation. We had agreed to allow the measure to go through and if there was lack of consultation, it was through my fault. I did not get around to seeing everyone I ought to have seen. I wish to put my apology on record since at present, when we are all tense and when we all tend to quarrel with each other, it is a good idea to vindicate the house leader. I therefore wish to make that correction, Mr. Speaker.
Having dealt with Liberal spokesmen of the nineteenth century, may I now deal with Liberals of the twentieth century. Let us turn to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the great Liberals of this country, surely.


John Napier Turner: That's good reading, Bob.


Thomas Miller Bell: Something has gone wrong in the present century.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am reading from a book entitled, "Political Pamphlets, 1912-15". On the cover is the word "Liberal". I am sure hon. members opposite will think my reading is to good purpose.
July 14, 1969

Procedure and Organization


John Napier Turner: That is a great improvement in the hon. member's reading habits.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It will have been an
improvement if hon. members opposite heed the words of Sir Wilfrid. I quote:
Sir, these rules are to be swept away, they are to be ridden over rough shod; they are to be put aside, and we are to have the gag substituted tor them. And what is the pretence? The pretence is that there has been obstruction in the House. Sir, it obstruction be a fault, if obstruction be an offence, I call upon the man on that side of the House who is without guilt to cast the first stone.
I read in some Conservative newspapers that obstruction was the murderer of parliamentary government. I do not here now challenge the statement; but if obstruction be the murderer of parliamentary government, the murderers are on that side of the House, and not on this. My right hon. friend has experience, and he will experience still more, that as you sow, so shall you reap; and Sir, it does not lie in his mouth or in the mouth of his followers to say that there has been obstruction in this House by the parliamentary minority.
May I also read from a book with the notation on the cover, "Political Pamphlets, Liberal, 1919-35". This book no doubt has been maintained in the library at the taxpayers' expense. I do not know how it was compiled but it is heady reading, as I am sure the Minister of Justice will agree.


John Napier Turner: Absolutely.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It may not be amiss to reecho the starry cries of the 1919 Liberal convention. I quote from this book as follows: Liberalism is essentially progressive and open minded. It has a history and traditions of which it has reason to be proud. But that does not mean that it is to rest upon tradition and to become stationary. It is not a dead thing, but a living, growing organism. It thrives in an atmosphere of freedom, and especially of liberty of thought and of speech.


An hon. Member:: They don't want free speech now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I now quote the words of another great spokesman for Liberalism. These were spoken on the night of October 14, 1935, a night the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) will long remember. That was the night he was first elected to this chamber. Mr. Mackenzie King had this to say:
The individuals and the nations which discard Liberalism, pay by losing their liberty. When liberty goes, little else remains. Today the task of Liberalism is two-fold: it is to maintain what we have already gained of freedom in many spheres, and to gain for our fellowmen more in the way of economic freedom. That battle will not be won 

