1969-07-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given Your Honour notice. The question of privilege relates to answers given to two questions, one of which was provided yesterday, and a return made pursuant to an order passed by the house in February relating to certain correspondence between the government and a public relations firm.
I should like first to refer to the order for return for correspondence between the public relations firm of Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Limited and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There is within that return, under the heading of "Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Indian Affairs Branch", a payment voucher which says in part:
Pay to: Glendon College Forum
Cheque to be sent to:
J. Shelton, Room 790 by August 28, 1968.
The payment voucher also contains the following information:
Date: 22/3/68
Interim payment to prepare a report on student attitudes to Indian problems as per attached service contract dated 9/8/68.
Amount: $500.
One of the questions I asked was whether the report referred to had been completed. I was not sure whether the date "9/8/68" referred to September 8, 1968 or August 9, 1968, so in the earlier instance I inquired with respect to September 8, 1968. The answer I received was:
This department has no knowledge of any service contract dated September 8, 1968 or any subsequent report on student attitudes to Indian problems pursuant to that service contract.
Thinking I had the wrong date, I rephrased the question and asked again for the information relating to the report on student attitudes to Indian problems pursuant to a service contract dated August 9, 1968. This appeared to
be the correct date of the payment voucher. The answer I received was:
A search of the records has been made and no contract dated August 9, 1968 for the purpose of studying student attitudes to Indian problems was found.
In consequence of the two answers provided, each of which said there was no contract or none could be found, and the information provided in the order for return in the form of a photostatic copy of a payment voucher in the amount of $500 to prepare a report on student attitudes to Indian problems as per attached service contract dated that day, I submit that the privileges of the house have been offended and incorrect information has been provided to the house in the answers to the questions or the answer provided in the order for return. Therefore I believe there is a question of privilege. I wish to make a motion. It is perhaps not written as legibly as Your Honour would like it to be but I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiska-ming (Mr. Peters):
That the answers to question Nos. 2,096 and 2,466. and a return provided pursuant to the motion for production of papers No. 77, and the apparent conflict between these documents be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena gave the Chair notice of the question of privilege he proposes to bring to the attention of the house at this time. I have given the matter consideration and I have listened with interest to the submissions of the hon. member.
On past occasions we have had the suggestion made to the house that this type of complaint against answers given by ministers legitimately gives rise to a question of privilege. I have very serious doubts about this. Hon. members know there are many precedents to indicate that the failure of a minister or a department to give a reply, or the fact that a member may not be satisfied with an answer given by a minister, or that a member may think that two answers are contradictory, or that the answer given is contrary to the facts, does not do so. All this in my estimation is debatable, and in any event, according to our precedents, has never been a legitimate foundation for questions of privilege and, as far as I can judge such cases have never been


.

July 23, 1969

Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who stated there had been a loss of sales of wheat to Japan? Is the minister doing anything to assist the negotiations which are taking place and to make sure there will be no disruption of shipping in Vancouver harbour, with the consequent loss of further wheat sales?


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I have on several occasions been in communication with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about the possibility of the port of Vancouver closing down during the month of August. This is always a possibility, as I have said on many occasions, in the type of democratic country that we have. Under our democratic system strikes are legal. Despite our best efforts there is a possibility that management may not feel it appropriate to pay the unions the sum of money for which they are asking and, conversely, the unions may not be prepared to accept the offer of management. In a democratic country, such as Canada, there is no legislation that prevents anybody exercising their legal right to go on strike or to lock out when and if they have complied with the law as it now exists. In the meantime we are doing everything possible to afford the maximum degree of mediation between both parties to avert such a catastrophe.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Labour use his good offices to persuade the President of the Privy Council, to continue his negotiations with the opposition?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have found in the few cases in which I have been involved that it requires good will on both sides to bring about a settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The only evidence of good will that I have seen has been on this side of the house and not the other. The problem of the President of the Privy Council is to find good will on the part of all parties in attempting to negotiate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On July 10 the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the minister whether he would make a statement on motions regarding the study released on July 9, prepared for the United States Food and Drug Directorate, which showed that large numbers of prescription drugs are ineffective. The minister replied that he would be glad to consider making a statement. Is he now prepared to make such a statement and, if not, can he indicate on which day it will be made?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I still have that matter under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. About two weeks ago I asked the minister a question concerning the closing of the customs port of Ingersoll, Ontario, and the matter was discussed during an adjournment debate. At that time the minister indicated he would be able to reply a little later. Is he now in a position to do so?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I gave a reply in the adjournment debate. I said I was waiting for more information from the hon. member, which I have received. However, I am not in a position to give a final answer now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise hon. members that it is six o'clock. I apologize to hon. members who have important questions to ask. We may have a longer question period tomorrow. For the moment I have to inform the house that it being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. This house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of that department hopes to be in the house tomorrow to answer questions. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question then.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the prices and incomes commission had discussion and negotiation with the automobile industry regarding the retail price of 1970 models which are soon to be on the market?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that they have had any discussion on that matter. They do not keep me informed on a daily basis. It might be premature for them to do so until the 1970 models are on the market. The concern of the hon. member's question supports a great number of letters my department has received protesting the high price of cars. I am sure the house would like the car manufacturers to take these protests into account in arriving at prices for the 1970 models.



TAXATION


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask our happy-looking Minister of Finance a question arising out of his recent statement about the scope of the white paper on taxation. He said the white paper would be devoted to the question of personal and corporate income taxes. Does this mean the question of a capital gains tax is not to be considered in the white paper?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend will have to wait and see.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we rely upon the minister's statement being complete when he said the white paper would be concerned only with corporate and personal income taxes? Is that an accurate statement of what the minister has in mind?


Edgar John Benson: I think it is fairly close, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Gleave.l
July 23, 1963 HOUSE OF COMMONS



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT WHY HOUSE NOT RESUMING UNTIL OCTOBER

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the pressing need for legislation on taxation and other matters, will the Prime Minister consider making a statement on motions tomorrow as to why the government intends the house to reconvene in October rather than September as most of us thought was to be the case?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose the hon. member's party will ever be in a position to know this, but part of the business of government is prepared and transacted outside parliament.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Glad to see you back, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the minister inform the house what steps are being taken to avert a strike of Pacific coast longshoremen? The threat of a strike is severely hampering the sale of wheat because it may not be possible to deliver wheat in August. The longshoremen's contract will expire July 31.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the latest information, which I received at noon today, is that talks between the unions and management will be resuming this Friday, since they have had an opportunity for a week to review the report of the conciliation board which was handed down the other day. My information does not indicate that there has been any loss of wheat sales because of the threat of a strike. If the hon. member has anything more tangible to offer in this respect, I will be glad to turn it over to the appropriate minister for investigation.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, would he discuss this matter with the chairman of the Wheat Board and with the

July 23, 1969	COMMONS
government is doing about the destructive and urgent pollution problem caused by a new break in that vicinity?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I have some doubts about the hon. member's question, but in view of the fact I have been generous this afternoon perhaps I should allow the minister to reply.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we have officers in that area studying the various and serious pollution problems which exist there. The company is doing its utmost to correct the problem. However, if fish are killed we will have to take action under our present legislation.


Mr. Borrie:: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also advise what steps will be taken by the government to prevent a recurrence of such a break?


John (Jack) Davis: I cannot say more on that point, Mr. Speaker. Until the problem is resolved or another incident occurs, which is unlikely, I hesitate to answer in further detail.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also relate to the house what steps his government is taking to implement pollution control measures at Prince George?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping the situation there under close surveillance.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will inform the house during this part of the session why advertising rates charged by the C.B.C. have fallen in spite of rising production costs, and will he tell us particularly whether the government is in effect subsidizing companies who advertise with the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suspect that this question might be placed on the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase the question by putting it on a policy basis, thus making it acceptable. Is it the policy of the C.B.C. to offer advertising rates below cost as a means of undercutting private broadcasters who cannot depend on subsidies?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even with the change I believe that the latter question should be placed on the order paper. If there is some urgency the hon. member can give notice of his intention to debate the matter at the adjournment hour.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I assure you it is of interest to the private broadcasting industry.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he can assure the house, in view of the heavy taxes that Canadians have to pay, that the Department of National Revenue has improved its system of collecting duties from car manufacturers who import from the United States under the United States-Oanada car pact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to appear to be too restrictive in respect of questions, but it appears to me this is a question of a very general nature. If there is urgency, and the hon. member seems to be anxious to tell me that there is, perhaps it would be easier to allow the minister to reply.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would like to ask whether any changes have been made in the system of collecting these duties.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I will verify this.



WHEAT-DIFFERENCE IN PRICES TO JAPAN

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, because of the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt would endeavour to answer this question. In view of the fact that the Japanese food agency is reported to have stated that the United States and Canada have maintained a different scale of prices for wheat for Japan than for European countries, could we be informed whether the Canadian Wheat Board is no longer following the practice of establishing a uniform offering price to all markets?

July 23, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ray Perrauli (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question asked of the Minister of Labour last Monday suggesting the possibility that he might have something to relate to the house today in respect of the British Columbia telephone dispute. Is he in fact able to report any change in the situation as of today?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, instructions went out today to the mediator in British Columbia to take the necessary steps to resume talks between the B.C. Telephone Company and its employees. I hope I will be in a position to make a report on Friday, or certainly next week.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need for construction plans to be initiated before parliament reconvenes in the fall, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether there will be an increase next year in the funds so urgently needed which are available to the provinces? Will funds be made available in order that they may construct additional training facilities to provide the doctors that are sorely needed as a result of medicare?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the amount which is available during this current year will be available during the next current year.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker I should like to ask the minister whether the government is going to keep on putting the cart before the horse?



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the concern of veterans, religious and fraternal organizations regarding the bingo and raffle provisions of the amended Criminal Code, will he tell the house about his negotiations with the provinces and any progress or results

which have been achieved regarding this and ancillary legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts about the urgency of the matter but perhaps-


Harold Edward Winch: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this question is urgent to the veterans, religious and fraternal organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: On the assurance of the hon. member that the question is of urgency, perhaps I should invite the minister to answer.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Jusiice):: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department have been conducting negotiations with the Deputy Attorneys General of the provinces. As hon. members know, the provinces will have the responsibility for licensing and certain other provisions under the new Criminal Code. I expect to make an announcement soon regarding the duties involved in respect of which the proclamation of the new amendments will be made. The basis of the new provisions will be proclaimed soon, but I expect that in some cases there may be a delay in regard to provisions involving provincial administration.



