1969-07-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion with respect to today's business in the house which I hope might find general acceptance. As you know, government order No. 99 standing in my name is a motion to add proposed standing orders 75a, 75b and 75c. As I indicated last night, the advantage of this motion over the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) is that my motion would enable the house to amend directly the proposed standing orders, if that be desired, rather than refer them back to the standing committee for amendment. Although the former motion would obviously be the simpler procedure, I think it was apparent from last evening's discussion that that motion would be resisted by some hon. members and indeed that there would be protracted objections by way of points of order and perhaps questions of privilege before the merits of the proposals could be discussed.
It seems to me therefore that the quickest way to get down to the merits of the proposed standing orders would be to enable my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carle'.on, to put his motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that this is what hon. members were seeking last night.


Mr. Woolliams:: Did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talk to you?


An hon. Member:: You must be overworked.


Mr. Trudeau:: Do you want flexibility or not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be quite prepared 10 yield on my motion, in case there is any risk that as a result of the Chair's ruling last night my motion would have precedence, and if necessary, with the unanimous consent of the house, will be glad to withdraw it so the hon. member can move his motion.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Whether or not the minister wishes to withdraw his motion is a matter for him. The position we have taken regarding the point on which Your Honour has partly ruled is that certain vestigial rights are possessed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. If he chooses to exercise his rights, or, rather, to carry out the duty imposed on him by the committee, we shall, of course, contribute to the debate which will follow in accordance with our responsibilities. But we shall do this without compromising the position we have taken, namely that the President of the Privy Council had no right to bring on the motion he did in the circumstances which existed.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As the house is well aware, Mr. Speaker, the only reason we are still in session is to deal with this question of procedure. It is not our desire to stay and deal with it at all. But the government has reached a certain decision, and so we are here. We feel that if we must deal with this question we should deal with it according to the rules and we are glad, therefore, that the President of the Privy Council has seen fit to let the house proceed in accordance with the standing orders.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say how happy I am. The attitude of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) proves that the House of Commons is not wasting its time, that the perhaps virulent debate of last night has borne fruit and that the President of the Privy Council having slept on it has, so to speak, seen the light.
Mr. Speaker, we are happy that the President of the Privy Council has realized that we
Debating Time Allotment were right concerning our express demand that the Standing Orders and the work ol the committees be respected. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to congratulate him for it and to encourage him, throughout the whole debate on the procedure, to stay as positive and as open to the suggestions of the opposition.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Having participated extensively in the debate on points of order in connection with the motion of the President of the Privy Council I would say that the points which have arisen in connection therewith, and the ruling which Your Honour has made, become an academic exercise: many of the arguments were not answered and it cannot serve as a precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: Whether the hon. member for Edmonton West likes it or not, the very learned ruling which the Chair has given is inscribed in the annals of the House of Commons and will guide generations of parliamentarians to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the house be prepared to give consideration to following the procedure adopted in the debate some years ago, when we were discussing the question of the flag? It was agreed that the debate which then took place would be postponed day by day in accordance with the normal routine of our proceedings so that hon. members who had important and urgent questions to ask might have an opportunity to put them before the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: I know the Prime Minister has been away for some time and I am sure he will have all kinds of answers ready.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should put the motion, because at this point the question is academic. The point of order can be raised later.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I be permitted to advise Your Honour that if the hon. member wishes to speak we intend to pursue the same point of order as the one I raised yesterday; it applies with equal validity to the motion which is about to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: I will put the motion and the hon. member can then raise his point of order.

July 8. 1969 PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon) moved:: That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Peace River has a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour will probably recall from the interesting session that we had last night that I had occasion to rise on a point of order in respect of the motion that the President of the Privy Council was struggling to make. That point of order was a very simple one, and though tempted as I am I do not intend to traverse the ground that I then covered. For the purposes of my point of order I hope that the house will take into consideration the fact that the things I said last night apply equally to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
My basic point last night was that this house decided last December that this particular question was then negatived by the proceedings of the house, and consequently cannot be brought forward for discussion now. I raise the same point of order at this time. I ask the house to take into account what I then said and apply them to this context. At the time of the adjournment yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was half way through a very interesting and persuasive argument that I assume he is going to seek permission to resume at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would be pleased to hear from hon. members, but let me assure them that a lot of arguing will be needed to convince the Chair that the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is not properly before the house. There might have been some doubt in connection with the other motion but the situation has now changed. However, I would be prepared to hear argument and make a decision on the point. The hon. member for Peace River submitted an argument yesterday which I listened to with great attention and which I have studied since that time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has participated in the debate, and if he feels that he should complete the argument that he was making last night I will of course be pleased to hear him

