1969-07-17

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making a motion under the authority of Standing Order 42(1). Your Honour has in recent days had to deal with a number of motions tendered under Standing Order 43. This one is under Standing Order 42(1), which reads in part as follows:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
My motion will have to do with the time of the adjournment of the house this day. May I point out that citation 51 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to be found on page 40, reads as follows:
No notice is required for a motion relating to "the times of meeting or adjournment of the house."
There appears in parenthesis "S.O. 45", which referred to Standing Order 45. That was its number when this book was published but it is now Standing Order 42(1). I continue with citation 51:
The word "times" is translated by "heures" in the French version of S.O. 41. It seems therefore that if a motion does not relate to the hour but to the day on which the house is to sit, a notice must be given. See decision given by Speaker Rhodes on May 21st, 1920.
There are a few more words in that citation, and the concluding sentence is:
The reason why no notice is required is that Standing Order 41 which provides for notices to be given says that the rule shall not apply "to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house".
I would also draw Your Honour's attention to a ruling made in the course of a debate
which took place in the house on Thursday, December 20, 1951. It just so happens that the motion made that day was in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Its
procedural validity was contested by certain members of the house who were not very friendly to us on that occasion. Times have changed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the Conservatives objected to the validity of the amendment I moved that day, a point of order was raised and Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a ruling which appears at pages 2257 and 2258 of Hansard for December 20, 1951. My motion on that occasion-it was perhaps a bit novel-proposed that the hours of sitting for that day be altered, specifically that we not rise for the luncheon or dinner breaks and that we sit, if necessary, after the evening time of adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am not moving that one today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the matter came to a head procedurally, Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a very clear ruling. He went back to Mr. Speaker Rhodes and read the Standing Order in both languages, and so on. He made it clear that if my motion had had to do with days of sitting it would have required notice, but since it dealt only with the hours of sitting on that day, and that day only, it was in order. Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald so ruled at the top of page 2258 of Hansard for December 20, 1951.
I have carried out further research on this matter and I find there have been other such occasions and it has always been held that if an effort is being made to determine the days the house might sit, 48 hours notice must be given, or it requires unanimous consent; but a motion dealing only with the hours of sitting on that day does not require


Adjournment of the House notice. That provision is still in our rules under Standing Order 42(1) which I read a few moments ago.
* (2:10 p.m.)
It is on the basis of these precedents that I wish to make a motion which I shall read in a moment. I want to speak briefly to it because, under the Standing Order, it is a debatable motion. Therefore, I do not want to present it in such a way that I will have to resume my seat. We can deal with points of order if necessary, but in any case my motion reads: That the house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m. I point out, although it is crystal clear in the wording, that this relates only to this day's sitting; it relates only to the question of the hour of adjournment. This is fully covered in Standing Order 42(1). My purpose in making this motion at this time is also clear, I hope, namely, that it will provide an opportunity for us to try to cope in a different way from what we have been doing with the problem with which the house is now seized.
The president of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) in statements made to the press yesterday, which surprised some of us but which I accept at their face value, declared that he found it difficult to arrange a meeting with the opposition house leaders to discuss the procedural battle in which we are engaged at the present time. I practically live on the hill and I do not see any difficulty in being called to a meeting. I am ready to attend a meeting with the other house leaders at any time. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a good idea, that it would be common sense, and that the country would approve of this course, if we were to adjourn the house this afternoon at four o'clock so that the government house leader can call a meeting of the house leaders, or even go further and call an informal meeting of the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to see whether, within the confines of such a meeting, we can come to some understanding on the problem that is before the house.
I recognize, from the communications we seem to be having through the press, that our positions seem to be irreconcilable. The President of the Privy Council says that he wants the principle of rule 75c without question. We on this side say that we want rule 75c to be dropped. However, I submit that our positions are no more irreconcilable than they were in December on rule 16a. Yet in December, as a result of a conference of several hours, we did come to an understanding

on the basis of which the members of this house went home for Christmas. I submit that that conference produced more than that. It produced a package of rules under which the house has operated very well for the past six months. I believe that by holding such a conference this afternoon we might be able to achieve more than we can by carrying on a debate in which we have reached an impasse and in which neither side seems to be giving in at all.
That is my main reason for the motion. Some hon. members may have thought I was moving that we adjourn at four o'clock because it is such a hot day. That is an ancillary reason, and I am sure that the staff in this place would be delighted if we adopted this course. I would also point out that I have fixed the time so as to allow for a short debate, if that is necessary, and also time for the question period. I would not quarrel if someone wanted me to change the motion to five o'clock so that we could have the question period and a somewhat longer time for the debate, but I do think it makes common sense to follow a course of this kind.
This is my response to the appeal that the President of the Privy Council made through the press yesterday and this morning, namely, that he would like to meet with us. I did not think it was necessary to go about it in this way, but this is my response, the suggestion that the house not carry on this debate today, a debate which seems to be getting nowhere, but that there be an appropriate kind of meeting in the office of the President of the Privy Council or, if necessary, I would invite the meeting to be held in mine.
Therefore I have pleasure in moving, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order in connection with the proposed motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has not yet been put to the house. Although I may have some doubt concerning the motion, in view of the fact that it has not been questioned procedurally I will put it to the house at this time.
July 17. 1969	COMMONS
The motion, moved by Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre, and seconded by Mr. Winch, is that this house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was rising originally to support the admissibility of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might now like to speak to the motion itself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to appear to curry any particular favour may I say that perhaps this motion had a happy origin in the gathering Your Honour convened yesterday afternoon where people were able to, shall we say, get together and look at things from a slightly different point of view. So we would hope, having Your Honour's happy inspiration as a precedent, that the house would now take the example of the initiative of Your Honour, and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in moving the motion.
I think it is quite clear to Your Honour and to hon. members that this would appear to be a logical outcome of the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in a press conference on Monday in which he indicated there was some approach, some modification or some form of agreement that could be reached on certain terms. The reply yesterday by the government house leader was to another version, but I do not consider that the versions are self-excluding and I would urge hon. members, particularly on the government side, to accept this opportunity to convene a meeting to see what kind of a meeting of minds there might be to resolve this problem.
I am sure, on the basis perhaps of something that was indicated by some ministers privately and indicated by house leaders or representatives of the various opposition parties, that there is some common ground on which to move. After all, this is the way a consensus may be arrived at. This is the way i solution is sometimes found to a problem that all too often appears impossible of rationalization. After all, the opposition is composed of reasonable men and so is the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, they do not all wear horns and have forked tails-just some of them. In any event, let us see whether an attempt can be made at
Adjournment of the House this time. I think we would be much poorer in our attempts to resolve this matter if we did not make this effort because, if there is not to be a solution, at least no one can then point the finger at members of the house and say that they did not really try to explore all avenues. To that extent I would support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, for some days now the House of Commons has found itself in an unfortunate dilemna. The standing orders governing our proceedings are under consideration.
Both parties are far apart and apparently a solution cannot be found. I am reminded of labour conflicts which can sometimes hurt a lot of people before they are settled.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the adjournment of the house at 4 o'clock, to enable the committee on procedure and organization to hold an important meeting, in order to find a compromise or to negotiate, is an excellent idea. We must congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for having thought of it and for having introduced that motion.
As far as we are concerned, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, would like to support and encourage Your Honour to give his approval, so that consultations among representatives of all parties in the house may begin, in order to restore the understanding and co-operation that have always existed among the parties, and to avoid the virulent and unreasonable attacks we have been witnessing recently.
We are not getting anywhere. We find ourselves in an impasse. The government says: You are wrong. The opposition tells the government: You are mistaken. And day after day, discussions go on and on without any light or solution. Mr. Speaker, this is a ridiculous situation, because of a lack of co-operation, good will, and consultation among parties.
In a word, if this motion is ruled in order by the Chair, we hope it will also have the support of government members, because I feel the stalemate we are in must come to an end and negotiations must begin.
I should like to join the other hon. members so that it may be said that the House of Commons has kept its prestige and has been