INFORMATION


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addinglon):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister table today the secret report on the proposed new information services?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no secret report, Mr. Speaker.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, are we to assume that the Prime Minister has decided it is not in the interests of parliament to make the report available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think that question is argumentative.



POLLUTION


Robert James Borrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry of which I have given notice. On two previous occasions breaks in the hot liquor discharge from the Columbia Cellulose pulp mill at Prince Rupert have caused considerable damage to fish stocks in the strait. With these incidents in mind, will the minister provide members of the house with information as to what the
July 23, 1969	COMMONS



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct this question to the Prime Minister. It is based on his statement in the house on March 19 as recorded at page 6853 of Hansard. With reference to the A.B.M. system he said:
If, Mr. Speaker, after receiving all the information, we are led to the view that the A.B.M. system constitutes escalation and is conducive to greater peril for mankind, then we shall condemn it. We shall tell the United States that we disapprove. If, on the other hand, we are convinced that the A.B.M. system is necessary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. May I point out to the hon. member that I do not think it is in order for him to read at length from a previous answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think I have read sufficient of the statement to indicate that the Prime Minister said to the house on March 19 that when the government had studied the whole question of the A.B.M. system he would be prepared to make a statement either condemning the construction of the Safeguard System or indicating that he would co-operate in its construction. In view of the fact that the majority leader in the United States Senate has now stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize how important the matter is about which the hon. member is asking a question, but the length of the question should not be based on its importance. I would hope that the hon. member might ask the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall certainly obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the majority leader of the United States Senate has said that a decision will probably be made in the next few days in favour of the construction of the Safeguard System, has the Prime Minister made any decision concerning whether or not the Canadian government is going to condemn its construction, and what will the policy of the Canadian government be in respect of this matter which affects all mankind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give the house and the country any idea when the government will reach a decision? This matter has been hanging fire since March. It is one of the many matters which have been hanging fire. When does the government intend to make a decision or does it intend to make a decision at all?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government is anxious to get back on the job and consider this and other items which are before it. As soon as we get back to the roster system we may have a bit more time to do so.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is anxious to get back to the job, will he explain to the house why he is waiting until October 22 to resume the session, particularly if there is so much work to be done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked by the hon. member is in order. In any event I suggest the question is argumentative.



WHEAT-ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF BOX CARS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there are only a few more days remaining in the present crop year and many elevator points are holding orders for box cars which are not available, will the Minister of Transport take it upon himself to call the management of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. to see whether or not within the remaining few days it may be possible to direct extra box cars to these points in order to pick up the bulk of the five-bushel quota that is in effect? I have in mind the reluctance of the Canadian Wheat Board in this regard.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with officials of both railway companies. They are aware of this situation. I will make sure that they know the situation as reflected by the hon. member's question. I will also consult with the Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Agriculture with the hope of making these extra facilities available.
Inquiries of the Ministry which I presented on July 16. The reason I ask is that this is an important document which I think would be of interest to all hon. members who are concerned about the situation in Nigeria and Biafra at this time. When may we expect the production of these papers?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I will have to make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask either the President of the Privy Council or the President of the Treasury Board whether something might be done to expedite the handling of my notice of motion for production of papers No. 189, having to do with a study of the pensions of retired public servants?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to have a presidential conference about this. If I might, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville that his motion was called last week and transferred for debate.


An hon. Member:: He wTas absent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was notified by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries that notices of motions numbered 197 and 200 would be called. I wonder when they intend to bring these forward.


Mr. Whelan:: Next sitting of the house, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he as yet received any word from the government of Nigeria with regard to the proposal made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the government of Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no
[Mr. NystromJ
July 23, 1969
direct response from the Nigerian government but our proposal, among others, is being considered by the various bodies which are supplying relief and is being discussed. It seems to be a useful contribution to the discussions going on, but unfortunately this has not resulted in the kind of action we want.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs have in mind any further initiative on the part of Canada to bring matters to a successful conclusion in view of the reported imminence of the continuation of mass starvation? I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day whether he had any further measures in mind and his short answer was yes. Would he elaborate on what measures he proposes to take?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are engaged in discussion with all bodies concerned such as the United States government, the British government, the Nigerian government, the Red Cross and the other various agencies in a search for some means to break the deadlock.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs considered asking the government of Great Britain directly whether it would consider imposing an arms embargo unless some satisfactory solution is worked out promptly to bring relief in both Nigeria and Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that the cessation of arms shipments by all sides is what is most desirable.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any further consideration has been given to the suggestion that Canada use its good offices and initiative in getting the parties together, along with the representatives of the International Red Cross and the church organizations, in order to discuss this matter in view of the tremendous emergency?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Very careful and continuus discussion is going on in respect of this matter but as yet we have not been able to get agreement among the parties most concerned as to the most useful way to pursue this initiative.

July 23, 1969


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I rise in regard to the same matter. I refer to starred question No. 2,108 which has been on the order paper since April 25. As Your Honour knows, starred questions are supposed to be promptly answered.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will add that to the list, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Burton:: On Monday last, Mr. Speaker, I inquired regarding question 2,349 which was asked on May 23. I think it is quite important that this information be made available at the earliest possible date. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would make further inquiries regarding this question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We answered one of the two questions the hon. member inquired about and we hope to have the answer to the other available shortly.


Mr. Coates:: I have a simple matter, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 2,153 asks for the name and salary of the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. I do not think we should have to wait almost three months for a reply to that question.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 223, 265 and 267 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motion No. 223, 265 and 267 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PORT ALBERNI, B.C.-CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 223-Mr. Barnett:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the Minister of Transport and/or the Department, since August 22, 1967, and of replies thereto on the subject-matter of the construction of additional deep-sea wharf and berthing facilities in Port Alberni Harbour.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 265-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Order-in-Council passed during June 1969, amending the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour
Motions for Papers
Regulations to allow the maximum hours of work to be exceeded in emergency situations which would otherwise constitute a violation of the Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 267-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and reports between the Minister of National Defence and the Naval Officer's Association of Canada in relation to updating the Armed Forces pension structure.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 209 and 210 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the governmental authorities concerned.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motion Nos. 209 and 210 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH B.C. HYDRO RESPECTING INDIAN PROPERTY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 209-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, agreements or arrangements between the Government of Canada and the British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority regarding the acquisition of certain property and/or rights from the Tsawwassen Indian Band of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 210-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, agreements or arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Tsawwassen Indian Band of British Columbia regarding the acquisition of its property and/or rights to the British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Nystrom:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to inquire of the President of the Privy Council when I may expect an answer to notice of motion 255

July 23, 1969
Questions



EMPLOYMENT, BONNE BAY PARK AREA

Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many are employed by the federal government in the proposed Bonne Bay Park area in Western Newfoundland?
2.	What type of work is being carried out?
3.	Are the boundaries for the proposed area defined and is there agreement on these boundaries between the federal and provincial governments?
4.	When is it expected that the land for the proposed park will be handed over to the federal government?
5.	Has an agreement been signed between the federal and provincial governments for the establishment of the proposed Bonne Bay Park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2.
The Department of Public Works now has one man on the site preparing for camps and facilities. On July 28, D.P.W. will have eleven more men doing road location work.
Consultants have been retained by the National and Historic Parks Branch, Planning Division, to work on the preparation of the Park Master Plan.
3.	A boundary proposal has been made to the Province of Newfoundland and is under consideration by them.
4.	A start in handing over the land should be made within one year of an agreement, and all land should be in federal hands within 2 to 3 years of the agreement.
5.	No.



DEVELOPMENT PLANS, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION

Mr. Marshall: 1.	Is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion presently negotiating co-operative development plans with any provinces similar to that recently concluded with Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, which provinces?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1 and 2. No. Discussions are underway with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Manitoba for the purpose of formulating economic development plans for each province on the basis of the new programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It is expected that similar discussions will commence shortly with other provinces.



OTTO BORG-COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCE

Mr. Latulippe: Did the government take into account federal legislation on capital punishment when a police officer or prison guard has been murdered in arriving at its decision of commutation in the Borg case?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: The government acted under federal legislation in arriving at its decision of commutation in the Borg case.



AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT-ADDITION OF CORN AND POTATOES

Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider adding (a) corn (b) potatoes, as mandatory commodities under the Agricultural Stabilization Act?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No revision is presently contemplated for the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
Under Section 2 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act as it exists, Corn and Potatoes can quite adequately be looked after as designated commodities.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Have representations been received on the easing of regional tariff structures between the Atlantic Provinces and the Eastern Seaboard of the United States as well as the United Kingdom with regard to the improvement of markets and the development of trade between those areas?
2.	What has been the response of the government in this regard?
3.	Is serious consideration being given to the implementation of that program or what steps are being taken to increase trade between these areas?
Return tabled.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since we are likely to be here for a few days, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would try to do something about question No. 1,917 which has been on the order paper for three and a half months and question No. 2,171 which has been on the order paper for two and a half months? Will the minister look into this?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if possible I will be glad to report to the hon. member about these matters on Monday.
July 23, 1969

following the study and recommendations of the government appointed Commissioner and, if so, what will be the nature of the tribunal?
2.	Will the Indians be given legal assistance in presenting their case and, if so, what will be the nature of this legal assistance?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The
course of action to be followed in this matter will not be decided upon until after the report of the Commissioner has been received.
2.	In view of the reply to Part 1, it follows that the question as to legal assistance cannot be answered at this time. It will be noted, however, that it is expected the Commissioner will be authorized to recommend appropriate support to the National Indian Committee on Indian Rights and Treaties, so that it may conduct research on the Indians' behalf concurrently with the Commissioner's inquiry, as indicated in the recent statement on Indian Policy.