July 8, 1969

further, following which I shall be in a position to reach a decision.
Apparently the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not wish to pursue the argument he was making last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my not rising is that the argument that I was putting forward last night had to do with the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council. I contended that whatever authority the house might have given to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to bring back a proposal, it did not give such authority to the President of the Privy Council. That was the argument I was making last night.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre obviously is correct and he is confirming what I was suggesting a moment ago. Whatever validity his argument might have had yesterday, it loses much of its strength in view of the fact that what the house is now doing is considering a motion by the chairman of the committee on the instructions of the house itself. I think this would have to be my ruling on the point of order that was raised last evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I have a moment to thank you for saying that I was correct in my argument last night. It is good to have that on the record.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, may I speak very briefly to the point of order that has arisen and ask the President of the Privy Council whether it is his intention or the intention of any member of the ministry to bring in an amendment to the report that is going to be presented to us?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has the floor.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Skeena on a point of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a matter that I think deserves some consideration by the house. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been active in a safari to certain parts of western Canada. There exists in Canada at
Procedure and Organization the moment a very strong, growing discontent among the native Indian people about the policy of this government. I wonder if, in order that we can get on-
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Frank Howard: Hon. members can yell, "Order" all they like, but the native Indian people of this country don't give a damn what those hon. members think. They are concerned about realities. I will put the matter in the form of a request. I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider allowing us to have an oral question period, in order that some of these very important matters may be raised. If they are not to be raised, Mr. Speaker, we may have some tribal wars in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Our people are not playing games, as hon. members will find out for themselves.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, although Your Honour has ruled on the second point of order that was raised, because of changed circumstances arising from the fact that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) now wishes to proceed with the report of the committee, may I put before Your Honour another point of order which I ask Your Honour to consider and, hopefully, which all hon. members of the house including hon. members on the other side may also consider. My point involves, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the validity of the government's right to proceed as it has been, in an attempt to change or add to the rules of this house. Before Your Honour considers the substantial magnitude of our objection I seek to place before Your Honour some arguments arising out of constitutional implications which Your Honour may take under cognizance.
In the first place, I submit that proposed rule 75a as reported by the committee is invalid. The invalidity taints the remainder of proposed standing order 75. May I draw Your Honour's attention to sections 48 and 49 of the British North America Act which read as follows:
48. The presence of at least twenty members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the house for the Exercise of its powers: and for that purpose the Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.
July 8. 1969