Adjournment of the House willing to set an example showing to the Canadian people that, when things are deadlocked, it is always better to negotiate than to attack.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should do is to welcome the change of heart on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Hees:: There he goes again.


Mr. McGrath:: That is not the way to do it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I appreciate his statement that he is available for consultation. I would have appreciated some consultation in advance in connection with his intention to move this motion, but I make nothing of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have been here all the time for the past three weeks.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member was presumably available this morning and could have consulted me about the motion. However, I make nothing of that. I note that the hon. member is accepting the description of his and other opposition members' participation in the debate as a filibuster, that it has been a useless and pointless exercise. This is an acknowledgement on their part.
I would be very glad to hear from the hon. member. I have been sitting with him in the committee since Christmas. He has taken a certain position that I respect and for which he has held out, and he knows what my position has been. But I would be delighted to close the gap if we could and therefore would be quite prepared to meet with him. I notice the house leader for the Official Opposition is not here, but I would be prepared to meet an appropriate representative of that group, and also of the Ralliement Creditistes, with the hon. member. On the whole I think this will probably be a useful initiative. It will not serve any useful purpose if we continue hearing speakers from the other side in this regard. We will therefore accept the motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) agreed to.
[Mr. Fortin.)



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies in English and French of the Canadian Wheat Board wheat price schedule for specified days in March and July, 1969, as promised.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he or his colleagues have located the telegram dated July 15 which was sent by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? If so, what response has the government made to the urgent representations made in that telegram? At the same time, can the minister say whether his attention has been drawn to a public statement by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, dated yesterday, in which it is presumed that the federation's proposals of May 28 have been rejected because no response has been made? Does the minister agree with that interpretation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the whole subject of agricultural policy is, needless to say, under very active consideration by the government. The problem, as the hon. member knows, is extremely complex, and I have no apology to make for saying that the matter is still under consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the government of Canada that it has a moral obligation to see that farmers receive the equivalent of the floor price they would have received under the International Grains Arrangement? It is my understanding that the government subscribed to that agreement.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. That was an international agreement that we supported very strongly. We had every hope and reason to hope it would work satisfactorily. Of course, if other countries are not complying with the agreement and we have to meet competition, I do not think it would be


appropriate for the Canadian government to guarantee domestically those international minimum prices.


WHEAT-INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT-EFFORTS TO RE-ESTABLISH MINIMUM PRICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the disorganization resulting from the abandonment of the minimum price under the International Grains Arrangement, as reported by the minister, and in view of continuing pressure on world wheat prices, can the minister say whether any continuing consultative committee representing the various countries involved is operating on a day to day basis with a view to restoring order in the market and re-establishing the minimum price under the agreement? I am referring to a consultative group which might meet day by day as opposed to occasional meetings of ministers representing the various countries.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is ahead of events. He and some members of the press have been ahead of events for the last couple of days. Reference has been made to a collapse in prices, to a dramatic price decline, and so on. Of course, all these things may happen, and I have been perfectly frank with the house in my assessments. They may happen but they have not happened yet. That being so, it is wrong for anyone to leave the impression that they have happened. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the meeting in Washington was to avoid such a happening. In order to do so, it was essential to restore co-operation among the exporters. I am not in a position to say that will happen, but I have been perfectly frank with the house in saying what the situation is and what is being done.
The working group representing the I.G.A. exporting members, established in part as a result of agreements reached in Washington, is about to become operative. In the meantime I am in touch with the I.G.A. exporting members. The maximum communication exists between the different capitals of the exporting countries participating in the I.G.A. The meeting in Washington last week might well have prevented a price collapse from happening.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thank the minister for his statement regarding the functions of the working committee. Anything I said is based on the minister's own statement in the house that the minimum prices under the I.G.A. were under suspension at least temporarily. Those were the minister's own words.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The words I used were: "have been de facto temporarily suspended." Perhaps I could have made a better choice of words but, as hon. members know, I am limited in English. I should possibly have said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -they have become de facta temporarily inoperative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement that the floor prices under the International Grains Arrangement are temporarily suspended and a lower plateau was agreed upon by the exporting nations in the I.G.A., can the minister tell the house what that plateau will be and within what price range the exporting nations will be selling wheat from now on?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are debating very fine points. What I said in my report to the house was that at the meeting in Washington it was realized that there had been "distortions" and that "adjustments" were needed and would have to be made. I do not know exactly at what level the adjustments will finally be made but it has to be presumed that in the present circumstances the level would be slightly lower than the minimum of the I.G.A. pricing schedule. All depends on the willingness of some exporters to restrain their aggressiveness. As I said the other day, there are different ways in which this could be done. So far as Canada is concerned, the lowest decline if there must be one is the objective at this time. We are trying to avoid an accentuated, a dramatic price reduction. This is our objective, and I would like the hon. member to believe we are working hard at it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the minister met with the Wheat Board last Monday, can he give the house any information as to the outcome of those discussions with the Wheat Board and whether he


Inquiries of the Ministry conveyed to the Wheat Board on behalf of the government the latter's willingness to make up the difference between the price received by the Wheat Board and the floor price under the International Grains Arrangement, $1.95J a bushel f.o.b. Fort William?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My discussions and the Prime Minister's discussions with the Wheat Board were connected wiih the efforts made by the Wheat Board to market wheat internationally. I do not think I should be asked to report on that. With respect to the government making up the difference between the I.G.A. minimum price and the present and future price, this would have to be a government decision. As the Acting Prime Minister stated, we are obviously working at preventing a government commitment too high to contemplate. Any success that we have in preventing a downward movement will result in less compensation being requested from the government in the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a further-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands might be allowed a further supplementary. Other hon. members are anxious to ask supplementary questions on the same subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My supplementary will be brief, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the crop year has only two more weeks to run, how soon will the government reach a decision with respect to guaranteeing the farmers the minimum price established under the I.G.A.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Acting Prime Minister has already answered that.