FARM CREDIT ACT-LOANS TO INDIANS

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since the Farm Credit Act was amended to provide loans to Indian people on Reserve lands (a) how many loans have been made and in what amounts (b) what Reservations have received the loans and in what amounts?
2.	How many applications for loans are pending and from what Reservations?
3.	How many applications for loans have been refused and from what Reservations?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. (a) As at July 15, 1969, nineteen loans amounting to $385,000 had been approved for Indians farming on Reserves; (b) The Indians for whom these loans had been approved resided on the following Reserves: Neskainlith, Sahhaltkum, Okanagan, Cookes Ferry, Cow-ness, Pepeekesis, Muskeg, Mistawasis, Assini-boine, Chitek Lake, Rousseau River, Valley River, Long Plain, Peguis, Lake St. Martin, Tyendinaga. The amount of the loans approved on each Reserve has not been shown because on some Reserves only one farmer applied for the loan. To list the amount of loan to a Reserve in such instances would disclose the amount borrowed by the individual farmer and such information, whether on or off Reserves, is treated as confidential by the Corporation.
2. As at July 15, 1969, a total of six applications were pending from Indians farming
Questions
on the following Reserves: Ashnole, Cumberland, Piapot, Peguis, Lake St. Martin, Fair-ford.
3.	One application had been declined during the same period.



HIGHWAYS THROUGH NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the government continuing the program of reconstruction and upgrading of major highways through Canada's National Parks?
2.	Since 1958, what highway projects have been carried out under the program (a) at what cost (b) and, in what parks?
3.	When will reconstruction of No. 10 Highway through Riding Mountain National Park be carried out under this program?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the reply to that question is rather long and I wonder whether the house would agree to having it printed in Hansard and taken as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Some hon. Members Mr. Forest: 1. Yes. 2. Projects Banff Windermere Banff Jasper
Jasper Edmonton Jasper Yellowhead Maligne Lake Chief Mountain
Waskesiu
Cabot Trail
Gulf Shore Elk Island
Eastport Road
David Thompson
Yes.
Park
Banff National Park Banff and Jasper National Parks Jasper National Park Jasper National Park Jasper National Park Water ton Lakes National Park Prince Albert National Park Cape Breton Highlands National Park P.E.I. National Park Elk Island National Park
Terra Nova National Park
Banff National Park 1958-$60,890,000.
(a)	Total cost since
(b)	Answered in preceding project listing.
3. Detailed planning for replacement of the Highway will commence in 1970. Construction could start within 3 years.

July 23. 1969
Questions


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1.	The Canada Council is constituted by the federal government as an independent organization responsible for setting its own policies within the terms of the Canada Council Act. I am informed by the Canada Council that the Council ensures that its grants to publishers are used for the purpose of producing specific publications.
2.	Answered in reply to Question No. 2,526 -Mr. Yewchuk-June 13.



SUPERSONIC PLANES-PLACING OF ORDER BY AIR CANADA

Mr. Skoberg: Was Air Canada allowed to place an order for six Boeing Supersonic planes in view of the answer given by the Minister of Transport to Question No. 2,289, to the effect that no approval has been given to the flying or landing of Supersonic planes in Canada by the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commissioners and, if so, for what reason?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: No airline, including Air Canada, has placed an order for Boeing Supersonic aircraft. As in the case of approximately 25 airlines of the world, for competitive reasons, Air Canada has reserved Line Positions for the Boeing Supersonic transport.



GRANT TO SEMINAR ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Marshall: 1.	How much money was given by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the organizers of the Seminar on Economic Development held at Chicoutimi, Quebec on March 21, 1969?
2.	Is it the policy of the federal government to offer similar assistance to other groups wishing to hold regional development seminars?
3.	If so, what are the conditions under which such assistance will be offered?
4.	To what person must applications for such assistance be made?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. A grant of $3,400 (50 per cent of cost of organization and presentation of Seminar) was made to the Universite de Quebec, Chicoutimi.
2.	Yes.
3.	Such assistance will be offered under the following conditions: (a) The subject matter

must be related to regional economic development; (b) The cost of the project must be shared equally between the sponsoring organization and the federal government; (c) Grants are given, in most cases, in designated areas, where there is a specific need to review and study the problems of regional economic development.
4.	ADM Incentives, Department of Regional Economic Expansion.



CALGARY AIRPORT-TENDERS FOR OPERATION OF PARKING FACILITIES

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In what publications and on what dates were tenders called for the operation of parking facilities at the Calgary International Airport?
2.	What are the full names and addresses of the Directors and principal shareholders of the company chosen for the operation of parking facilities at the Calgary International Airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. (a) October 8 and 9, 1968, in The Albertan, Calgary; The Calgary Herald, Calgary; Edmonton Journal, Edmonton; Daily Commercial News and Building Records, Toronto; (b) On October 8 only in the Journal of Commerce, Vancouver, B.C.
2. Walter Crinchic, President, 55 Isabella St., Toronto 5, Ont. John G. Crinchic, VicePresident, 59 Laurelwood Crescent, Toronto, Ont. Mrs. Dorothy Crinchic, Secretary, 55 Isabella St., Toronto 5, Ont.



SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES

Mr. Robinson: Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources provide scientific and semi-technical reports for the public at nominal cost and, if not, for what reason and is the information contained in these scientific and semi-technical reports available to the public generally and, if so, in what manner is it made available?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes. Scientific, technical and semitechnical reports of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are available to the public at nominal cost through the Queen's Printer and the Queen's Printer Book Shops across Canada.



REFERENCE OF INDIAN RIGHTS TO TRIBUNAL

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Will the aboriginal and treaty rights of Canadian Indians be referred to an impartial tribunal
July 23, 1969

Questions
Mail", a history oi the postal services in Canada, was produced in 1967 by the National Film Board.
2.	$53,872.
3.	Distribution in Canada: theatrically by Columbia Pictures of Canada Ltd.; nontheatrically by the National Film Board. Distribution Abroad: efforts' are being made to distribute theatrically and on television; non-theatrical distribution is being conducted by Canadian Embassies and posts abroad.
4.	The Post Office Department paid $45,413. The National Film Board paid $8,459.



PORTUGUESE USE OF MILITARY SUPPLIES OBTAINED FROM NATO COUNTRIES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is the Government of Canada aware of reports that military supplies obtained through NATO agreements are being used by the Portugese in Mozambique and Angola?
2.	If so, have steps been taken to confirm or deny these reports?
3.	If the truth of these reports has been established, has the Government of Canada made representations to Portugal or the other NATO allies that are supplying the Portugese with arms?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The Canadian Government is not aware that military supplies obtained through NATO agreements are being used by the Portuguese authorities in Mozambique and Angola.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.



EFFECT OF POSTAL RATE INCREASE ON &quot;CANADIAN BOY&quot;

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the Post Office Department been advised that as a result of the recent increase in postal rates the magazine Canadian Boy has had to reduce the weight of its publication to two ounces in order to qualify for a postal rate somewhat higher than that prevailing heretofore?
2.	Have protests or representations been received concerning the consequent reduction in the size of this magazine?
3.	From what individuals or organizations were such protests or representations received?
4.	What was the nature of the reply given to such representations?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.



AVERAGE INCREASE IN SALARY, DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DEPUTIES

Mr. Robinson: What was the average increase in salaries given to department heads and deputies in the civil service in each of the years 1960-69 inclusive?
Mr. J. E. V/alker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister): The average increase in salaries of deputy ministers in the federal public service in each of the years 1960-69 inclusive was as follows: 1960, Nil; 1961, 5 per cent; 1962, Nil; 1963, 13 per cent; 1964, Nil; 1965, 8 per cent; 1966, Nil; 1967, 6.5 per cent; 1968, Nil; 1969, Nil (as of 18 July, 1969).



BANKING-PREFERENCE TO SMALL BORROWERS

Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government considering a policy to regulate banking so that small borrowers receive preference over large borrowers when credit is limited?


Edgar John Benson: No. The federal government does not have statutory power to regulate banking so that small borrowers would receive preference over large borrowers. Moreover I consider any such legal regulation would be impractical. However, in his appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Governor of the Bank of Canada indicated that he has expressed the view to the executives of the banks that they should have special regard for borrowers in less prosperous areas of the country and for small businesses that do not have alternative sources of credit.



CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO PUBLISHERS

Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is it the policy of the federal government to ensure that grants given by the Canada Council to publishers are used for the purpose of producing specific publications?
2.	What are the terms of reference for awarding Canada Council grants for the production of periodicals?

July 23, 1969
Questions
the new instrument landing system equipment during the next five years at the following locations: Vancouver International (4 systems); Calgary International (2 systems); Winnipeg International; Toronto International (3 systems); Montreal International (2 systems); Halifax International; Torbay; Edmonton International; Charlottetown; North Bay; Quebec; New Montreal Airport (2 systems); Deer Lake or Stephenville; Peace River; Fort Chimo; Resolute; Mont Joli; Ottawa International; Waterloo-Wellington; Kelowna; Kamloops.