Procedure and Organization
49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote.
What does proposed standing order 75a do, Mr. Speaker? As I recall its wording, it proposes to put into the hands of the representatives of the parties the right to came to a decision which, automatically and with no further debate or discussion, shall become an order of this house. There are not 20 members who will make that decision. The standing order does not say that Your Honour must be present and so constitute the legal entity which the law requires in order to give effect to that decision.
May I also point out this further, collateral defect. Who are these representatives that are mentioned? Is there any certainty that they must be members of this house? Hon. members may say that I am quibbling only and that this is a technical irregularity. I suggest that when the government or a committee seeks to come to this house in order to suggest or impose changes or additions to the rules under which we operate, the government or the committee must be prepared to come here with a perfect case legally documented and based on our jurisprudence.
I suggest that the proposal would impose upon this house a standing order which would have the effect of placing in the hands of undefined and unnamed representatives the power to make an order as to allotment or limitation of time on any specific debate which shall automatically become an order of this house. I suggest this contravenes all the specific requirements of the British North America Act.
This is only the minor part of the point of order I propose to raise. Later on I will get into the particular aspect in a broader manner. It must be understood once and for all that, for all that has been said about this being a sovereign parliament and a sovereign house, this is not a technical expression of the facts. Unlike the mother of parliaments in the United Kingdom, this parliament derives powers. The rights and powers which this house has stem from statutes, the British North America Act and, I am ashamed to have to say, the Colonial Laws Validity Act.
I say in a collateral sense that while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been playing silly games with the constitution, hiding experts in dark comers and having conferences which have been ineffective, the main issue that faces this parliament, our right to 
be a sovereign parliament and to make our own laws and rules, remains in jeopardy. Consequently I anticipate the rebuttal which may well be made, that this house has the right to do anything it wants. It has not, Mr. Speaker. It should have, but it has not. It is bound by the provisions of some of the statutes. I intend to quote some of these statutes to Your Honour as I develop what I consider to be one of the major aspects of this particular argument.
If one examines the constitutions of most of the countries which have received their independence from the United Kingdom, it will be seen in the enabling legislation in the constitutional statutes,-and I can quote two, dealing with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland,-that in each instance there was set out in the statute providing for independence power in the hands of the legislature to make its rules, provide for its procedure and protect its privileges.
I suggest if one searches through the British North America Act from beginning to end, it will be found that, apart from clauses 48, 49 and one or two others dealing with money bills and the signification of bills for His Excellency's signature, there is nothing investing this house with the right to make rules of order and rules of procedure.
Hon. members should bear in mind that we are a legislature with a derived authority, not an authority such as obtains in the United Kingdom parliament, one which is derived from the strength, early beginnings, traditions, practices, precedents and the moods of the British parliamentary practice. Under these circumstances we are then driven back to the only statute which in any way purports to provide for the consideration of the establishment of rules, practice and procedure.
As I promised, I will refer the house to the Nova Scotia Act, passed in 1884, to illustrate my point. Section 20 provides the house and the legislature of that province with authority to establish rules of practice and also rules for the protection of its privileges.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The Newfoundland Act, which established the province of Newfoundland some years ago, provided precisely the same thing in sections 4 and 8. Jamaica and all the other dependencies in the West Indies have specific provisions in their statutes.
Now all we have left to rely on, Mr. Speaker, is the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which in section 5(a) provides that a legislature, a representative legislature which is
July 8, 1969

defined in the act, has the right to pass laws-I emphasize those words, "to pass laws"-providing for the constitution, for changes in the constitution, and for matters dealing with procedure and privileges relative to that legislature. The words used are "to pass laws in the manner and form provided."
The only law relating to Canada is, of course, the imperial statute of 1867, the British North America Act, which is largely silent on this issue except for the sections I have mentioned. I therefore suggest to Your Honour and this house that we are in a very grave position. As my research has developed, as I have examined these records and read some of the cases which went to the Privy Council, I have come to the conclusion that this parliament and previous parliaments have been most neglectful in failing to cover this very serious and grave omission.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 defines "colonial legislature"-I am sure the Prime Minister will be delighted to hear that word colonial-and "representative legislature." The two are not mutually exclusive; rather, a representative legislature is included within a colonial legislature, and in order to have any right at all even to pass laws we have to come within that definition, shameful though it may be.


An hon. Member:: What year is this?


Gerald William Baldwin: This year is 1969. I am glad some member of the government has awakened to know what day it is.
The power given a representative legislature only to make laws respecting procedure applies in the first instance at least to action by both chambers and the Governor General in the form of a bill, passed by both houses and given Royal Assent. I have already referred to this in the British North America Act.
The proviso contained in section 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act has operated in three ways. The first is by an imperial act of parliament, that is, the B.N.A. Act and amendments which entrench the quorum and majority rule in each chamber; the provision that a money bill cannot originate in the Senate, and in the Commons must be accompanied by the recommendation of the Governor General. Those are three aspects in which the British North America Act deals with procedure and privilege in respect of the legislature.