COMPETITIVE POSITION OF REDUCED WHEAT BOARD PRICES
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the schedule of wheat prices which the minister tabled a little earlier today shows No. 1 reduced 51 cents, No. 2, 7 cents, No. 3, 10 cents, and Nos. 4 and 5 only one cent each, I ask the minister whether these prices are now competitive with those being charged by the United States, Australia and the other wheat exporting countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that is

much too complicated to answer in the question period because the situation varies in different parts of the world. It varies because of so many different circumstances that it is unfair to expect me to give an answer. The general attitude in the world of exporters at this time is that through "advantages" they had some exporters have gained more than what I might call their fair expectations and others have not. The purpose of the exercise is to try to equalize advantages by price "adjustments" and co-operation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not able to say that these prices are competitive? Are sales actually being made at the present time at these prices? Have the government and the Wheat Board made a firm decision to continue to meet prices if they continue to fall?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This decision was made on March 14. It applies today, it applied yesterday and it will apply tomorrow. But as I said one day to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, we are trying to be competitive at the highest possible level and not at the lowest possible level. Again we are trying to be competitive at the highest possible level.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister did not answer the question whether sales are actually being made at these prices. If so, can the minister say whether two or three such sales have been made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am being asked to give market information. A couple of weeks ago a rather important sale of 7.5 million bushels was made to Peru. That sale was made by the Wheat Board with the full co-operation of the credit facilities provided by the Canadian government.


WHEAT-ABILITY OF GRAIN HANDLING SYSTEM TO ABSORB FIVE BUSHEL QUOTA
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: wish to direct a further question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As a result of the minister's meetings with the Canadian Wheat Board, can he give the house any assurance that the grain system will be able to take in the five-bushel quota as of August 1?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have before me the usual daily report on progress made. I have been very generous in showing these reports. It is still the opinion of the board that it can


physically be done. What is physically possible as the Creditistes say, could be done materialistically also. I can assure the hon. member that maximum efforts are being made by the Wheat Board and by the railways in order to reach this objective. I will be relieved if and when they achieve it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I fully accept the assurance and the intent of the minister. Will he agree that if this objective is not achieved he and those responsible under him are prepared to consider an extension of the crop year until the five-bushel quota is achieved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This appears to be a hypothetical question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to Your Honour, the question is very close to not being hypothetical.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider extending the crop year, whether or not deliveries are made, so as to enable the farmers to receive their final payments within the coming year to help them in financing the following year's operations? With the crop year terminating at the usual time, it will be some 18 months before the farmers are in a position to receive their final payments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends on the other side are too knowledgeable for me to have to explain to them the disadvantages of extending the crop year, one of which is that people who are not in a position to deliver before the end of the present crop year might find ways and means of delivering afterward if the year were extended. This would be unfair to those people who could not deliver as much as they would have liked and had been able to deliver, but were not allowed to do so. That is one of the obvious disadvantages, and there are others. Again, as has been said, the question of whether or not we will reach this objective of a five bushel quota still remains unanswered but we are working with the Wheat Board in an effort to make sure this can be done.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had any discussions with the Wheat Board or the Board of Grain Commissioners with a view to authorizing the elevator companies to use off-track, off-site or other storage facilities, or has he considered authorizing the elevator companies to store grain on the ground at those shipping points which have not got the five-bushel
Inquiries of the Ministry quota by July 31? If these discussions have not been held, will the minister hold them or will he authorize the board to allow the elevator companies to do this?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some of these points were discussed at the last meeting and they are still being considered.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I shall give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce some respite and direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In answer to my question of May 29 with regard to the federal contribution to the cost of building the composite school in Roberval,
I was told that the amount of that contribution had not yet been determined.
Can the minister tell us today what progress has been made in the negotiations with the local school board and if the amount of the federal contribution has been determined?


Mr. Speaker:: In my view, that question should be put on the order paper. If it is urgent, the hon. member could ask the minis-er to discuss it with him at the time of adjournment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, should the house keep on sitting, we will then have some additional evenings. I therefore ask that my question be dealt with at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might come to some arrangements in order that it be discussed during an additional evening, even if the house is not sitting.


DECLINE IN SURPLUS-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada's trade surplus has decreased by more than $300 million during the first six months of the year, is it the intention of the government to take steps immediately to correct this serious trend in order that serious unemployment will not develop as a result of the volume of imports into Canada increasing much faster than the volume of exports?


Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think in any economy like ours it must be expected that in some years the growth in exports will be higher than in other years, depending upon what is taking place in the country. I understand that when you have industrial development imports are bound to increase. Such growth in imports is not necessarily bad. I have nevertheless issued a paper in which I have invited exporters to become even more aggressive than they were when the hon. member was Minister of Trade and Commerce. It may not have been possible at that time, but it may be now as we have improved our facilities with the Export Development Corporation coming into effect in September. For the time being, the E.C.I.C. is more active than before because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister for interrupting him. I appreciate that the hon. member has a supplementary question. I expected he would have one. I had some doubts about the question in the first instance. Had I suggested it be placed on the order paper we might now have an easier situation. Hon. members know that the Chair always hesitates to allow questions which ask for general statements by ministers and to which ministers respond in a proper fashion by making lengthy statements. This places the Chair in a different position because the Chair must interrupt the minister who is in effect only answering the question which has been allowed. I would think that normally this type of question should be placed on the order paper. However, in view of the fact, as has been pointed out by another hon. member, we are not going to be here for an eternity, perhaps the hon. member should be allowed to ask the supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, having great respect for your rulings and the way you control the house I shall desist from asking my usual supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member might not want to change his mind later. If he does I shall accept it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask the minister a similar question. Is the serious reduction of over $300 million in six months in great part the result of reduced wheat sales and, if so, to what extent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will find out the extent of its effect. It certainly has had a