CANADIAN FORCES-FLIGHT PAY WITHOUT FLIGHT DUTY

Mr. Robinson: Are any of the 689 officers, formerly RCAF Aircrew, without university degrees and serving
in the Canadian Forces, not on flying duty per se, receiving flying pay and, if so, how many and how much do they each receive according to rank?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Without conducting a survey of the personnel records of all serving aircrew officers, sorting out the files of the 689 officers concerned, and examining their pay records, it is not possible to provide an accurate answer to this question, and the necessary expert staff are not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information.
However, the following table reflects the standard rates of pay for officers of the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as the rates for pilots and navigators.
Monthly Rates (in dollars)
					Incentive Pay Category							
Rank	Basic	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11LGEN	
MGEN	
BOHN	1837	1887	COL	
COL (PILOT)	
COL (NAVIGATOR)	.... 1579 .... 1579	1546 1624 1624	1591 1669 1669	LCOL	
LCOL (PILOT)	
LCOL (NAVIGATOR)	.... 1355 .... 1277	1239 1395 1317	1279 1435 1357	1319 1475 1397	1359 1515 1437	MAJ	
MAJ (PILOT)	
MAJ (NAVIGATOR)	.... 1074	1028 1214 1106	1060 1246 1138	1092 1278 1170	1124 1310 1202	1156 1342 1234	CAPT	
CAPT (PILOT)	
CAPT (NAVIGATOR)	.... 944 .... 855	804 974 915	829 1014 955	854 1054 995	879 1094 1035	904 1134 1075	929 1174 1115	1194 1135	1214 1155	LT (CFR)	
LT (CFR) (PILOT)	
LT (CFR) (NAVIGATOR) ..	.... 890 .... 827	740 915 852	760 950 887	780 985 922	800 1020 957	LT	608 761 739	683 861 839	698 876 854	713 891 869	728 906	743 921	758LT (PILOT)	
LT (NAVIGATOR)	.... 724	776 754	816 794	831 809	846 824	
Your attention is directed to the reply to part 2 of your question 1554, page 6388 of Hansard, dated March 10, 1969.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-DOCUMENTARY ON POSTAL SERVICES

Mr. McCleave: 1. Has the National Film Board recently made a documentary about Canada's postal services?
I Mr. Jamieson.]
2.	If so, at what cost?
3.	Under what circumstances will the film be shown?
4.	Did the Post Office Department or the Department of Communications pay part or all of the costs and, if so, how much?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows:	Yes-a documentary "A Tale of
July 23, 1969

Questions
Canada, No. 1 Air Division and 4th Mecha- requirements was in doubt, a special inquiry nized Brigade Group in Germany, the U.N. under the Immigration Act was ordered to Contingent in Cyprus, and with the integrated determine whether he should be admitted. Canada-United States NORAD information Pending the hearing of this inquiry, the ori-offices at North Bay and Colorado Springs. ginal date of which was adjourned at Mr. 2. Costs prior to 1965-66 were not main- Lennon's request so that he could obtain tained in a manner which would permit this leSal counsel, Mr. Lennon was conditionally data to be readily identified. Since 1965 the released from immigration custody. Before total cost of information services is as follows:	the rescheduled inquiry was held, Mr. Lennon
1965-66,	$462,519.68;	1966-67,	$674,707.31; withdrew his application and left Canada
1967-68, $821,316.17; 1968-69, $872,176.00. voluntarily.



C.B.C. PROGRAMS FEATURING JOHN LENNON, YOKO ONO

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the period May 20 to June 10, 1969 what radio programs of the CBC featured John Lennon and/or Yoko Ono?
2.	During the same period what television programs of the CBC featured John Lennon and/or Yoko Ono?
3.	In respect of part 1, which programs were local and which were network?
4.	In respect of part 2, which programs were local and which were network?
5.	How much money was paid to (a) John Lennon (b) Yoko Ono in respect of the programs mentioned in parts 1 and 2?
6.	What were the total production costs of the programs mentioned in parts 1 and 2?
7.	Did the CBC contribute in any financial way by the payment of performance fees or otherwise to the trip by John Lennon and Yoko Ono from Montreal to Ottawa during the period mentioned?
8.	What was the immigration status in Canada of John Lennon and Yoko Ono during the period in question?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. "As It Happens", May 26 (network); "Radio Free Friday", May 30 (network); "Sunday Supplement", June 1 (network); "Action Set", May 31; June 7 (network).
2.	"The Way It Is", June 1 & 8 (network); "The Day It Is", May 27 (local).
3.	See part 1.
4.	See part 2.
5.	None.
6.	All production costs fell within the normal budgets for these programs. No accurate breakdown is available.
7.	No.
8.	John Lennon and his wife, Yoko Ono, were in Canada as applicants for admission. As Mr. Lennon's ability to meet admission
29180-'728J



UNION OF ONTARIO INDIANS-DENIAL OF STATUS AS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1. Was the Union of Ontario Indians denied status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes on the grounds that its objects include activities "promoting a closer relationship and better understanding" which has been held not to be a charitable purpose?
2.	Have other organizations been denied status as charitable organizations for income tax purposes for the same or similar reasons and, if so, which organizations?
3. Was the Union of Ontario Indians denied status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes on the grounds that it included among its purposes "obtaining a political object by agitating for legislation", which has been held not to be a charitable purpose?
4.	Have other organizations been denied status as charitable organizations for income tax purposes for the same or similar reasons and, if so, which organizations?
5.	Is the Minister considering changes in the standards for determining status as a charitable organization for income tax purposes, to accommodate organizations like the Union of Ontario Indians?


John Cole: 1. Yes.
2.	This information is not available.	I
3.	Yes.
4.	This information is not available.
5.	No. This would require an amendment to the law and would be a matter of government policy.



AIRPORTS-LOCATION OF INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEMS

Mr. McCleave: What are the locations of the 29 airports to receive the instrument landing systems announced by the Minister of Transport June 30?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is currently planned to install

July 23, 1969
Questions
second motion is to the same effect as the first. It can be in order later on in our proceedings provided there is an intermediate proceeding as required by the provisions of Standing Order 25.

As I interpret standing order 25, I must come to the conclusion that this motion to adjourn cannot be put to the house at this time until some intermediate proceeding has taken place.
I must therefore regretfully refuse to put to the house the motion made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Burton: 1.	On what date or dates were the Honourable Robert K. Andras, the Honourable Otto E. Lang and the Honourable James A. Richardson appointed to the Cabinet?
2.	What ministerial appointments has each held since entering the Cabinet and on what date was each such appointment made?
3.	What has been the annual rate of remuneration for salary and motor car allowance for each since first appointed, together with effective dates?
4.	What is the annual rate of remuneration for salary and motor car allowance for other Cabinet Ministers except the Prime Minister?
attitudes to Indian problems pursuant to a service contract dated August 9, 1968?
2.	What monies were paid, and to whom, with respect to work done in the preparation of the said report whether or not it is completed?
3.	By what name is the said report known?
4.	To whom has the report been distributed?
5.	Is the government prepared to make the said report available to (a) all Indian Bands and (b) Parliament and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A search of the records has been made and no contract dated August 9, 1968 for the purpose of studying student attitudes to Indian problems was found.


REDUCTION OF TOLLS, EASTERN TOWNSHIPS FREEWAY, CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	To the federal government's knowledge, does the Government of Quebec intend to reduce the tolls on the eastern townships freeway starting July 1, 1969?
2.	Does the federal government intend to reduce the tolls on the Champlain Bridge and, if not, for what reason?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. This is a matter which concerns the Government of the Province of Quebec and the Department of Transport has no knowledge of any such intention.
2. The federal government does not feel that a change in the present policy is warranted at this time.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. July 6, 1968.
2. On July 6, 1968, all three were appointed Ministers Without Portfolio. Subsequently, on May 5, 1969, the Hon. James A. Richardson was appointed Minister of Supply and Services.
3 and 4. In addition to their sessional indemnity and expense allowance as a member of parliament, or of the Senate, cabinet ministers' with Portfolio receive $15,000 plus $2,000 motor car allowance; ministers without portfolio receive $7,500 plus $2,000 motor car allowance.


STUDENT ATTITUDES TO INDIAN PROBLEMS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1. Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received a report on student


PUBLIC RELATIONS, NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


David Walter Groos: 1. The
Department of National Defence does not have a public relations staff but a Directorate of Information Services provides information on the activities of the Department, the Canadian Armed Forces, Defence Research Board and Canada Emergency Measures Organization. Thirty eight military officers with a support staff of nine military non-commissioned officers and 25 civilians serve the Directorate of Information Services at ten locations in
July 23, 1969

that it is permissible tor us to proceed to deal with the matter.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank first of all all the hon. members who expressed their views on the acceptability of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is this: My purpose in proposing this motion was very specific and very different from the previous motions. That is why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. I remind the hon. member that even if the motions for adjournment of the house submitted earlier this afternoon were subject to debate, this one is not. Accordingly, the hon. member is not allowed to state an argument similar to those put forward when the previous amendments were put before the house.
What we have to consider at the present time is solely and exclusively a question of procedure, that is, whether the motion is acceptable or not. I am ready to listen to the hon. member in the hope that the arguments he may submit in support of his motion, of the acceptability of the motion, will add something new to the arguments submitted so far.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My object in rising after having submitted this motion was first of all to thank the hon. members for their kindness in supporting this motion and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am ready to co-operate with the hon. members in so far as they are ready to co-operate with me. I took the liberty of calling the hon. member to order and he absolutely cannot disregard the Chair's warning and repeat what he had started to say a moment ago. He must, and I made this suggestion with all due respect and in a spirit of friendship restrict his remarks to the debate on procedure.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am quite ready to accept your ruling with the utmost humility. I was just coming to the point.
When I moved this motion, I did it according to the Beauchesne's citation, as pointed out previously and I would like to make it clear that it was my firm intention to move a motion totally different from the preceding
Procedure and Organization motions, according to sub-clause (20) of Beauchesne's citation.
Such was the aim of my comments.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg). I hope if he has an argument to submit it will be different from those which have already been presented for the guidance of the Chair because at the moment some of them are not very helpful.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: I accede to the wish of the Chair, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his generous co-operation.
I have listened to hon. members who have taken part in this procedural debate. As I indicated when the motion was moved some few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin), I had serious doubts about the motion. Hon. members have argued this motion should be receivable under the provisions of Standing Order 25 without the necessity of an intermediate proceeding because it is not the same motion. Certainly I recognize the motion to adjourn at 5.30 p.m. is not the same as a simple motion to adjourn the house, but I pointed out in the first instance that this is not what the Standing Order states.
The Standing Order is to the effect that:
-no second motion to the same effect shall be made until some intermediate proceeding has taken place.
I doubt that it is the intention of the Standing Order to allow a second motion of adjournment after one has already been considered without an intermediate proceeding, even though the first motion had a condition attached to it.
I realize that this is perhaps new law. I was tempted to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and other members who took part in the procedural debate, whether they had a precedent to support their views. I am sure they did not because I do not think we have ever had this type of motion following a motion of the kind moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
All this having been said, I would say that the real test we now have to apply is: had the first motion carried, would this motion be in order? The answer is obvious. To my mind the only conclusion I can reach is that the
11516	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization


Mr. McCleave:: I submit that we should not really be saying that we axe substituting one motion for another, that we are substituting a motion which asks the house to adjourn at an unspecified time for a previous motion saying that the house shall adjourn at a specified time. The argument that no second motion "to the same effect" shall be put is really irrelevant because there never was a motion in the first place which was decided by this chamber. 1 think this is an important distinction we ought to consider.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great trepidation, having hoped that the irrefutable logic of the sweetly reasoned arguments of hon. gentlemen who preceded me would be accepted. In any event, one might argue that there ought to be unanimous willingness on the part of all concerned to accept the motion on the basis that the mood of the house at this time is not conducive to the transacting of further business. However, since I do not see the dawning light of acceptance in the eyes of hon. members opposite I hope to make my argument to Your Honour in support of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do so in the hope that this on-the-job training for the government which is now taking place may be of benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: My authorities for making this argument are the two standing orders in question. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) moved a motion and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved an amendment to it under Standing Order 42(1). But the motion the house is now considering is the one that has been moved under Standing Order 25. That in itself is significant. If the original motion of the hon. and learned member for Calgary North which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sought to amend had been accepted, it would have meant that debate would have continued until a specified time. That was the intent of the motion.
The hon. member's reason for moving the motion is plain. It frequently happens that if there is debate up to a specified time the house may arrive at a conclusion with respect to the matter then before it. Bearing that in mind the hon. member moved that the house do adjourn at a certain time. If the motion had been accepted right away it would have meant that we could have further debated the
[Mr. McCleave.1
DEBATES	July 23, 1969
issues before the house for approximately another hour and a half.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is the type that comes before the house most frequently, and I think Your Honour is entitled to take judicial notice of the way motions are moved under Standing Order 25. For instance, when the house is discussing clauses of a bill and a motion has been put to adjourn debate on one clause, another similar motion following that one cannot be properly put until there has been an intermediate stage. Normally that means that we must move from one clause to the discussion of another clause. With great deference I suggest that a neat distinction must be drawn between the two motions which have come before the house. Consequently, the motion offered by the hon. member for Lotbiniere should be put. In any event I point out to Your Honour that we have had an intermediary stage and it might well meet the convenience of the house if the motion were put at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether there is much point in having hon. members pursue the matter further. Of course, I have indicated to hon. members that I do not wish to restrict their rights to speak on this important point of order. Is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rising on the point of order?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to draw to your attention, and this is quite apart from any reference to intermediate proceedings and entries in the Journals, that a distinction must be drawn between any motion which asks the house to adjourn at a specified time, say at 5.30, and the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Since Standing Order 42(1) says that a motion under the Standing Order to adjourn the house may be put, it is necessary to establish a time for adjournment when one moves a motion under that Standing Order because there are references in it to times of meeting and adjournment of the house. With respect, Standing Order 25 makes no reference to the time of adjournment. It merely speaks of a motion to adjourn.
I submit that because there is this distinction, Standing Order 42(1) in effect saying that there must be a specified time for adjournment and Standing Order 25 saying that you do not need a specified time, Your Honour can make the determination that the two motions the house is considering are different and not "to the same effect", and
July 23, 1969

has been an intermediate proceeding here as referred to in citation 99 (2), and therefore I will not argue that point. I should emphasize that the important words of Standing Order 25 are the words "to the same effect". The hon. member used several different turns of phrase; he said that this was not the same motion, that there was no question of its being of the same nature or character. If any of those words had appeared in the Standing Order, then obviously they would apply to the motion.
I submit the Standing Order is clear in this regard. It refers to a motion that shall have the same result as a former motion, regardless of the words used to frame the former. For this reason I suggest that what we have here are two motions which, in effect, are identical, are back to back, and therefore in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 25 the second motion cannot be received.
May I just deal with the hon. member's reference to the last sentence of citation 99(2). He appears to be saying that there is no difference in effect between a motion to adjourn the house and a motion to adjourn the debate I think Your Honour will recognize that there is a very great difference between the two. If the house adjourns no further business can be conducted. If the debate adjourns then there can be further business on that day, though not on the same question. For these reasons I suggest the motion is out of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all reply to the argument of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that the wording of the rule is that no second motion to the same effect shall be made until some intermediate proceeding has taken place. I admit that if this motion is put and carried, then at 5.30 it might have the same result in that the house will adjourn. But I submit the motion is not to the same effect.
It has been clearly pointed out that the previous motion moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was a motion to adjourn under Standing Order 42 (1) for a specific purpose, a purpose he explained, namely to try to negotiate further on the question of the closure rule. A time was set at which the house would adjourn so that the house leaders could get together.
The motion now before the house falls under Standing Order 25, which provides that a motion to adjourn may be made at any time. The one big difference, Mr. Speaker, is this. Your Honour was obliged to rule the
Procedure and Organization main motion out of order because we had passed the hour of four o'clock. That ruling has been accepted and no second motion was put. But, Mr. Speaker, that same argument cannot apply to this particular motion because it may be put at any time at all. I think this shows the essential difference between the two motions. It is close to 5.30 p.m. and the house would adjourn if either motion were carried. I submit, nevertheless, that it cannot be said that this motion is "to the same effect", and I therefore think that it should be allowed.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, you have heard submissions by those who are professed experts on the rules. I do not profess to be an expert on the rules but I suggest to Your Honour that rule 25 which we are considering here is very clear in its meaning. The question that faces you is one of extreme simplicity, namely, the simple English meaning of the words, "to the same effect".
I submit it is quite impossible to say that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-or indeed, if it comes to that, the motion introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) which Your Honour ruled out of order-and the motion we are presently considering can be said to be "to the same effect". If anyone were to say they are to the same effect I submit he would be torturing the English language. How can a motion calling on the house to adjourn at five o'clock, or 5.30, be to the same effect as a motion calling on the house to adjourn forthwith, or immediately upon the taking of the vote?
I do not think I need to elaborate my argument by saying that we are not dealing with the same corpus. The two motions are not to the same effect and I do not see why we should have this great difficulty on this particular point. The wording of the rule is crystal clear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one point in addition to those which have been made by my colleagues on this side of the house. I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government house leader seem to have been driven from the chamber by my rising to speak.


An hon. Member:: King Canute is not here.
Procedure and Organization Since this motion is not debatable its disposition will not be long delayed and we would adjourn very soon.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
May I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 99 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to be found at pages 88 and 89.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do
not know why hon. members opposite cry "dispense" so often. I realize they want to dispense with debate, but let us not dispense with the rules. Citation 99 (2) provides:
The term "intermediate proceeding" used in Standing Order 25-
That is the one that has just been read, which provides that a motion to adjourn cannot be to the same effect as a previous motion unless there be some intermediate proceeding.
-means a proceeding that can properly be entered on the Journals. The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place, the second motion is regular, and the clerk ought to enter the proceedings to show that the motion in question is regular. It is usual to alternate motions for adjournment of House and debate when a question is under consideration.
That citation clearly provides that although you cannot move the same motion immediately afterwards, motions that are different in effect can be moved; they can be alternated. I do not want to say it, but the process could go on all day, though it could not take place at this point because there is no debate to adjourn. If we were in the course of a debate then it would be in order, according to this citation, for someone to get the floor and move the adjournment of the debate. Then following that another member could move the adjournment of the house, and then another the adjournment of the debate, and so on.
Hon. members on the other side of the house found it amusing when I indicated that the time was 5.02. It is now 5.05, not four o'clock or 5.30. However, my point is that there is a difference in character and in nature between the two motions. The motion now before the house is the standard motion to adjourn, which by our rules is always in order. The other motion was a substantive motion fixing the time of debate at some time other than the point at which the motion was being debated. That motion is provided for under the terms of Standing Order 32(1) (p); it is debatable and it was debated.

July 23, 1969
The present motion is moved under Standing Order 32(2) which provides:
All other motions, unless otherwise provided in these standing orders, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
On that ground too this motion is a different kettle of fish. Both motions include the word "adjourn" in their terms, but the other motion is a substantive one that seeks to fix a point in time for a debate. The present motion is not debatable and calls for the adjournment of the house at this very moment.
In the same way, Mr. Speaker, we sometimes move motions to amend our rules, to change our hours of sitting, motions that are debatable but are different from motions to adjourn. Motions are sometimes moved- there is one on Votes and Proceedings now that we will come to in a few days-in connection with adjourning for the summer recess. There have frequently been occasions when this kind of motion has been moved, namely, that when the house adjourns this day it shall stand adjourned until a certain specified time. That is a substantive motion that is debatable, yet immediately after it is put and debated there is a motion moved that the house do now adjourn. As I say, both motions include the word "adjourn", but they are allowed to be moved one after the other because they are different.
I submit that the motion now being made falls within Standing Order 25. It is the ordinary motion to adjourn that is in order at any time. The motion presented by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was a motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) and can be moved without notice. It is debatable under Standing Order 32(l)(p) and is a substantive motion. If the motion had carried as I sought to amend it, then the house would not adjourn now but would continue in session until 5.30.
I submit that this present motion is a different proposition. It is a basic, fundamental rule in every deliberative assembly that a motion to adjourn can be moved at any time. A motion to adjourn the house has not yet been moved during the course of today's sitting, and therefore I submit that the right of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) to move the motion at this time is unchallengeable and that the motion should be put to the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member does not contend that there

July 23, 1969

Division
Beer	Loiselle
Benson	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Blair	MacEachen
Blouin	MacGuigan
Borrie	Mackasey
Breau	McBride
Brown	Mcllraith
Buchanan	McNulty
Cadieux (Labelle)	Mahoney
Cafik	Major
Clermont	Marceau
Cobbe	Marchand (Langelier)
Corbin	Marchand (Kamloops-
C6te (Richelieu)	Cariboo)
Cote (Longueuil)	Morison
Cullen	Munro
Cyr	Murphy
Danson	Noel
Davis	O'Connell
Deachman	Orange
Deakon	Osier
De Band	Otto
Douglas (Assiniboia)	Ouellet
Drury	Pelletier
Dube	Penner
luthier	Pepin
Forest	Perrault
Forget	Pilon
Foster	Portelance
Francis	Pringle
Gendron	Prud'homme
Gibson	Reid
Givens	Richardson
Goode	Roberts
Goyer	Rochon
Gray	Rock
Groos	Roy (Timmins)
Guay	Roy (Laval)
(St. Boniface)	Serre
Guay (L6vis)	Sharp
Guilbault	Smith (Northumberland-
Haidasz	Miramichi)
Hogarth	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Honey	Stafford
Hopkins	Stanbury
Howard (Okanagan	Stewart (Cochrane)
Boundary)	Stewart (Okanagan-
Hymmen	Kootenay)
Isabelle	St. Pierre
Jamieson	Sullivan
Jerome	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Kaplan	Tolmie
Kierans	Trudeau
Lachance	Trudel
Laflamme	Turner (London East)
Laing	Turner (Ottawa-
Lang	Carleton)
Langlois	Wahn
Laniel	Walker
Leblanc (Laurier)	Watson
Lefebvre	Weatherhead
Legault	Whelan
Lessard (LaSalle)	Whiting
Lind [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)	Yanakis-128.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
As I indicated to hon. members earlier, it would not be in order to put the main motion to the house since it has now, by the lapse of time, become a nullity.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is one point I would ask you to consider. If a motion is a nullity, how can there be an amendment to a motion that is a nullity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I
should not have put the motion. However, the division on the amendment was called before four o'clock. That was my purpose in suggesting to hon. members that if they wanted to vote on the amendment to the motion the question should be put before four o'clock.