by individuals putting their own present and material interests before all else, or by Canada putting her present material interests before all else. In the realm of individual freedom, it will be won by each seeking to gain a larger liberty for others as well as for himself. In the international sphere it will be won by international co-operation and international good-will.
Although I have a few words more, Mr. Speaker, I must end on that note.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question was prompted by sit-downs in the Vancouver and Burnaby areas on the part of letter carriers obviously dissatisfied with the single mail processing which was consequent upon the imposition of the five day mail delivery. The reaction of the letter carriers of the western metropolis was typical of that which has been revealed throughout the country. Of all the failures which the minister has chalked up in his year of office that in the field of labour relations is certainly the most gregarious. His threats of prosecutions, his failure to consult adequately before making sweeping changes in employees' work routine, the story of the locked washrooms-all of these are now well known. They have been dramatized by the type of actions which were taken in Vancouver and Burnaby and by other indications of dissatisfaction in other offices. Happily these, while significant, were not sustained and in general the postal workers are to be congratulated for their restraint in the face of what chief adjudicator Martin has described as arrogance and highhandedness on the part of the employer.
It is regrettable that for reasons which still appear mysterious, the report of Mr. Martin was not revealed to the public until July 4, nine and a half weeks after the date of his' decision. The suggestion that while the chief adjudicator signed the decision on April 30 he worked on it after that date is an intriguing one, especially since the two other reports dated May 15 and 16 bear his signature as adjudicator. The unusual delay in the production of such an important document is all the more disconcerting in the light of the Postmaster General's (Mr. Kierans) revelation that
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
he had been pressing almost weekly since May 1 to have the reports. Far more serious than the failure of his detection efforts was the fact that for many weeks this vital question of employer-employee relations in this trouble-rent department could not be discussed in this house since the subject matter was before the chief adjudicator and therefore sub judice, as hon. members know.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
What happened in Vancouver, and elsewhere, is the visible symptom of a condition which was so scathingly detailed by Mr. Martin in his report of April 30. I have in my political and student career perused many documents commenting on the administrative performance of ministerial and governmental bodies, but never have I seen a verdict so decisively rendered. The indictment of the Post Office is searing and scathing as but a few excerpts will indicate.
It is quite clear that. . . management's conduct has resulted in creating unrest, the undermining of morale, and the development of hostility between the parties.
An assessment of employer attitudes ... shows that the employer position is characterized by arrogance and high-handedness.
Lest anyone be tempted to suggest that the adjudicator made an even division of his criticism, it should be noted that he stated:
The employer by its unilaterial conduct, must assume the primary blame for the failure of the consultative process-
But what I am interested in now, as I presume are the letter carriers of Vancouver and elsewhere, is the response to the stinging criticism in the adjudicator's findings. I trust the minister this time will break his usual custom and admit that just possibly something might be wrong in his department. He may be no genius at labour relations, nor any speed artist in getting the mail through, but in the field of rationalization the Postmaster General is in a class by himself. Failure? He salutes them all! Black is white! I can imagine him hailing the retreat from Moscow as a trimphal re-entry into western Europe or recommending the Captain of the Titanic for a gold-headed cane for his speed and accuracy on target.
But here is a subject too important for even skilful rationalization. Nor is anything really to be gained by blaming the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) or others who preceded the present minister in the Postmaster General's chair. Sir William Mulock can hardly be blamed for the kind of condi-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tions which brought on the Vancouver sit-down or the adjudicator's report.
I would like to know what has been done since Chief Adjudicator Martin found the department so lacking in this aspect of employer-employee relations. What changes have been made? What new personnel have been put to work? Have any transfers been made? Have any new policies been adopted? Has there been any last minute willingness to desist from the stubborn insistence on the five day delivery and the straight-through system where the whole trouble began? Without tangible evidence of a change from the deplorable situation now chronicled for us by an expert and respected adjudicator, there is cause for grave anxiety in reference to this vital part of the public service.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Merry Monk from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) rides again! The hon. member for Hillsborough has reverted to his June 9 question dealing with wildcat strikes in Vancouver to continue his scolding of, and nagging harangues against, the Post Office. Since there have been no strikes in Vancouver or anywhere since that time, one would normally conclude that both management and their union colleagues were working out solutions, but not the hon. member for Hillsborough. He prefers to continue to berate the Post Office with a repetitious rehashing of any incident, even weeks and months old, in order to downgrade the service that is provided by the 48,000 loyal and dedicated employees of the Post Office.
He has the ear, and he knows it, of those publishers in this country who want the Post Office and the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize their operations and their customers secretly, under the guise of what they call freedom of the press. If the press of this country want subsidies, and will repeat incessantly the statement of the hon. member for Hillsborough, let that hon. member present their demands to this house.
This government is determined that the 48,000 postal employees shall have security of employment and the better working conditions, facilities and training to which they are entitled. They know this. Both unions know this. This government is spending 40 times the puny amount of $15,000 that the last Tory government spent on management training for 41,000 people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Kierans: That is how we will modernize and improve our service, not by the mean and undocumented attacks of members such as the hon. member for Hillsborough. He cites incidents and refuses to discuss the general situation. He knows full well that 99 per cent of the people in this country for 99 per cent of the time receive their mail within 24 hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
us have another round.