part, but there are other factors involved. For example last year there were strikes in the United States and other circumstances which helped to increase our exports. I would think that the decline in the sales of wheat has not been so important this year compared with last year-exports of wheat was 310 million bushels this year as opposed to 325 million last year. It was in comparison with the previous year that the big decline took place.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from a report in todays' newspapers emanating from the O.E.C.D. which suggests that Canada is the lowest among members in respect of assistance in external aid in relation to gross national product. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Ex.ernal Affairs whether the government is preparing plans to increase Canada's assistance to developing nations this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of this report and have been for some time. I gather it has now been published. I share with the government the hon. member's desire to increase the volume of our aid. One of the rather unusual factors that arose last year was the replenishment of I.DA. The International Development Association was allotted certain amounts which we would ordinarily have contributed last year. Our expenditures in the first six months this year in respect of development assistance as officially defined are $149 million compared with $76 million last year. This indicates that not only are we increasing our aid but that there were some very special factors operating last year.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that during the last number of years the amounts actually spent by Canada in aid to developing nations were sometimes as much as one-third below the amounts voted by parliament, whether he and the government will consider picking up the lag in these amounts, particularly through the provision of wheat and flour to needy countries throughout the world in view of our wheat surplus?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the purpose of the government to try to overcome this lag.


I might point out to the hon. gentleman that one of the reasons our aid sometimes lags behind appropriations is that it does not lapse at the end of the year, whereas some other contributing countries insist that the money be used during the year. Since we have been concentrating on development we had allowed the amounts to accumulate, and sometimes they are not expended as rapidly as would otherwise be the case. With regard to aid in the form of wheat, if there are people who need our wheat I can assure the hon. member that we will be only too happy to increase our appropriation in this respect.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest that we move on to another subject. There is only a short time left in the question period and several hon. members wish to ask questions. If there is time at the end of the question period we might return to this very important matter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Waller Smith (Sainl-Jean):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture through his parliamentary secretary.

Would the Minister of Agriculture have received a telegram from the Association of truck gardeners of the Montreal area in connection with damages incurred through hail and rain in the Sherrington, Saint-Michel and Ville-Laval areas? Would he also have received one from the Hemmingford and Covey Hill apple growers?


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is out of order. The hon. member cannot ask simply whether a telegram or a message has been received. In that sense, the question is out of order. On the other hand, the Chair will perhaps allow the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the question of the hon. member.


Mr. Cote:: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the week, when the hon. members for Saint-Jean, Laval and Laprairie (Messrs. Smith, Roy and Watson) made representations in this
Inquiries of the Ministry regard, we had not received that telegram. However, we have received the telegram since then.
In general, the problem of crops damaged by bad weather is entirely one for the provinces and, in the past, when the provincial authorities could not cope financially with the damages caused by bad weather, they would ask the federal government for help.
But in the last few years, the federal government has established crop insurance and has granted close to $1,200,000 to the province of Quebec.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe I have
already shown a certain generosity by allowing the question. The hon. member might want to continue discussing it at the time of adjournment, if there is urgency, as he seems to suggest.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the recent announcement that representatives of British Columbia Indians would not meet the minister, will the minister advise the house as to the number of provincial Indian associations that have taken a similar stand toward his new policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member is asking for the type of information which would normally be asked for in written form. However, the house may want the minister to reply.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am just back from British Columbia where I met many Indian chiefs. I put myself at the disposal of those who wanted to talk with me and most of them were quite reasonable. They discussed the Indian policy and I think that Indians are now interested in examining it. If they have alternate proposals to make, we shall be pleased to consider them.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister


Inquiries of the Ministry assure the house that the special departmental study group will not go into those provinces in which recognized leaders of Indian associations are not prepared to discuss this question directly with the study group?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a distinction has to be made. We are prepared to talk with the Indian people. However, nobody should be allowed to forbid the minister or his officials to meet with the said Indian people when it is deemed necessary.
I have started on a visit of all the Canadian provinces and talked with the Indian leaders who were willing to meet me. I consider that I shall always have the privilege, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, of meeting any Indian in Canada without having to proceed forever through the medium of certain people whose sole purpose is to create a sensation.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the minister. I am trying to help him not participate in this divide and rule policy. When does he intend to make funds available to the native Indian people so they may make arrangements to meet the minister themselves and participate amongst themselves in a consultation process that is meaningful in order that they may come to a consensus on this question rather than selecting, as is being done, private groups and individuals to meet and obtain prepared answers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. I make no selection at all. I make myself available to all Indian leaders who want to talk to me. I would tell the hon. member that I hope to have these funds available soon.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask another supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether I could have the co-operation of the hon. member, as I have had in respect of other hon. members, so we may get on with the question period.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to

the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the institution of an increased training program to provide doctors in Ontario, will the minister state whe her he will give further consideration to restoring the cut of 30 per cent made in respect of medical research?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I do not agree with the conclusion the hon. member has reached, Mr. Speaker. There has not been a 30 per cent cut in medical research.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a most important question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to bring members of the house up to date on the situation regarding negotiations between employers and the longshoremen's union in Vancouver, in view of the fact that a lockout or strike in August would have a deleterious effect upon the already serious position of Canadian grain growers?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I received the conciliation board report yesterday and have mailed copies of it to both sides, the employers and unions involved. I do not know, of course, what their reaction will be to the report. I understand that talks are continuing. There is a grave possibility that there will be a strike in the Vancouver area at the end of July, which would have an effect upon wheat that would normally be shipped through that port.
I must remind hon. members that if a strike occurs it will be a perfectly legal one, and if a lockout occurs it will be a perfectly legal one. It is not the policy of the government to interfere with the legal rights of either companies or unions involved unless the situation develops into a national emergency, and it is certainly too early to think in that vein.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister considered changing the approach of his department to this matter and having observers present so that the negotiations will assume a more official status?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, coming from a member of a party that is closely allied with labour. Surely the hon. member knows as well as anybody in the house that so far we have followed the law explicitly and that a conciliation board has heard union and management representations. The report of the conciliation board was received only yesterday by my department. I think it is a little premature to suggest openly, if I am prepared to suggest it at all, what the next step would be. I do not think it would be in the best interests of anybody to report unofficially, or officially through the question period, what steps will be taken, if any, by the Department of Labour.