Procedure and Organization
The second way in which it has operated has been by the royal instructions to the Governor General accompanying his Letters Patent, and the third way is by procedural laws of the Parliament of Canada, which are very rare.
It is also my recollection that there are some provisions in the Interpretation Act which do invest parliament with certain procedural rights. In this connection there is also the War Measures Act. Hon. members who have been in this house for some time will recall the debates which surrounded it. Finally there is the House of Commons Act, which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) discussed the other day, and which provides for the appointment of the Commissioners of Internal Economy and so on.
But, Mr. Speaker, even the passing of the Statute of Wes;minster and even the 1949 amendment to the constitution do not change this limitation on ihe capacity of this house to deal with matters of procedure. The 1949 amendment to the B.N.A. Act and the Statute of Wes.mins'.er did allow an extension of powers so far as matters of the constitution are concerned, but they left strictly alone this question of dealing with matters of procedure. Not to this date, Mr. Speaker, save with the exceptions I have mentioned, has the Parliament of Canada passed a law to establish rules, regulations or standing orders for the Senate and the Commons or, alternatively, passed a law to empower each chamber to adopt its own rules or standing orders. No statute, no law has been passed within the meaning of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, and once more I repeat you search in vain in the B.N.A. Act to find such a right.
The House of Commons when it first sat on November 7, 1867, adopted of i's own motion the rules, regulations and standing orders of the legislative assembly of the late Province of Canada, according to the Commons Journals of 1867-68. On November 15, 1867-I do not know whether I hear dissent or approval, Mr. Speaker. With this noise I find it rather difficult to place these matters before the house, matters which I think are of exceeding importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: On November 15, 1867, the House of Commons appointed a special committee to assist Mr. Speaker in forming rules, regulations and standing orders for the government of the house. On December 20, 1867,
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization the House of Commons concurred in the committee's report and adopted the standing orders recommended by the committee. The same unilateral method of adopting or amending our standing orders has been followed to this day, and a similar procedure has obtained in the Senate. The only lawful method, as set out in section 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, has never been followed.
I have already pointed out that the Statute of Westminster, which did extend certain rights of the Parliament of Canada and of other dominion legislatures in respect of the constitution, did not touch this question of passing orders of practice and procedure, and the same applies to the 1949 amendment. Therefore I submit that it follows that the motion to concur in the committee's report as one respecting the procedures of this house is out of order, and does not comply with the authority given parliament in compliance with section 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which states that such a matter must be introduced as a bill, pass both houses, and receive Royal Assent. But even in the event it returns in that form it is questionable at the present time-and I raise this so that the government might give it some thought