An hon. Member:: Are there any more fairy tales?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING MODIFICATION OF OPERATION

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that neither I nor the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour are likely to exceed the performance we have just witnessed.
I should like to direct the attention of the house to a question I asked on June 26. I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) whether he had any statement on government policy or intended modification of the administration of unemployment insurance which he might be able to give to the house. I think perhaps I put the point of my question a little more directly earlier in the session when I asked him if he had in mind doing anything about what I called the dehumanizing of the administration of unemployment insurance.
The point of the question I raised arises out of a situation which goes back to early 1967 when a policy was adopted which involved the closing out of many of the local unemployment insurance offices, two of these were in my constituency. Incidentally, the adoption of this policy involved a decision not to proceed with the establishment of a third one which had been regarded as being necessary in the community of Campbell River. In connection with the question I asked the minister on June 26, I sent across to him a copy of a petition containing some 40 pages of signatures of the residents of the community of Campbell River. It was worded in this fashion:
We the undersigned, vigorously protest the complete lack of facilities at Campbell River to handle applications for Unemployment Insurance Benefits.
We request that the Federal Government immediately open and maintain office facilities at Campbell River to serve the public in this area.
I might point out that this petition actually has two variations. The formulation I have

July 14, 1969
just read I think presents the thinking of the people in a more positive way, but the original version under which some of the signatures were obtained states:
We, the undersigned, wish to discontinue payment and endorsement to any and/or all public services who are no longer of public service, namely, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 66 Front Street, Nanaimo, B.C.
In other words, the people who initiated this petition were so exasperated they wanted to take the matter in their own hands and cease making payments of premiums to the Unemployment Insurance fund. I believe usually, in circumstances of this kind, we know that a certain number of people will readily attach their signatures to petitions without giving too much thought to them. Nevertheless, when there is smoke to this extent there must be fire lying somewhere underneath.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I should say I have a file on this subject which goes back to early 1967. Let me quote briefly from a letter which I received from the secretary of one of the larger unions in my area. It is dated February 13, 1967 and in part it reads:
The present system of a central office in Nanaimo covering all of Northern Vancouver Island is not working out at all. People have to wait for over a month for their claims to be processed and in talking to the manager in Nanaimo, he informed me they are snowed under with claims and away behind in processing same.
There is not too much wrong with the mailing system-
I should point out that this letter was written long before the present incumbent in the office of Postmaster General suggested that we mail our Christmas cards now for next Christmas. Let me quote again from the letter as follows:
There is not too much wrong with the mailing system, but there are many people who do not understand the forms and since they have no office in the immediate area to go to for assistance it is making it very awkward for these people-
There is a suggestion here that an unemployment insurance officer be situated in the municipality in the manpower office and should assist people in processing their claims. Following that, there was quite a long series of correspondence with the then Minister of Labour, the hon. Mr. Nicholson, and with the director of unemployment insurance. There was a great exchange back and forth of letters from the union officers and the administration. An attempt was made to clarify the situation, and admissions were also made that there were delays but that the commission

July 14, 1969	COMMONS
was taking steps to iron out the bugs which had developed initially in this operation.
I attempted not to be dogmatic about it. I think all of us are willing to have our public services administered with the least possible overhead cost, but I did express, during some discussion I had with the then Minister of Labour, very serious doubts that this system could actually function properly, certainly in the area with which I am familiar. I must say, for reasons I will not go into here, that I had a rather extended opportunity of travelling around the area of Vancouver Island earlier this year and last fall. At times I was not very far from the office of the unemployment insurance commission in the city of Nanaimo, but I had preoccupations which prevented me from going in and discussing this matter with the local management.
I must say that if there was one single subject about which I received a continuing refrain of complaints, more than any other, it was about the undue delay and awkwardness of the present system of trying to administer unemployment insurance by mail from a central office as far away from the places of residence and work of the people as is this office in Nanaimo. It may be ideal for some of the constituents of my friend the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), but there is no single office of the unemployment insurance commission in my constituency, which embraces roughly the northern three quarters of Vancouver Island.
I am not necessarily suggesting that we should go back completely to the old system of local office operation, but I am suggesting that there should be competent people to whom those desiring to make claims could go in convenient localities, and certainly in communities with a population of 20,000 or more, such as Port Alberni, or 10,000 or 12,000 such as Campbell River.
Hopefully the people are not going to have to apply for unemployment insurance all that often. I have received a continuous barrage of complaints about people being denied the benefits resulting from the premiums they have paid because the processing of them in some cases was delayed so long they were back to work before they received the benefits.