MOTION TO ADJOURN HOUSE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), that the house do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members Standing Order 25. I have extremely serious doubts about the motion being put at this time. If hon. members feel that the motion can be put, I would like to hear their arguments, but to my mind it is clear that Standing Order 25, and particularly if we read in this instance the English text, makes this motion inadmissible. The Standing Order reads as follows:
A motion to adjourn, unless otherwise prohibited in these standing orders, shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until some intermediate proceeding has taken place.
In view of this I have some doubts as to whether the motion can be moved. Because of these reservations I would be pleased to hear hon. members on the point, but I think that it is only if there were an intermediate proceeding that the motion could be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour pointed out, this motion is made under the provisions of Standing Order 25, which reads as follows:
A motion to adjourn, unless otherwise prohibited in these standing orders, shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until some intermediate proceeding has taken place.
I submit that the effect of the motion now put by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is not the same as the effect of either of the propositions put before the house earlier. The first proposition was that the house adjourn at four o'clock, the second proposition was that the house adjourn at 5.30 p.m. It is now 5.02 p.m., which is a different time.
July 23, 1969

Procedure and Organization the majority deciding against the minority. Therefore, so as not to have this motion become a nullity, so we can reach a decision on it, I move seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "four o'clock p.m." and by substituting therefor the words "five thirty o'clock p.m.".
In presen' ing that amendment may I repeat what I said a moment ago. I admit that it is only a half hour this side of the normal time of adjournment, but it is a gesture that calls for that half hour and further time this evening to be spent in discussing this issue rather than meeting in a head-on collision. I hope the house will accept my amendment, and then accept the motion as amended.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), has moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "4 o'clock p.m." and by substituting therefor the words "5.30 o'clock p.m.".
Again I am not expressing an opinion as to whether the motion is in order, but I think hon. members would want me to put the amendment at this time. Therefore I will now proceed to put the amendment. The house has heard the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment to the motion-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to speak to the amendment?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I heard correctly but I presume you have agreed that the amendment to the motion is in order?


George James McIlraith: No; His Honour specifically said he had not.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to put the amendment now, with the reservation that I am not too sure whether I could put the amendment to the motion if the debate on the amendment goes beyond four o'clock. We would then be getting into the realm of procedural "never-ever", and I am not sure what would happen at that point. We are close to four o'clock, and if the hon. member did not want to speak to the amendment we might escape this position if I put the question now. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the motion, and I have an amendment to it which I should like to move as well. First may I impress as strongly as I can, in spite of the tension and in spite of the feeling in the house at this time, that the reason for asking that this motion be agreed to, the stated desire of the hon. member for Calgary North, and I state it as well, is that at this point we should not close off discussion on the question of our rules and submit it to the kind of confrontation that has been proposed.
Last Thursday when I suggested that the house adjourn so that the house leaders might meet, it looked hopeless. We were in positions that were irreconcilable, but we did make some progress at those meetings. I submit that the fact that we made some progress is now in black and white on the records of this house, in what was said yesterday. It was made clear yesterday by the four of us who 29180-7271
Procedure and Organization had participated in these discussions that we all moved to some extent. We did not move sufficiently to reach agreement, but I submit that there was a sufficient narrowing of the difference among us that it would be worth while to have further meetings of the house leaders to see if we cannot come to some agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize how important it is to allow hon. members all possible freedom in the discussion which we are having this afternoon, but at the same time the hon. member knows that there is a very specific motion before the house that the house adjourn at four o'clock. I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that he should limit his contribution to the motion itself. If the motion is used simply for the purpose of re-opening the whole debate, I think that this would not be correct procedurally. I am sure that the hon. member will limit his remarks to the very narrow confines of the motion now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: course I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But I felt that it was my right to state as briefly as I can my reasons for supporting the proposition that the house should adjourn this afternoon. I quite agree that if we get only the two hours that would come from adjourning at four o'clock, or if we get only the smaller amount of time that would come from the amendment which I propose to move, we cannot necessarily do the job of reconciling our differences in that period of time, but it is a gesture. If we do adjourn rather than proceeding with the debate on the closure motion until one o'clock tonight, at least it is a gesture which says to all members of parliament, and to the country, that we are still trying to get somewhere. Talking and discussing is better than ending it at this point on the basis of confrontation. That is my reason for supporting this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think this motion is just as valid as was my motion last Thursday, perhaps even more valid. Last Thursday we were at loggerheads. We had not been speaking to each other on this issue for a number of weeks. However, we got together and held meetings. I submit that if the house accepts this motion, we could again meet together and we might move sufficiently on both sides to reach an agreement instead of settling on the basis of
Procedure and Organization
Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre, and seconded by Mr. Winch, is that this house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) then said:
Mr. Speaker, I was rising originally to support the admissibility of the motion.
Your Honour then said:
Perhaps the hon. member might now like to speak to the motion itself.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, with those words of July 17 you ruled that it was an admissible motion and it could be moved by any member of the House of Commons, not necessarily by the government house leader. Your Honour ruled that the motion was procedurally correct and was on all fours with our Standing Orders. I submit that in view of that ruling, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having thoroughly dealt with the precedents in this respect, this is a proper motion, it is admissible and should be put.
With regard to the argument that a motion such as this can be put only by the government house leader, I repeat that the motion does not concern the question of business. It is a motion dealing with the time of adjournment of the house. Last night we witnessed an angry parliament. If the house leaders have the opportunity to sit down and negotiate, and observe the dignity and decorum of this place, it will be worth while because Canada is watching parliament and needs parliament. Parliament will determine whether it shall live or die. The motivation behind my motion is to give the house leaders an opportunity to sit around the table and negotiate with the hope of reaching a compromise.
Had I any other motivation or reason behind the motion I would not have stood in my place and moved it. I submit that the motion is procedurally correct and is put forward on a sound basis. It is the kind of motion we can expect to raise this place to the kind of dignity Canadians expect of us, rather than having the guillotine methods which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council wish to use.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that discussion on this point should be limited to the point of order, which is on whether the proposed motion is admissible.
[Mr. WoolUams.J
July 23, 1969
If there are no further comments I should like to express a few brief thoughts in connection with the proposed motion. I should like to state first, despite what has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), that no ruling whatsoever was made by the Chair when this matter first came up when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre first proposed his motion. As he knows, this is a very new type of motion; it was new to the extent of having been difficult for the Chair alone, or with the assistance of the Table officials, to accept or refuse the motion, but in view of the fact that no objection had been made to it the motion was put to the house. So I do not feel bound by anything because actually there was no ruling. A question was simply put to the house, and this is my view, one which I hold very strongly.
At the same time I still have the reservations which I had previously. I cannot agree with the argument put forth by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) because, as has been pointed out by other hon. members who took part in the debate, the precedent to which the President of the Privy Council referred did not deal precisely with the point but rather with the arrangement of the business of the house, and to that extent would not be covered by Standing Order 42(1). I think that Standing Order 42(1) is beyond the scope of the precedent which he quoted.
At the same time the very interesting precedent, quoted by the hon. members representing the opposition parties who took part in this debate, is also to some extent not quite relevant because that precedent of 1961 basically dealt with the extension of sittings and, as hon. members know, our new Standing Orders, particularly rule 6(5) (a), cover a situation which has been dealt with by the precedent. So I am not convinced either by the precedent against or by the precedent in favour.
If anything will tip the scale in favour of the motion, it is the Standing Order itself. I have great reservations about the Standing Order, whether it really means what it is purported to mean. Hon. members know that they have to refer to the French translation to interpret it the way they want. In my view it is just as legitimate to interpret the French version of our rules as the English, but it produces a new concept that hon. members have to refer to one side of the page of the Standing Order to interpret the rule one way