that the house has a lawful procedure with which to deal with it.
I know, Mr. Speaker that you have expressed, as have your predecessors, certain limitations with respect to the decisions you make, but I think this matter goes so much to the root of our practice that it involves a careful inquiry as to how far Your Honour as the receiver of the rights, customs and traditions of this house, and as our protector, must take in o account the argument I am making.
There was one very interesting case which I will cite to Your Honour, and then sit down. The State of New South Wales some years ago amended its constitution by providing that no amendment to the constitution to abolish the upper body should be accepted until there had been a popular referendum following which, if a majority was received in the referendum, the matter then could be brought back to the government and have Royal Assent by the representative of the Crown. A subsequent government desiring to short-circuit this proposal proposed two amendments to the constitution, one of which would strike out and repeal the sec'ion in question, and the other one had the effect of directly, by act of the legislature, abolishing the upper house. These two proposals passed the house and 
then there was an attempt to let them receive Royal Assent.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Before this was done two members of the legislature appealed. I point this out, not in terms of a threat but in terms of probability. This is an opportunity which is available to any citizen of Canada or any member of the house, if I am correct in my argument. Two members of the legislature can appeal to the court for a writ of prohibition to deny the right of the Crown to give royal assent, on the ground that the constitution and statutes of that country attached a certain condition that the condition had not been met, and that because of the section of the Colonial Laws Validity Act which I quoted it was impossible and illegal for this to be made the law of the country.
This went to the Privy Council, which included some of the most distinguished counsel who ever practised before that court. Stafford Cripp, D. M. Britt and others appeared. A judgment was delivered by Lord Sanky which I shall not quote, although I have it here. The judgment said very simply that despite the length of time which had elapsed the legislature, as all other legislatures, was bound by section 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act and under the circum-siances the Privy Council declared that the sections were invalid because they had not followed the procedure which had been prescribed.
Yesterday we spent a great deal of time debating the procedural aspects of the matter with which we are now dealing and I know the house is quite anxious to get on with our business and reject the motion which may be placed by the hon. member. Therefore I shall not develop the argument at as great length as I could. Briefly, this is it: We are a legislature with a derived authority; the only way in which we can pass proper standing orders governing our practices, procedures and privileges is by an act of parliament, and the proposal of the hon. member does not fall within this category. Under the circumstances Your Honour this house must reject it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's arguments really relate to a chain of statutory title. I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention a number of provisions. First of all I would refer to the British North America Act and the Senate and House of
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization Commons Act. Section 18 of the British North which would perhaps be valid in the course America Act provides that-	of the discussion. I would assume the hon.
-the privileges, immunities, and powers to be member would raise the point when we reach held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by the moment in our proceedings when the the House of Commons, and by the members thereof substance of the hon. member's motion is
respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
Pursuant to that authority the Senate and House of Commons Act was enacted. Section 4 of Chapter 249 of the Revised Statutes of Canada provides:
The Senate and the House of Commons respectively, and the members thereof respectively, shall hold, enjoy and exercise,
(a)	such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the British North America Act 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and by the members thereof, so far as the same are consistent with and not repugnant to the said act; and
(b)	such privileges, immunities and powers as are from time to time defined by act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those at the time of the passing of such act held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof respectively.
In other words the chain runs from the B.N.A. Act-the original constitutional document-to the Senate and House of Commons Act, which gives the House of Commons certain powers, including the power to make its own rules of procedure by way of standing orders, and pursuant to the provisions stipulated in chapter 12 of May's 17th edition. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a direct chain of title from the constitutional authority, that is to say the legislature of the United Kingdom, and that that authority has been exercised by the Senate and House of Commons Act so that the powers are held by the house to make changes in its own standing orders from time to time, pursuant to that power in the statute. Therefore the hon. member's argument falls to one side.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further contributions on this very interesting point raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I would presume to make a ruling at this time. As I am sure the hon. member for Peace River suspects, the Chair would have to rule that the point of order he has made at the present time is not so much a point of order as a point of debate
before us.
I have had occasion in the past to indicate that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on questions of law or on constitutional questions. This ruling has been made in many instances by previous Speakers.
I should like, if hon. members would allow me to do so, to quote at this time a ruling made by the Deputy Speaker on Friday October 25, 1963. It reviews some of the authorities on this point:
I have listened with much interest to the argument made by the honourable and learned member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). I gather the essence of the argument he submits now is that the bill should not be considered, that it is out of order because it is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. My submission at this time is that it should not be the responsibility of the Chair to rule whether a particular bill or particular piece of legislation submitted to parliament is or is not within the competence of this house. Firstly, I should like to refer honourable members to Standing Order 12(1) which limits and defines the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker; ''Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house without debate-"
In other words, this limits the powers and responsibilities of the Speaker to deciding on questions of order, not questions of law. This is further confirmed in citation 69(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 59:	"Standing Order 12 being
restrictive should be given the strictest literal interpretation-''
There is another citation referred to in the same ruling. I am still quoting from the same ruling of Friday October 25, 1963:
-I should like to refer at this time to citation 71(5) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 61: "The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege," which is what the honourable member did at the moment he raised it as a question of order. But it shall not be the responsibility of the Chair or the Speaker to make a decision.
Lastly, I should like to refer to a more recent ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lemieux, reported in Hansard, for June 4, 1925. page 3875:
I apologize to the hon. member for Peace River for going back almost as far as he has in his argument.
"The Parliament of Canada is supreme, and if it should pass any act which is ultra vires, the courts would decide the validity of such act. It is not for the Speaker to declare-although he presides over the highest court in the land-as to whether any proposed legislation is ultra vires-"
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization
Of course at this point we are not dealing with legislation but rather amendments to the rules of the house. But if I follow the hon. member's argument, it still is based on a constitutional point. I would think this is an argument which might be advanced by the hon. member or by other hon. members in the course of the debate, if they oppose the motion proposed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). In the circumstances I do not think the point of order raised by the hon. member should be sustained.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I feel there has been some advance billing in the presentation of this motion for concurrence.. I wish to thank all hon. members who have expressed concern about the presentation of this motion, and those hon. members who have made the necessary procedural changes possible today so that it could be presented.