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


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to the question asked concerning the intention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to make a statement prior to the recess on government policy in respect of modification to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the minister does not intend to make such a statement.
The second part of the same question refers to a document received from the residents of Campbell River. This document has now been received in the office of the Minister of Labour. Apparently it is a petition from some local residents to have an office of the unemployment insurance commission opened in Campbell River. Actually the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been aware for some time that such a petition would be forthcoming. Special statistics have been maintained for some months which show the use that would be made of such an office if it were located in Campbell River.
The figures show that, based on the standards in use by the commission on a Canadawide basis, there is no justification for a permanent office when one considers the use that would be made of such a permanent office in Campbell River. In the past six weeks there have been less than 150 claims from persons living in Campbell River. This is far short of the s'.andard of about 12,000 claims per year that is used as the commission's criteria for establishing an office. It is, therefore, obvious that the volume of potential work from Campbell River does not warrant a full-time office.
I would like, however, to make it very clear that on the basis of a review of current claims residents of Campbell River do receive adequate service from the commission through the use of postal services. The forms they must complete in order to claim unemployment insurance benefit have been so simplified that anyone with minimum education can complete them without difficulty. The actual process of claiming benefit can then be carried out quickly and efficiently by mail with the Nanaimo office which is only a few miles away.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: A few miles?


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Despite what I have said, and even though the commission believes it is providing an efficient service to the persons living in Campbell River, it is prepared to further review the situation in the area. The work associated with the unemployment insurance in this locality is somewhat seasonal; at certain times of the year, due to weather
11210	COMMONS DEBATES	July 14, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion conditions a number of persons become unemployed at the same time and claim unemployment insurance. When these lay-off situations occur, it might be possible for the commission to temporarily station staff in Campbell River so that claim processing could be shortened a little. The possibility of operating in this manner will be examined.
In addition, the commission will continue to maintain statistics on the number of applicants for unemployment insurance benefit living in Campbell River, in order to keep the situation under continuous review. The commission will reconsider its decision if it should ever develop that the workload in the area warrants maintenance of a full-time office.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that persons living in Campbell River are receiving good and fast service from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as is the case everywhere in Canada. However, the commission will re-examine its operations in the area to determine whether it would be possible to expedite the system somewhat at periods of peak claim activity by providing some kind of temporary special service at such times.