AGRICULTURE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, I put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Does he intend to recommend to the minister to review the 52-cent tax per hundredweight of milk imposed by the Canadian Dairy Commission and to abolish it in respect of the unsubsidized surplus production?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is not allowed to ask the parliamentary secretary if he intends to make a recommendation to the minister.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, and I wrote this one myself.


Frank Howard: It might be allowed, then.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Would the minister discuss with the Unemployment Insurance Commission their procedure of imposing punitive fines by way of penalty unilaterally without giving the alleged offender an opportunity to 29180-716
Inquiries of the Ministry be heard either on the question of whether a fine is warranted or on the amount of the fine?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure as to the urgency of the question or even as to its significance. May I advise the hon. member that I am tempted to interpret it as a representation made to the minister, and I am sure the hon. member can assume the minister will take his suggestion into consideration.


An hon. Member:: Get another writer.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of
order may I say that it was necessary for me to bring this matter to the attention of the house because of the publicity it received. I find that sometimes this is a very effective way of getting a message across to politicians and to the public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries, and I welcome him back from his fishing expedition in Nova Scotia. Has the minister any report to make on the results achieved at the important international fishing conference which he recently attended in Halifax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that while this is a matter of importance he is asking for a statement by the minister which I suggest should be made on motions.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have the unanimous consent of the house for the minister to make a report since international fishing regulations and the conservation of fish are involved?


Mr. Speaker:: I hear the hon. member's confirmation that this is a matter of importance. If the house wishes to revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the minister to make a statement-


An hon. Member:: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently that consent is not forthcoming.


Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS


WOODS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS- REQUEST FOR ACTION
Mr.  W. C. Scoll@Vicloria-Haliburion: Mr. Speaker, I have a most urgent question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Inasmuch as over 10,000 pensioners have died in the 16 months since the tabling of the Woods report, can the minister give us any assurance that the recommendations made in the report will be implemented before many more veterans pass on?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minisler of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the House of Commons Committee on Veterans Affairs will meet on September 15, and at that time it will study both the Woods committee report and the government white paper which should be ready by that time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has there been any consultation between the Canadian government and the government of the United Kingdom regarding the introduction by the United Kingdom of the decimal system of coinage among which there is a coin with the physical properties of our quarter but only half its value, which can be used in coin machines in Canada, including post office stamp vending machines?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this question is not one that might be placed more properly on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment.


John Angus MacLean: May I say with deference, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very urgent matter because people in Canada have been known to collect large numbers of these coins in an attempt to fight inflation.


An hon. Member:: What is the value of a quarter?



FINANCE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the 
Acting Prime Minister and draw his attention to a statement made by the chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank which seems to be a direct challenge to the hopeful aspirations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to ask a question.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was coming to it. The Minister of Finance has indicated he is hopeful that the prime rate will hold. In view of the fact that this has been challenged in statements by the chairman of the bank, is the Acting Prime Minister, as a former holder of that office, willing to come to the defence of the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.



HOUSING


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of housing. In view of the fact that the municipality of Oshawa is being pressed to make an urgent decision on an urban renewal scheme and, further, in view of the fact that certain members of the city council had reason to understand that the minister would make a statement on the federal government's urban renewal proposal on the 15lh of this month, would the minister give a clear indication to the house of the date on which he intends to make such a statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member reiterates a question which, if my memory serves me correctly, was asked on Tuesday.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement attributed to the Minister of Supply and Services that talk of western alienation simply melts away with the Prime Minister's presence in the prairies, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare send a team to the west to ascertain whether the Prime Minister has been affected by sunstroke or whether he has fallen foul of sillabub?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
July 17, 1969	COMMONS



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. Since it is likely that the hon. gentleman will be meeting with the other house leaders later today, would he consider the possibility of discussing with them the use of one of the opposition allotted days to discuss the serious agricultural situation in the west, and at the same time discuss the possibility of asking the house to refer the report of the Committee on Procedure and Organization back to that committee in order that the committee may reconsider those portions of the report which have been found objectionable?


An hon. Member:: Don't you trust your own house leader?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion, particularly the one with regard to agricultural policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. During his visit to western Canada was the minister in contact with either or both sides in the British Columbia Telephone Company dispute?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Not officially, Mr. Speaker, but I did meet with officials of the Department of Labour in the west and discussed with them very thoroughly the B.C. Telephone Company dispute. I can only reiterate what I have said on other occasions, that it is a perfectly legal strike. The Department of Labour has no intention of intervening, but I am sure we will take the initiative in bringing the sides together when we think the time is appropriate and when talks would be meaningful.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have
almost gone beyond the time allotted. There is time for one additional question. Perhaps the Opposition might be allowed to ask the last question.
29180-716J
Procedure and Organization EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