I believe that before I begin to describe the rules of procedure which are proposed I might be permitted to say a word about the work of the procedure committee. This is an extraordinary committee because it seems-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Duncan Gordon Blair: -that its various reports made from time to time to the house have occasioned great controversy. This might suggest to hon. members, and indeed to the public, that the proceedings in the committee have carried on in a violent partisan and controversial fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I think that in fairness to my colleagues in the committee I should here state publicly that the proceedings of the committee have been marked at all times with cordiality and a sincere desire on the part of all hon. members of the committee to get ahead with its work. I am particularly grateful to the members of the committee for the consideration they have shown at all times to their chairman. I suggest that as we embark on this debate we should be under no misapprehension about the nature of the proceedings within the committee, and where we have perforce agreed to disagree we must also take into account that on many grave and important matters we have made recommendations to the house based upon agreement within the committee. I begin by referring to the order of reference which was [Mr. Speaker.!
passed on December 20, 1968. This order reads:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be instructed, and hereby is instructed, to consider and to propose ways to allocate time to the legislative business of the house and to include in its report or reports a draft of a proposed standing order drawn to give effect, if adopted by the house, to the proposal of the committee: and for greater certainty but not to restrict the generality of the foregoing, the committee is instructed to consider the British rules and practice for the allocation of time, the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition on December 10, 1968, the suggestions made by the Minister of Agriculture on December 13,	1968, and other
proposals and suggestions made in the debate on the motion for concurrence in the fourth report of the Special Committee on Procedure.
Pursuant to the direction given to the committee by the house, it devoted seven of its meetings during this term to the question of allocation of time. It considered a special report on allocation of time procedures in the British House of Commons, and at all times the committee had the benefit of the knowledge of several very experienced parliamentarians who were members of the committee.
As hon. members know, the committee's report to the house consists of three proposed standing orders. If it would help hon. members in following the remarks I am going to make on these proposed standing orders, they are set forth in full in Votes and Proceedings for June 20 of this year.
The first standing order proposed is 75a. This standing order contemplates a position where the leaders of all the parties in the house are in agreement as to the programming of legislation and the allocation of time to legislation at all stages. Where this result is obtained, a minister of the crown has the right to notify the house of the agreement which has been reached by unanimity, and thereupon the motion is put. In my submission, this is the answer to the argument raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), because the final and ultimate decision as to an allocation of time is not made in any sense by private agreement by members of this house, but rather by a motion properly put and properly adopted in accordance with our usual rules.
The second rule is known as 75b. This contemplates a position where a majority of the party leaders agree on a proposal for the allocation of time. This means, for all practical purposes in this house, that three out of the four parties would agree on the proposal. Again, pursuant to such an agreement the motion is put by a minister of the Crown, but
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
there is one significant difference between the type of allocation of time which is possible under proposed order 75b and the allocation which is possible under proposed order 75a. A motion under 75b can cover only one stage of a bill at one time. For practical purposes, the stages contemplated in the proposed order are second reading, the committee stage, report and third reading. The order provides that only report and third reading can be combined in one allocation of time order. Where such a motion is put pursuant to this order by a minister of the Crown, it will be decided after a maximum of two hours of debate. In the course of this debate no hon. member would be permitted to speak for more than ten minutes.
It appears that there may be some ambiguity in the wording of proposed order 75b as it is presented in the report of the committee. The question which appears to have arisen is whether at all times the government party must be one of the parties forming a majority for the purpose of activating the order. I must express my personal view that there is no doubt in my mind that the committee intended that the government party must be part of the majority, for the simple reason that the motion pursuant to the order can only be presented by a minister of the Crown.
However, if there is an ambiguity, it is the kind of thing which undoubtedly will be exposed in debate and the consequences of that ambiguity will be explored. I have confidence that this house itself is capable in an orderly manner of resolving any ambiguity which might arise from this proposed standing order in our committee's report.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The third standing order proposed is 75c, and this standing order, I need hardly say for the benefit of hon. members, is the one which gave occasion to a partisan dispute. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) properly stated last evening that recorded votes were taken at the end of the sittings of the committee. The committee unanimously adopted standing order 75a. It adopted proposed standing order 75b, with one dissenting vote, and standing order 75c was adopted by a vote which placed the members of the government in opposition to the members of the other parties.
I would like to say first of all with reference to standing order 75c that it cannot be invoked unilaterally by the government. This order is premised upon prior consultation
Procedure and Organization between the government and the other parties, and indeed in its opening words it is made clear that the order can only be invoked if the provisions of standing order 75a and 75b could not be made effective.
The order is plain, but I think it is important to comment on some of its detailed provisions. First of all, any order made under standing order 75c can only apply to one stage of one bill at one time, and again, as is specified in the order and is made plain elsewhere, the stages referred to are second reading, committee stage, report and third reading. As is the case with standing order 75b, an allocation of time order can be made with respect to the report stage and third reading at one time, subject however to the provisions of standing order 75 (13) which specifies that third reading cannot occur on the same day as the report stage unless it has the unanimous consent of the members of the house.
The second important point to note about the proposed standing order 75c is that it cannot be invoked, as it were, in advance by the government. It can only be activated after the specific proceedings have begun. That is to say, if we choose an example of the second reading of any bill, it would not be possible under this order for the government to propose an allocation of time order for the second reading stage in advance of the commencement of the debate on second reading, and any proposal for allocation of time could only occur after that second reading debate had commenced.
The order provides that in the course of any proceedings on a bill a minister of the Crown may give notice of his intention to propose an allocation of time order, and this of course means that notice is dealt with in the ordinary way and any debate on such an allocation order would occur on a following day. The order is similar to standing order 75b in proposing that any debate on an allocation of time order would be limited to two hours and the speeches of hon. members would be limited to ten minutes. It is also provided in standing order 75c that any allocation of time order made pursuant to this standing order must provide for at least one full day of debate, not less than one sitting day.
I imagine that some of the hon. members have a recollection of a proposed standing order which was known as Standing Order 16a, and I would like to suggest to the house that the proposed standing order 75c is quite
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization unlike the proposed Standing Order 16a. That standing order contemplated that orders for the allocation of time for legislation could be made in advance of any proceedings on the legislation, that they could cover any number of bills and any number of stages in debate on the bills. Under standing order 75c it is clearly provided that it can apply only to one bill and one stage at a time, and this, in my submission, should meet an objection made to standing order 16a that the country could not under that order be guaranteed of being advised of important issues coming forward in debate in this chamber. In a nutshell-