WATER RESOURCES-DIVERSION OF WATERS FROM HUDSON AND JAMES BAYS

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, last week in the house I raised a question which my people in Thunder Bay view as being of the utmost importance and urgency. I contend also that it is of considerable significance to the whole nation. I asked the minister who is responsible for energy and water resources, the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, whether the federal government in co-operation with the province of Ontario is planning a proposed massive diversion of fresh water from the Hudson and James Bay watershed southward into Lake Superior. My immediate concern, of course, is for the people of the region and the changes which would be brought about in their environment as a result of a massive water diversion program.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The consequences of such a scheme have national ramifications as well, and it is time for the matter to be openly and thoroughly discussed before we make a commitment to seU our birthright. The effects of such a diversion program would certainly be drastic, in that thousands and thousands of acres would be flooded in the creation of vast water storage basins. Timber resources, trap lines, wildlife, fish and game would all be affected.
[Mr. McNulty.1
The balance of nature would certainly be upset. The Indian people who live on the reserves and settlements in the area, as well as the tourist camp operators, want to know what is likely to happen to their homes and establishments if and when such a plan is implemented.
There is in existence a report entitled "A Proposed Water Diversion Program Out of Northwestern Ontario into Lake Superior" dated June 25, 1964. Since this report was written, there have been six consecutive progress reports, the last of which is dated November, 1968. This last report contains sweeping plans and recommendations in detail for the diversion of the Winisk and other northern rivers.
All these reports have been submitted in restricted quantity to a federal-provincial coordinating committee on northern Ontario water resources studies and to a few officials of both the federal and Ontario governments. The entire study has been conducted under a veil of tight security and almost complete secrecy. I am asking the minister to table these reports in the house, so that we may know the goals and progress of this study.
The report states that the total cost of such a diversion program would be about $2.1 billion. It stresses the need for replenishing the water supply of the Great Lakes basin, and predicts the basin will have a population of 200 million within 100 years. We know many United States cities in the Great Lakes region are anxious and concerned about future sources of fresh water for domestic and industrial consumption.
What will this policy mean for our national sovereignty, Mr. Speaker? Once our northern rivers are diverted southward, we will become even more securely tied to the United States economy. The exporting of such a resource can never be curtailed once the flow begins. We in northwestern Ontario want to know: Is our government going to proceed with plans and proposals for the exporting of our fresh water to the United States?
An official of the Ontario Water Resources Commission said last Thursday that the federal and Ontario governments are conducting a study which could lead to diversion of some northern Ontario rivers and the sale of fresh water to the United States. If such is the policy of the government, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I wish to be told about it. After all, fresh water has now become our most treasured natural resource. We in Thunder Bay once thought that gold, iron ore and
July 14, 1969	COMMONS
pulp were our major resources, but now we see that our fresh water is even more valuable. Our thousands of unpolluted lakes, streams and rivers are viewed with envy by many, particularly our neighbour to the south.
I am asking the government to lift the veil of secrecy which surrounds this study. Let the people of Canada in on those plans and proposals which will affect them so significantly. We in northwestern Ontario have plans and proposals for our economic development which may be restricted or helped by a water diversion program. I ask the government to consult with us. I ask them to practise participatory democracy, to take us into their confidence. Let them cast some light on the subject and thereby remove so much of the uncertainty, anxiety and apprehension that we feel when we contemplate the overwhelming alterations that are going to be made to our landscape.
Continually, my constituents are wanting to know what all this activity in northern Ontario is directed to and what is involved in all these hydrographic studies. We are asking the government to assure us that our national sovereignty is not in jeopardy. Show us that conservation and concern for nature is part of this over-all proposal.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) first raised the question of the diversion for export of water from northern Ontario in a way which revealed that those in his part of the country are deeply concerned about the issue of water. Water, of course, is a most important resource and it is our experience in this country that our people are very concerned
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion about this resource, about plans and discussions pertaining to its use, and how they will be affected by that use, particularly when water is to be diverted for export. I think the hon. member for Thunder Bay has done a great service to his constituents by raising this matter in order that this issue and the nature of the study now under way can be discussed, and in order that the fears of his constituents may be put aside.
The studies under way, of course, are exercises in analyzing the nature of the resources in question and what can conceivably be done with them. It is a most difficult problem to consider and it is most difficult for the government to study all the factors tied to the use of water and all questions arising from the effects of water diversion.
The hon. member mentioned problems relating to timber, wildlife and general ecological circumstances that would prevail in the area in the event of a diversion. I wish to assure him, and the people of the watershed being studied, that before any question of diversion or export arises the fullest kind of consultation with the people of the area and the people of this country generally will take place. The full effects and impacts of any decisions will be thoroughly examined. I assure the hon. member and the people of his area that these are merely technical studies into questions of costs and possibilities, and that they in no way indicate that any decision has been taken by government; nor do they indicate what will be or should be done. Before any decision can be taken all aspects of the matter so eloquently referred to must undergo a great deal of further examination.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, July 15, 1969