NIGERIAN RADIO BROADCAST OF ALLEGED STATEMENT BY BRIGADIER GENERAL HAMILTON

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, following the tabling of the message of the High Commissioner at Lagos dated July 14, he has ascertained that Brigadier General Charles Hamilton was misquo.ed on the Nigerian government radio with regard to the use of starvation as a proper means of waging war? If he has not ascertained this, would he undertake to do so?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any record is kept of what is said on the Nigerian radio, but I think the main point is that Brigadier Hamilton did not say the things he was alleged to have said.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 16, 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 (page 10963).
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker,, may I comment at the outset on the dandy position in which I find myself when called to make a speech on procedure. What a time to be elected to that job! First the house leader says it is a useless filibuster. Second, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says it is a stupid debate. Now at four o'clock we are about to adjourn for a meeting of minds. However, I have certain ideas and opinions which have been formed over the last few days on why we are in this impasse.
Today my opinions are confirmed when we see the arrogant, overbearing attitude of the government house leader. He could not be even civil or gracious in accepting the offer of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This was an olive branch offer that the minister, had he had common courtesy or respect for his own colleagues, should
11328	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization have made himself. He is a very decent guy outside the house but terribly obnoxious inside the house.
In beginning my remarks I have one quotation which I should like to place on the record. It is the following:
It is not up to a particular man, convinced of the soundness of his opinion, to express the will of the house.
I take that to mean that no one man should presume unilaterally to take unto himself the right to express the will of this house. I submit that that is a pretty sound statement. I could lend support to that position, and I intend to do so. As a matter of fact it seems to me this has been the crux of this whole debate. This is the central theme of this so-called stupid filibuster. The parties in opposition feel that proposed rule 75c does exactly what is mentioned in the quotation. In other words, a particular man, convinced of the soundness of his opinion, can in effect express the will of the house. May I repeat the quotation:
It is not up to a particular man, ... to express the will of the house.
Do you know who said that? The Prime Minister of Canada, who was then Minister of Justice, said that on February 27, 1968. It is to be found at page 7038 of Hansard of a year and a half ago. That was his opinion. Does he still subscribe to that view? It does not look very much like it. The government he heads in effect says that what is good for the Grits is good for the nation. I am reminded of a famous cartoonist, A1 Capp, who depicted a character called General Bullmoose, who always ended up by saying that what was good for General Bullmoose was good for the nation.
What do members of the government say to the opposition? They say in effect, "Here is a piece of legislation, fool around with it but do not try to change or improve it because we know what is best, and at ten o'clock a week from Thursday"-or whatever date they select-"it will become the law and that is it."
Perhaps it is an oversimplification to refer to just one particular man expressing the will of the house. It might be more accurate to say it would be the troika, plus two, who make the decision to express the will of the house. A troika is a three horse hitch. We have a triumvirate over there of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Regional Eco-
[Mr. McCutcheon.l
DEBATES	July 17, 1969
nomic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). That is the troika or triuvirate. Then that is augmented by the addition of two men, the government house leader who fires the balls, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who is on there because of his vast knowledge of the rules. It is a pity he does not know a little bit about agriculture.
Since that day in 1968 when that profound statement was made a lot of things have happened. We have had an election and the man who made the statement, "It is not up to a particular man... to express the will of the house", has become our Prime Minister. Since that time we have operated under some new rules, or modifications of the old ones. I submit that they have not worked too badly. Nothing of course is perfect. I am sure, however, there has been quite a marked improvement over days gone by. There is no question about it; we in the opposition have co-operated. We have tried to give them a chance. The fact that they have muffed their opportunities is really not the fault of the opposition. But they would like to suck in someone on whom to blame some of the trouble.
The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) came up with a dandy proposal on Tuesday. He had a complicated mathematical formulation which involved the opposition in implementing 75c. I believe the hon. member for Peel South was quite sincere in his proposal to end this impasse in the house. The fact that his suggestion was most impractical does not detract from his obvious sincerity. It does, however, point out a favourite Grit ploy-when things go well take all the kudos; when they go bad try to lay the blame on something the opposition did. In severe cases where neither of these devices works, do as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) does and imply that things are not as bad here as they are in the United States, or in the United Kingdom, and that there is really nothing we can do about it anyway. You see, they know full well that 75c is a bad rule. The hon. member for Peel South in typical Grit fashion tried to arrange it so that the use of this iniquitous rule could in the future probably partially, if not totally, be blamed on the opposition.
If you do not think that is correct, let me quote from page 11231 of Hansard for July 15:
The important thing is that the Official Opposition and the government would constantly share the responsibility concerning whether we would ever use 75c.


Well, we are not buying it. During the past year there have been certain evolutionary developments, some of them quite noticeable and some not so noticeable. But a trend certainly is discernible, a trend toward an absolute power cell control, more centralized control by the central committee, control by the troika, ultimate, absolute control. That is the plan. The first step already has been taken. That was to muzzle the government backbenchers. The second step is to muzzle the opposition. The third step is under way right now-to control the press. They have already pretty well got the C.B.C. and certain other press people and reporters who have prostituted themselves, but thank God there still remains a corps of dedicated independent reporters and publishers who tell it as it is.
The press can see the trend. Members of the press were rebuked in London and lately they have been blamed for not properly explaining the government's languages bill. Indeed the Prime Minister has felt constrained to write an explanation himself.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Another development over the years has been increased committee activity. Every member has had to serve on at least two committees. The committees have met at all hours and dealt with any number of subjects. Some committees even travelled across the country on fact finding missions, so-called. But one thing that became abundantly clear was that the emphasis put on committees had but one purpose in mind, and that was to keep the "silent service" occupied.
The real reason for the great emphasis on committees did not actually become apparent at first, though it soon became obvious. We were told that matters would be referred to committees where the less formal nature of the proceedings would elicit more information. We were told greater opportunity would be given to examine witnesses. In effect it was said that the committee system would do such a thorough job of examination as to guarantee much closer scrutiny of witnesses and documents. This would make it much easier to modify legislation or to effect amendments. Then, hopefully, when a committee reported to the house its report would merely need rubberstamping by the whole house.
With such a promotional scheme under way I am told there was great competition among hon. members opposite to be appointed committee chairmen. The committee system had a new look and was going to revolutionize the
Procedure and Organization old House of Commons. We were going to resemble the U.S. Congress, and the hopefuls opposite imagined headlines similar to those that appear in the U.S. press. For example, they imagined a headline like this: "Senator Upjohn"-or some such person-"chairman of the all-powerful committee on ways and means, said today that if the executive did not agree to his demands he would withhold his committee's support from the President's anti-poverty program".
Our backbench friends opposite pictured themselves in this light. If only they could get the nod and be appointed committee chairmen they would become power brokers, forces to be reckoned with. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the rumour, but I am told some of them even considered taking elocution lessons so they could cut records, as Senator Everett Dirksen does. As a consolation prize those who did not make the grade were invited to intimate luncheons at 24 Sussex Drive.
I now return to rule 75c. Did this dream world of which I have spoken materialize? I guess not. The heroes, those who became chairmen, were given a certain bill, their material and kit of instructions, and were told to follow those instructions. They were told to vote the party line, to accept no amendments or changes. This is what the triumvirate had decided was best.
Although these chairmen have their committees, one thing the government neglected to give them was authority. Rule 75c will further emasculate them. If the backbenchers opposite were not so naive they would be a disillusioned lot by now. They would have realized that all the committee system has accomplished is to keep the silent service occupied so no embarrassment is caused. It was impossible to avoid embarrassment with such an awkward squad, but the purpose of the exercise was that the embarrassment to the executive caused by the Trudeau coat-tail riders would be minimized.
The troika knew that the election posters bearing the inscription "Come work with me", and showing a surrealistic picture of the-Prime Minister urging Canadians to join him, had attracted a lot of political neophytes, people who were long on ideas but short on common sense and practical judgment. What should the government do with these people? It decided to keep them busy on committees but cautioned them to accept no amendments because the troika knew what was best.
11330	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization
And so we have in this country a new silent service. The silent service used to be the navy, but that was in the years B.H.- "before Hellyer". One would think these hon. members would realize how they have been silenced by this power cell. Surely they realize that if the opposition is muzzled as effectively as they have been, there is little opportunity in this country for democratic government.
If any of them do have the temerity to rise in their places it is because the government wants them to fill in a little time. After all, they have not been heard from for so long, and they cannot do any harm anyway. I am sure the government thinks that it will keep them so occupied that they just will not realize how unnecessary they are to the brains trust.
If the Liberal backbenchers are prepared to pay such a price just to be members of the Trudeau team, then that is a matter for them. But this is too high a price for me to pay as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I will not be bound and gagged, allowed only the privilege of sitting in the house to rubberstamp legislation fed to me by a power mad, small group, power cell.
Last June 25 approximately 55 per cent of the people who cast votes in the riding of Lambton-Kent supported me. They gave me a mandate to represent them in this house to the best of my ability. In giving me that honour they did not suggest for one minute that I monopolize the time of the house. Nor did they want me to be irresponsible or frivolous. They wanted me to speak out when their interests were involved. They wanted me to co-operate with the government when that co-operation was for the good of Canada.
The people of Lambton-Kent do not want their representative in this house silenced. I am the current member for that riding, but this can be said with equal emphasis of my successors in the years ahead.
I am concerned about what is happening in the house. It is most depressing to see such a confrontation in the chamber at this time in our history. There is so much in this country of which to be proud. Although we have many problems to solve, we are hamstrung because of the intransigent attitude of three or four members.
Mankind is capable of fantastic feats for the common good at this juncture in our history. Today three men are embarking upon a journey to explore the unknown on another