Mr. Stanfield:: That is where it was.


Duncan Gordon Blair: -having explained the mechanics of standing order 75c, one can say that at the very minimum it contemplates three days at second reading, three days in committee and four days to cover report and third reading stages, and in the very unlikely event that these times were cut to a minimum, no bill can go through this chamber unless it is the subject of at least ten days of debate.


Some hon. Members:: That is not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question? I have a lot of respect for the hon. member. We came from the same university and I believe he is very able, but I should like to put this question to him. As a person of integrity can he stand up in his place and say that there would be no debate on any bill which would be of shorter duration than ten days under this rule?


Duncan Gordon Blair: In answer to my hon. friend, who was my junior at law school, may I say that I fail to see how under this bill less than ten days of elapsed time could be occupied in the discussion of these procedures.


An hon. Member:: Not elapsed time, but time in debate.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Anybody who disagrees with that should rise in his place and say so.


An hon. Member:: Do you want a republic?


Duncan Gordon Blair: I would not wish the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to bring his tribal warfare into the chamber.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understood the hon. member, he gave the impression that, taking in all stages of the bill, the debate on it could not

be shorter than ten days. If that is not what he said, let him declare it now so we can follow the debate. If that is his position, let him come out clearly and say so. Unless he clarifies the situation he is misleading this house, the public and the press.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Duncan Gordon Blair: I think that what I have said is clearly on record. There are ten days of elapsed time at least which will be taken up in the discussion of any measure, and procedural matters in relation thereto. If hon. members have comments to make, as they appear to have, they can make them at an appropriate time.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask a question, so that we shall be clear about the point the hon. member is making? Unless I misunderstood him, his first statement was that there would be ten days of debate. Now he is talking about ten days of elapsed time, and every hon. member knows there is a great deal of difference between the two. Would he clarify what he meant to say? Does he wish to retract his statement about ten days of debate and say there would be ten days of elapsed time?


Duncan Gordon Blair: I do not think there is any compulsion on me to retract anything. The rule is clear and I have stated its effect to the best of my ability. Hon. members may have some comments to make on it at a later stage.
I suggest that although they do present some controversial aspects, these rules represent the best recommendations which the committee found it possible to make to enable the house to cope with the vast and increasing volume of business before it. Concern-and I think it is legitimate concern- has been expressed that if there are provisions in our rules which permit the allocation of time to be instituted by motions on behalf of the government, this might have the effect of destroying the good feeling and co-operation which is the basis upon which most of the business of the house is carried on. With respect to this contention it might be of some assistance if I were to mention a few figures presented to us in a report on the practice in the United Kingdom.
It is estimated that 50 per cent of the business of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom proceeds in accordance with an agreed timetable; that 25 per cent is so uncontentious that it requires the application of no timetable, and that of the balance of 25 per cent deemed to be contentious, the majority,
July 8, 1969