July 23, 1969	COMMONS
tion. I pointed out earlier that one should not rely too much upon that citation until one had an opportunity to read what happened in 1912, the 46th year of confederation. But the words of citation 88(2) which the President of the Privy Council read were:
All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house.
The hon. member for Calgary North is not trying to introduce a motion regarding the business of the house. We have tried on occasion to move motions that would mean our proceeding from the order we were on to some other business. That was done during the flag debate and on other occasions. Such motions have been ruled out of order on the basis of this citation which provides that only the government can say what will be dealt with in government time.
The hon. member for Calgary North is not trying to tell the government what should be taken up in government time. He is not moving a motion that has to do with the business of the house. He is not usurping that function of the government house leader. The hon. member is moving a motion that deals only with the question of the time of adjournment, and I submit that is fully provided for under Standing Order 42(1).
Under Standing Order 32 a motion of this kind is debatable. Standing Order 32(l)(p) sets out the last of a long list of motions which are debatable and contains these words:
Such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
I read Standing Order 32(l)(p) not only to make the point that this kind of motion is debatable but to show that provision is made for motions made upon routine proceedings having to do with the fixing of the time of adjournment of the house. All told, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it would take far more compelling arguments than those advanced by the President of the Privy Council to persuade Your Honour that you should rule differently today from the way you ruled last Thursday.
Last Thursday Your Honour admitted you had doubt about the motion and to-day you have claimed the right not to be bound by your decision. On that occasion the government, to our surprise, agreed to the motion 29180-727
Procedure and Organization and it passed, but the motion was made not by consent but on the basis of rule 42(1). I submit that the motion made today should be allowed by Your Honour on the basis of Standing Order 42(1) and the ruling given by Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald on December 20, 1951.
I submit, therefore, that the motion should be allowed and that the house should be given an opportunity to speak to the motion, if it wishes, and to take a decision on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is quite willing to hear hon. members, but they will realize that if the motion is not put before four o'clock it becomes a nullity and we cannot proceed further with it. We cannot be discussing at five o'clock or 4.30 a motion that the house adjourn at four o'clock. I am sure hon. members realize this. That is Why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) glanced at the clock during the presentation of his argument. I thought I should bring this point to the attention of hon. members. I feel I would have to exercise my discretion and rule that the motion is a nullity if the question is not put before four o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
could be amended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Two points were made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). The first was that the motion could be made only by the house leader. The second was that a similar motion moved last July 17 was allowed because the government consented to it. I point out that it was not a case of consent; the government merely consented to the substance of the motion. I shall put on record what took place that day. After the motion was moved Your Honour said:
Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order in connection with the proposed motion?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has not yet been put to the house.
I believe I should place this passage on record because it seems to be the latest precedent in this regard. Your Honour continued:
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. The motion, moved by Mr. COMMONS
Procedure and Organization
Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald goes on with the quotation in respect of this proposal regarding the proceedings of the house after saying:
I have sent for Hansard of that day and it has just arrived. The reference reads as follows:
''Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister):-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends are applauding, but he got ticked off that day by the Speaker. He said:
"I beg to move the motion of which I gave notice yesterday:
'That when this house adjourns on Friday, the 21st instant, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 25th instant'.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out, as I did yesterday, that this motion requires two days' notice and only one day's notice has been given. It can therefore only be entertained by unanimous consent.


Sir Robert  Borden@: I do not know whether it is applicable or not, but my attention has been directed to the language of rule 40 which says that the rule requiring notice shall not apply to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.
"Mr. Speaker: I think the interpretation which has been given to the section under that rule is that it refers to the hour for meeting because in the French edition 'heure' is used. That being so, as at present advised, I am still of the opinion that two days' notice would be required to be given."
That was the Speaker's judgment in respect of Sir Robert Borden's motion in 1920, and Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald cited this decision in making a ruling in respect of the kind of a motion that could or could not be made under this rule. Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald went on to conclude by saying:
I would agree with the decision given by Mr. Speaker Rose, and that if this motion referred to days it would not be in order. But as it refers to time, I would rule that the motion is in order.
That was said by Mr. Speaker Macdonald in a ruling on December 20, 1951, in reference only to the times of sitting on that day. Mr. Speaker Macdonald, having considered a serious point of order raised, and having cited various precedents, said it was in order. He repeated himself two or three times and I do not think there is any harm in my doing so as well in order to make it clear that the reference was to the times of sittings. Because this motion referred only to the hours of sitting it was in order.
That was the basis on which I made the motion last Thursday, which was similar to this one. It dealt with only a question of hours on a particular day. That is what we have

DEBATES	July 23, 1969
before us now, a motion that does not deal with days that parliament is sitting, but only with the hours of sitting, and for this day only. At the moment we are dealing with the motion before us which deals only with the hours of this day, and I submit therefore it is in order under the terms of Standing Order 42(1), which states:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given 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.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the requirement to give 48 hours' notice does not apply when a motion relates only to the times of meeting or the times of adjournment. I think I am entitled to separate that and use the singular and say that when it relates only to the time of meeting or the time of adjournment of the house such a motion is in order under rule 42(1).
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
That is what this motion deals with; therefore, I submit it is in order. I would like to make the point again that this whole question is very narrow, very specific and deals with just one point; and it is a point that is clearly covered. After the motion had been put and accepted by the house last Thursday there was discussion about it. It is the kind of thing one does discuss with various people. I was involved in such discussions. Some friends of mine wondered about the motion and asked what would have happened if the house had wanted to adjourn earlier. That is no problem. The Standing Order for today is for us to adjourn at six o'clock. If we want to adjourn earlier, it can be done. We can adjourn at any time.
Under the motion we are discussing the house is being asked to adjourn at four o'clock. If we wanted to do so, we could adjourn before that. It is a little difficult now because it is 27 minutes to four, but a motion to adjourn before four o'clock would be perfectly in order. That point could be met by extra wording in the motion, but why quibble about words when we have the authority under Standing Order 42(1) that any private member may make a motion having to do with the time of adjournment?
Before resuming my seat I should like to return to one of the points the President of the Privy Council sought to make when he read citation 88(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edi-
July 23, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not misrepresent my position. The motion the other day was moved by him but with the consent of this side of the house. I hope he would not attempt to misrepresent our actions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, let the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) not try to misrepresent what happened in parliament and is on the record. The government supported the motion we made, and that is why it was carried, but it was not moved by the consent of the President of the Privy Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
was moved on the authority of rule 42(1), and thank heavens we are not yet in a position that we can do only those things which are consented to by the President of the Privy Council.
I submit that it is at least a surprise to me and others that the President of The Privy Council would ask the Speaker of this house to make a ruling, on this difficult day, which differs from the ruling he made last Thursday. The statement he made on that occasion would indicate that the government did not mind the motion made at that time whereas they are actually opposed to it today. This casts a doubt on their position at this time.
I submit that the right to make a motion of this kind has been clearly established, and perhaps the best ruling on it in recent years, if you will consider 1951 as relatively recent, is the ruling given on December 20 of that year by Hon. Ross Macdonald, who was then our Speaker and is now the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. On that occasion I had moved a rather odd motion, I admit, but this is what I moved:
That this day's sitting of the house continue without the usual intermission at one o'clock p.m. and at 6.15 o'clock p.m., and that the house shall not be adjourned at ten o'clock p.m. this day.
This was a motion which our friends in the opposition did not like on that particular day. They raised points of order against it. The ruling given by Mr. Speaker Macdonald, was not made immediately. In other words, he had his assistants at the table do some research so he could make a ruling which would have some substance. He did make a ruling, as recorded at page 2257 of Hansard
Procedure and Organization for December 20, 1951, and this is what he said:


Mr. Speaker:: On the question of order, may I say that I have listened to what has been said. As has been pointed out, other motions have been made in this house respecting the hours or time of sitting without previous notice having been given.
This is the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The quotation continues:
In Beauchesne's second edition in citation 34,
I observed the following:
"No notice is required for a motion relating to 'the times of meeting or adjournment of the house'. (S.O. 45)".
That is what was said, and this had to do with the motion as to the time of the adjournment of the house. This is as clear as it could be. Mr. Speaker, Ross Macdonald went on to say:
Standing Order 45 has been referred to by a number of members. The citation goes on to say:
"The word 'times' is translated by 'heures' in the French version of S.O. 45. It seems therefore that if a motion does not relate to the hour but to the day at which the house is to sit or adjourn, a notice must be given."
The motion before the house does not refer to a day. It relates to the hour.
Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald was referring to my motion of December 20, 1951, but the same comment applies to the motion now before the house from the hon. member for Calgary North. It applies equally to the motion I made last Thursday afternoon. Let me continue the quotation which states:


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, without interrupting you, may I make a comment on that point which you have raised?


Some hon. Members:: No.
I wonder who they were? The quotation continues as follows:


Deborah C. Grey: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have touched on the very point that is in issue on this motion. It is quite clear that if this motion goes through the house will not adjourn. For that reason I submit, on the very point you made, Mr. Speaker, this motion is not tenable under the reference which has been given.


Mr. Speaker:: If the motion referred to days, I would agree with the leader of the opposition that it would not be in order. May I read the motion.
"That this day's sitting of the house continue without the usual intermission at one o'clock p.m. and at 6.15 o'clock p.m., and that the house shall not be adjourned at ten o'clock p.m. this day."
It distinctly says that this motion refers to this day only. I am satisfied that this motion refers to time and not to days. Citation 34 in Beauchesne's second edition goes on to say:
"See decision given by Speaker Rhodes on May 21, 1920".

Procedure and Organization do rise to object to the motion made by the hon. member on the procedural ground that generally speaking motions referring to business of the house are the responsibility of the leader of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are the master.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if perhaps I might be heard, Mr. Speaker. There was a reference in Beauchesne's which was cited by the hon. member, but I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that rulings of a former parliament do not necessarily bind this parliament. There is also citation 88(2) of Beauchesne's which I should like to read in this regard. It is very brief:
All motions referring to the business of the House should be introduced by the Leader of the House.
There is a reference there to the Canadian House of Commons Journals, Volume 45, page 476. I therefore take the position that the particular motion of the hon. gentleman is in respect of the business of the house, and therefore is related to the responsibilities of the leader of the house, and that as such it should be the prerogative of this side of the house rather than of that side of the house to move it, and for that reason 48 hours' notice should be given of this particular motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I make it clear that I support the admissibility of this motion. It is of course a motion similar to the one I made last Thursday, and of course if it is allowed I will support its substance as well.
The first point made just now by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is, I suppose, the kind of point to which we should become accustomed in this parliament. He said it is the business of the government house leader to move all motions having to do with the business of the house. May I point out to him that there is no such standing order; there is no such ruling. I have not had a chance to look up the citation in Beau-chesne to which he just referred, but if it is in Commons Journals Volume 45 that would take it back to about 1912 or 1913, which would mean that it is a pretty old citation, bearing in mind also the difficulties we sometimes have with respect to citations in Beauchesne.
I should also point out that there have been a number of motions having to do with times of sitting and business of the house which have been made from the opposition side of