DEBATES	July 17, 1969
planet. When you stop to think of the thousands of sincere, dedicated people whose fan-tasiic know-how has made possible the Apollo moon shot, do you not wonder why it should be necessary for this little group of power hungry people to try to regiment an institution like parliament?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Procedure and Organization not forget all about 75c? It is unnecessary and unnecessarily restrictive.
Let us change rule 75b so that it clearly indicates that the government must be a party to a majority decision. It must be one of the majority. As Mr. Zink has suggested, the government and opposition are caught by the ambiguity of the wording of the proposed time allocation rule. Let us redraft the whole, dashed thing, Mr. Speaker, remove the ambiguity and make sure that the rule says that the government must be included in the majority. That is only reasonable, I think. I say to the silent service on the government side, do not let three or four power hungry people in your party destroy democracy. Who knows, next time you may get here on your own without having to ride in on someone else's coat tails.
I will close my remarks as I began them, Mr. Speaker, by echoing a worth-while sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister. He said it is not up to a particular man to express the will of this house. I wish he would practice what he preaches.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I know I speak on behalf of most supporters of the government when I express the hope that negotiations now under way will be productive of results. As most of us who have served in any elected assembly know, if matters relating to rules can be resolved harmoniously the entire institution of democracy benefits.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I say that most of the government members, indeed all of them, feel that way. We hope a fair agreement can be achieved. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I prepared a speech I feel is rather complete. Time will not permit full delivery. Like the last speaker, there are certain paragraphs I think would be best left unsaid under the circumstances.
I wish to spend a few minutes discussing the need for rule changes relating to the limitation on the length of speeches. A point which has been made time and again and, I think, very well by the spokesmen for the various parties, is that the business of the Canadian people must be expedited more effectively. There is no disagreement on this point.
And we all feel, especially those of us who have served at some point in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, that democracy must never be sacrificed for efficiency. It must never be sacrificed in the name of expediency. This is
11332	COMMONS DEBATES	July 17, 1969
Procedure and Organization very difficult under modem circumstances. We are faced with a vast volume of public business which must be done not only in this assembly but in the provincial assemblies across the country. The two concepts must always be mutually compatible.
One aspect of the present need for reform can be illustrated by examining the vast increase in public spending since the turn of the century. Today we, as Members of Parliament, are being asked to authorize the spending of moneys in the order of $13 billion a year. That is a vast increase over the budget of 1899-1900. The total budget at that time was $46,286,550. That is a 28,000 per cent increase since the turn of the century.
We all know that we live in a new Canada with new and pressing problems, yet there remains the basic and fundamental question of how we compress into the same 365-day year more business, more subjects, and more issues. The question remains how we can sensibly and logically allocate the vast amounts of money which have been placed at the disposal of the government by the Canadian people?
Obviously we need changes to accommodate these facts of modern day life. Some of us have served in opposition. It is a worthwhile experience. Indeed, if we all stay here long enough we will all be in that spot some day. Those of us who have served in opposition have every respect for the role of the opposition in this house. In many ways it occupies a position as important as government. Every day we are reminded of this fact by political science texts.
One of the opposition members has spoken eloquently in this debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has made a number of speeches before non-political forums. In 1964 this acknowledged parliamentarian, speaking at a summer conference in Ontario, said:
If you are on the opposition side, you usually contend for freedom of speech; if you are on the government side, you contend for arrangements to get the business done.
I must admit the hon. member did not make this statement in the House of Commons but at the Couchiching Conference. I continue with the quotation:
The amount of business is increasing so much that I think ... that we have to think more in terms of getting things done, and I think that this can be done without interfering with freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: This is what the hon. member said. As we all know, he is perfectly right. I repeat the words he said on that occasion:
The amount of business is increasing so much that I think even as an opposition member that we have to think more in terms of getting things done, and I think it is possible for us to do this without interfering with freedom of speech.
Again, I turn to this opposition source, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has considerable experience in this house and a great and deserved reputation. He was not speaking in the house but was speaking candidly and frankly to a summer academic forum in that same year. He stated:
Parliamentarians start with a notion that freedom of speech somehow means freedom to talk forever. Cutting off debate is felt to be a denial of a basic, democratic right. But the fact is that we do this in many ways in Parliament. The 40-minute limit or the 30-minute limit or the 20-minute rule that we have are denials of unlimited free speech-*
He continued:
Although years ago there were no time limits on any debates, we did, in 1955 impose a limit of a certain number of days on the debate on the address, the debate on the budget, and on debates on supply motions. When the point is reached when these debates must end, nobody ever says that free speech is ended.
This is what a spokesman for the New Democratic Party said on that occasion. I am sure he remembers this address because it was a good speech. He also said:
We accept the proposition that it is good to organize such things.
I am sure the hon. member feels the same way today and that his sentiments have not changed. But there is a difference; in this debate he has been far more vehement in his belief that all party agreement must be obtained in the matter of allocating time. This is what he has been emphasizing during this debate. Significantly, however, he admits that implicit in rule 75b, the rule which would permit house business to move along with the assent of three parties in this house, is the belief that the government party should be one of the three. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that a majority, and not the minority, must ultimately assume the responsibility to move along the business of the house. I refuse to believe the hon. member would seriously contend that one or two parties in this house should be endowed with the power to frustrate the will of the people for any inordinate length of time. He cannot hold this belief and still subscribe to the principles of parliamentary democracy about which he
July 17, 1969	COMMONS
has spoken so eloquently on so many occasions.
Is freedom threatened by restricting debating time in this house? Regardless of what happens at four o'clock this afternoon that is still the real question. The former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), made a very colourful and controversial speech in the house the other day. He said that 75c is a measure designed to subvert parliament. What did he say in the house when he had the important responsibility of being the Queen's first minister? I quote the right hon. gentleman's remarks as recorded in Hansard of July 21, 1960:
I see no reason why that debate should not be reduced so far as the number of days is concerned. Immediately, I suggest that the opposition will say that they are being throttled.
That is what the right hon. gentleman said when faced with the monumental responsibility of government. He said in order to expedite the business of the Canadian people it was necessary effectively and responsibly to limit the length of speeches in the House of Commons. On November 26,	1962, again
speaking in the House of Commons, the right hon. gentleman said:
I am not one of those who argues that there should be any interference with the right of hon. members to express themselves, but I do agree with the hon. member that if the house leaders of the parties could get together and apportion the time, it would be a most effective and welcome expedient in order to achieve a high degree of efficiency in parliament. They do it in the United Kingdom, but we have never been able to do it here-
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Unfortunately for Canada the reforms about which the right hon. gentleman spoke so wistfully never came to pass under his Prime Ministerial guidance. Perhaps the government of the day, and I do not wish to be critical of that government because things are accomplished by most governments at one time or another, did not present to the house a firm proposal to modernize the house rules, and it is unfortunate for Canada that this was not done years ago.
Is freedom of speech truly being threatened? That is the question about which some fine speeches have been made. The changes proposed in the rules are less stringent than debate limitation measures in other commonwealth jurisdictions. I have here the rules of all the Commonwealth governments-of India,
Procedure and Organization New Zealand, Pakistan and Australia. Perhaps someone would like to hear how they do things in Australia. That is a country which has been mentioned during this debate. At page 26 of the standing orders of the Australian House of Representatives it is stated: When any motion of any kind whatsoever has been moved, a minister may at any time declare that the motion is an urgent motion, and, on such declaration, the question "That the motion be considered an urgent motion" shall be put forthwith- no debate or amendment being allowed-and on such question being agreed to, a minister may forthwith move a motion specifying the time which shall be allotted to the motion.
Upon such motion or motions with regard to the allotment of time being moved, no debate thereon shall be allowed for more than 20 minutes, and in speaking thereon no member may exceed five minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the Speaker or the Chairman shall put any questions on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair.
This is more stringent closure than we have in the House of Commons here.


An hon. Member:: That is ordinary closure and you have it now.


Raymond J. Perrault: No, that is more stringent and it is totally apart from the schedule of government business proposed by the government. We could go through all these Commonwealth standing orders and rules.


An hon. Member:: Do it now.


Raymond J. Perrault: I will do it when I have more time. We are looking at the spiritual cousins of our friends second to my left down there. These proposed changes they say are an affront to the British parliamentary democracy. Last week the device called the guillotine was used by the Labour government in Britain. It is a measure to bring a debate to an end.
Let me read the headline which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of July 9. It said, "Wild scene as M.P.'s protest move to impose Guillotine". The article states:
The biggest row in years broke out in the House of Commons Tuesday night as members hurled books, paper missiles and invectives at each other in a dispute over parliamentary boundaries.
The report then continues:
Nearly 500 parliamentarians mounted a clamour of insult over a decision by the government leader in the commons, Fred Peart, to impose a guillotine on a controversial bill affecting parliamentary boundaries ... The guillotine, a parliamentary procedural device, sets a deadline for pushing the bill through into law by next Monday-
That is a six day period.
11334	COMMONS DEBATES	July 17, 1969
Procedure and Organization


Harold Edward Winch: Did you hear of the pipeline debate in 1956?


Raymond J. Perrault: We are not talking about the pipeline debate of 1956, we are talking about the situation in 1969 in Canada, and the sooner we forget about the class struggle in parliament in 1969 the better it will be for this country.


An hon. Member:: You tell them, loudmouth.


Raymond J. Perrault: It is nonsense that somehow democracy has been damaged in Canada as a result of 75c and other measures. This suggestion is clearly ludicrous and is not supported by any fair examination of the facts.
The distinguished professor of political science at the London School of Economics told Canadians in a national television interview a few weeks ago-and I might say that he is not unsympathetic to the views of our friends to the left-that:
The government here never has any doubts about how long parliament will take over any given measure. And when we read occasionally in the U.K. of your pipeline debate, your flag debate, it just seems ludicrous ... I mean it's unbelievable that a government trying to get through a piece of business that it thinks important should be in doubt about when the debate ends ... You can't have debates that go on indefinitely.
Let me quote further from the same interview. Mr. Charles Lynch then went on to make the comment:
Well, there's also a point, I think. Canadian public opinion being more sluggish, I think, or more difficult to reach than British public opinion, because of geography if nothing else, needs a little time and it's been argued that it's not a bad thing for the public understanding of an issue to have a prolonged debate.
Mr. McKenzie of the London School of Economics then replied:
Arguably, yes. Although I hope you're not going to suggest to me that you believe in government by public opinion. This is not something that exists in Britain and doesn't really exist here. Governments are elected to do a job ... and as long as there's a fair opportunity for the opposition of the day, one or several parties, to make the alternative case, we aren't really sitting around surely in the case of the pipeline debate or the flag debate waiting for the public to decide. It's governments that are elected to decide. The public chooses the decision maker. It doesn't make the decisions itself.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and these are the words of an expert on parliamentary procedure who has told us exactly the way things are done in Britain and other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
Professor McKenzie closes, as I do now, by saying:
There's nothing revolutionary about them-
He is referring to measures such as 16a. He goes on to say:
-that's all I'm saying. I'm not now saying that because I happen to live in London I think they do things inevitably better there, but this is an absolutely clearly established principle that governments control parliamentary time-
That is the way it should be.
I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate and point out the fact that it is four o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being four o'clock, pursuant to special order made this day, the house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
At four o'clock the house adjourned pursuant to special order made earlier this day.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 18, 1969