July 23, 1969
the house. In this connection I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that I had the privilege of moving such a motion on December 20, 1951. I shall refer to that in another connection a little later on.
I should also like to draw to the attention of the house that prior to that-I do not have the reference on my desk-there was a report of a special committee on procedure which recommended certain changes in the hours of sitting. This was back in the late 1940's. There was some delay on the part of the government in moving that report. There was a general desire in the House of Commons to try out these new hours which the special committee on procedure had proposed. Therefore back in the late 1940's I moved, under routine proceedings, that the house experiment with these new evening hours-I think they were from 7.30 to 10.30-for the balance of that session. As a private member on the opposition side of the house I moved it under routine proceedings. It was allowed, carried, and came into effect for the balance of that session.
I am sure other examples could be given, perhaps not of many motions from the opposition side of the house being carried but of many motions being moved from this side of the house having to do with the business of the house. Although it is not quite the same thing, earlier this session there was a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referring a subject matter to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Therefore I submit someone other than the government house leader, and it could be a member of the opposition, has the right to move a motion of this kind. There is no prohibition in the rules against it and there are precedents in its favour.
The second thing I have to say is that although I concede your right, Mr. Speaker, not to be bound by a ruling you made last Thursday when no point of opposition was raised, I do find it strange that the government house leader should ask Your Honour to rule differently today from the way you ruled last Thursday. I suppose this type of suggestion is something we must get used to from these people who feel they are masters of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council wishes to rise on a question of privilege.
July 23, 1969

motion was moved by the hon. member lor Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and its purpose was set out by the hon. member as recorded at page 11316 of Hansard. The motion, accepted by the Chair on that occasion for debate, read as follows:
That the house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m.
That was the motion moved at that time. I will be moving a motion similar in kind. The precedents and reason for moving my motion were set out very clearly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on that occasion. I will not take the time of the house to requote those precedents.
However I wish to quote again Standing Order 42(1) so there will be no misunderstanding as to the motion I am about to move, and I will set out the reasons why this motion should be entertained and put to the house to be debated. I quote:
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.
Those are the important words, "adjournment of the house". I continue:
Such notice shall be laid on the Table before six o'clock p.m. or before five o'clock p.m. on a Friday, and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
I would now like to quote from Beau-chesne's fourth edition, Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 40, citation 51:
No notice is required for a motion relating to "the times of meeting or adjournment of the House." (S.O. 45). 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.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
When the House intends to sit later than 6 o'clock on Wednesday or Friday, or later than 10 o'clock on other days, a motion may be made during the sitting, and without notice having been previously given, "that the House do not adjourn at 6 (or 10) o'clock today." The reason why no notice is required is that Standing Order 41 which provides-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to interrupt him. He is discussing the point of order prior to the motion which he proposes to make is before the house. I would think it is difficult for a member to discuss whether or not a motion is in order when the Chair does not
Procedure and Organization even know what the motion is going to be. I suggest to the hon. member he should put his motion and if opposition is taken to it from a procedural standpoint then he can argue that point; but he does not even know whether or not objection will be raised to it. It may be that hon. members with enthusiasm will accept his motion. I think he should put his motion and then, if necessary, we will consider the arguments he is now expressing for the guidance of the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe my anticipation was greater than it should have been.
I move:
That the house adjourn this day at 4 o'clock p.m.
I now submit copies of the motion in English and in French.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member is that this house adjourn at four o'clock. As hon. members know, when a similar motion was proposed some days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I indicated that I had some reservations about it. I do not feel that I am bound by the fact that it was put at that time. The matter is one of interest to all hon. members.
If there is no objection to the motion then the Chair could put it with the same reservations as expressed at the previous sitting. However, I see that the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) seems to want to rise on a point of order. Perhaps he might be allowed to do so and then we could consider the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state my objection. I do not know whether you want me to argue the point of order or whether you want to hear the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) first.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the President of the Privy Council wants to argue in favour or against the motion. Perhaps he might be allowed to state his point of order and if it is in opposition to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North we might hear arguments on the point of order thereafter.


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe he wants to amend it to 3.30.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I

Downey
Fair weather
Flemming
Forrestall
Fortin
Gilbert
Godin
Grills
Gundlock
Harding
Harkness
Hees
Howard (Skeena) Howe
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Korchinski
Lambert (Bellechasse)
Laprise
Lewis
MacEwan
Maclnnis
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacLean
McCleave
McCutcheon
McGrath
McKinley
Mather
Matte
Division
Mazankowski Monteith Moore Moores
Muir (Cape Breton -The Sydneys) Nesbitt Noble Nowlan Nystrom Paproski Peddle Peters Ricard Ritchie Rodrigue Rynard Saltsman Schumacher Scott Simpson Stanfield
Stewart (Marquette) Tetrault
Thomas (Moncton) Thompson Winch Woolliams Yewchuk-79.
Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Munro Murphy Noel
O'Connell Orange Osier Otto Ouellet Pelletier Penner Pepin Perrault Pilon
Portelance Pringle Prud'homme Reid
Richardson Roberts Rochon Roy (Laval)
Serr6 Sharp
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: July 23, 1969
Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart (Cochrane) Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
St. Pierre Sullivan
Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East) Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whiting
Yanakis-125.
I declare the motion lost.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Alim and	Gray
Anderson	Groos
Andras	Guay
Barrett	(St. Boniface)
Basford	Guay (Levis)
Bechard	Guilbault
Beer	Haidasz
Benson	Hogarth
Blair	Honey
Blouin	Hopkins
Borrie	Howard (Okanagan
Breau	Boundary)
Brown	Hymmen
Buchanan	Isabelle
Cadieux (Labelle)	J amieson
Cafik	Jerome
Clermont	Kaplan
Cobbe	Kierans
Corbin	Lachance
Cote (Richelieu)	Laflamme
Cote (Longueuil)	Laing
Cullen	Lang
Cyr	Langlois
Danson	Laniel
Davis	Leblanc (Laurier)
Deachman	Lefebvre
Deakon	Legault
De Bane	Lessard (LaSalle)
Douglas (Assiniboia)	Lind
Drury	Loiselle
Dube	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Ethier	MacEachen
Forest	MacGuigan
Forget	Mackasey
Foster	McBride
Francis	Mcllraith
Gendron	McNulty
Gibson	Mahoney
Givens	Major
Goode	Marceau
Goyer	Marchand (Langelier)


FURTHER NOTICE OF IMPOSITION OF CLOSURE ON DEBATE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the motion of which I gave notice yesterday under the provisions of Standing Order 33 is not disposed of in this sitting, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the house, immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming the debate on the motion, "That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be concurred in", and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed thereto, I will move that the said debate shall not be further adjourned.
I hope it will not be necessary to prolong the proceedings that long, but I give this notice out of an abundance of caution.


An hon. Member:: You're learning.


MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42 (1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I may be recording some history. I think this is the first time in parliament an hon. member was voted not to be heard, and with Your Honour's graciousness I would recognize that.
I rise for the purpose of making a motion under Standing Order 42(1). Your Honour dealt with such a motion on Thursday, July 17 last. This motion will be similar in nature, although different in kind. At that time the
July 23, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the Chair might be allowed to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to deal with the point of order.
If, according to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has been presented without previous notice, then as the hon. member said, both of them are on the same footing and are equally entitled to preference.
But, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the house, we have noticed that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was the first to ask to be recognized. Therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether I was right or not, the ruling has been made at any rate. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Chair to recognize an hon. member rather than another, and such a decision is never that easy, because in theory, in practice and according to our standing orders, all are equal. The Chair has exercised its discretion in recognizing the President of the Privy Council.
As I said a few moments ago, any hon. member has the right to suggest that one of his colleagues be heard, and that is exactly the purpose of the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which has been put to the house.

The motion is before the house. Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. MacLean, moves that the hon. member for Calgary North be now heard. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is not debatable. The question has been put.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the President of the Privy Council. I cut him off a moment ago because the hon. member for Lotbiniere wanted to rise on the point of order or perhaps to raise a new one. It was my intention to allow the President of the Privy Council to speak on that point of order. If he thinks it is necessary to do so I would hear him.
Division


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make the point that the hon. member for Peace River could not make the motion he wanted to make on a point of order. In view of the fact that I have been recognized I wonder whether I could now be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given this point much thought. It is perhaps debatable when and at what point that kind of a motion can be made. I would agree with the minister that it cannot be made on a point of order, but the rule is that such a motion can be made at any time. The hon. member has made a motion and it would be very difficult, I think, to say that "any time" did not include the time at which the motion was made by the hon. member for Peace River. The minister will recognize that whether the motion is made now or later I assumed all along that perhaps it would be made at one point or another. It has been made and I am now putting the motion to the house. Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. MacLean, moves that the hon. member for Calgary North be now heard. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker:: Presenting Reports from
standing and special committees. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Have you called motions
yet, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: No. We are on the first item. The hon. member indicated he wished to rise and I thought he might want to rise on a question of privilege at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.


Mr. Speaker:: We will get there some time perhaps, some day. Presenting reports from standing and special committees. Motions.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will of course see the difficulty with which the Chair is faced and which, I might say, the Chair fully expected. The President of the Privy Council yesterday gave no .ice of his intention to move a motion today. The hon. member for Calgary North also rises for the purpose of moving a motion.
The Chair sees two members wanting to rise at the same time. If I recognize one, I think it would be at the discretion of hon. members to make the usual motion that ano her hon. member be heard. In view of the fact I have received notice of a motion to be moved by the President of the Privy Council, I do not see how I could in conscience not recognize him, at the same time recognizing the right of hon. members to make a motion that another hon. member be heard rather than the President of the Privy Council.
I find it difficult to see how I can rule otherwise. It may be that hon. members might want to state their views. At this point I would recognize the President of the Privy Council.
[Mr. Speaker.}
July 23, 1969


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice yesterday-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Three hon. members have risen on points of order. I recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I move that the hon. member for Calgary North be now heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I put this motion, I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also has a point of order. I assume that the President of the Privy Council is also rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is with reference to Your Honour's statement that Your Honour had received notice yesterday from the President of the Privy Council and therefore felt obligated to give him precedence over the hon. member for Calgary North.


An hon. Member:: It's too late now!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone said, "It's too late now". There is lots of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. If the President of the Privy Council is seeking to move on motions a motion for which notice was not required, then that notice has no effect and the two members come into the house at this point equally. That was why I had intended, if necessary, to move the same motion that was moved by the hon. member for Peace River. If, on the other hand, the minister is trying to move the motion of which he gave oral notice at five o'clock yesterday, I suggest it is out of order at this point and cannot be moved until immediately before the particular order has been called.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-



Wednesday, July 23, 1969