or a substantial part, is dealt with through the ordinary process of negotiation, with the result that orders allocating time are not the procedures which are usually or habitually employed at Westminster.
The committee on procedure has made a number of recommendations to this house since last fall, and it is my submission that their effect has been to improve our procedure and in many ways to make it easier for ordinary private members in particular to participate in its affairs. It must be borne in mind that the creation of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization means that the continual review and study of the procedures of the house is now one of our regular concerns. None of the rules which we have adopted or which may be proposed can reasonably be likened to the edicts of Justinian, that is, intended to last for all time and regulate the affairs of all future generations.
It is in this spirit that I commend the report of the standing committee. I trust it will be adopted. It does not violate the ancient traditions and procedures of this house. It has been framed with a proper regard for the prerogatives of members, and its full intent and purpose is to enable the House of Commons in this year 1969 to meet the intense pressures placed on a modern parliament.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member. Let me say right now that it is our intention to move an amendment to the motion for concurrence which he has made; it will be within the terms approved by the practice and precedents of the house.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here. The Prime Minister is an expert on traps. When he came back and saw the trap in which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) had placed himself and his party, it is quite obvious that the hon. gentleman was repudiated. The cork was pulled out of the bottle and out popped the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), who had been waiting patiently, letting his motion stand day after day, wondering what it was all about.
To an extent, I am glad this happened. It is an indication of the way in which, when there is a good and righteous cause, and it is presented strongly enough by the opposition with the support of the public media, the government can be made to see, at least in part, the light of reason.
Procedure and Organization
Thus, while I do not like some of the proposals contained in standing order 75a, b and c, I am glad we are at least proceeding now in the proper manner and that the government has been made to understand even in a limited way that it does have responsibilities, and that it must accept its position as being subordinate to, not superior to, this house.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Before I deal with the substance of the proposal I think it would be helpful to retrace the progress made by this parliament since last September. At that time we were locked in another struggle comparable to this one. We had indicated our willingness to remain here, if necessary, throughout what would normally have been the Christmas recess to make our point. Faced with this overwhelming pressure of public opinion and parliamentary opposition, opposition not only on this side of the house, I am sure, but substantial opposition on the o'her side as well, the government took the abhorrent and repugnant 16a out of the order that was then before the house for approval.
It was then that the Prime Minister made the statement that the opposition had fallen into a trap, that all he had ever wanted were the rules changes confined within the proposed order, with the exception of 16a. That is the sort of statement that I suggest no responsible man in public life would ever make. In saying this I am bearing in mind that the right hon. gentleman is back again attempting to get approval of, if not rule 16a, a substantial part of the principle therein involved. He is back again trying to peddle the same bad hardware.
What was the course of events after December, Mr. Speaker? The house made good progress. There was co-operation on all sides, as well as understanding. Meetings, both official and unofficial, were held. Meetings in this house were held of the kind that never take place in the United Kingdom parliament. I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) will agree with me that we were amazed to learn of the sort of running discussions held by the house leaders and others involved. Sensing the mood of the house, the needs of the day and the requirements of government in coming to day-today decisions, are conditions precedent to the proper operation of a legislative body. Such procedures are not followed in the United Kingdom. I am not going to go into the details of their alternative, which is something
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization that I do not think this house or this country would ever tolerate.
These procedures to which I have referred have, I think, been shown at their best since last December. There were numerous occasions when the government was faced with the task of asking for unanimous consent to revert to certain matters for disposition, or when the government required certain matters to be expedited for policy reasons or in the interest of the national good. On such occasions the government approached the representatives of the other parties and agreements were made. This happened over and over again.
I also call to mind the situation that developed as a result of the opposition parties agreeing to sacrifice certain days that should have been dedicated to debating problems which members of the opposition, and members on the government side for that matter, thought should be ventilated and dealt with. At these times private members said to the government, in effect: "We know there are difficulties, that time is now of the essence. We will waive two of the six days on which we are entitled to debate the budget." Those days then became days on which government business was conducted. It was not as if those days were added, as they could have been under existing orders, to the number of opposition days.
As I say, private members have been prepared to accede to certain courses of action in order to meet what they thought were the needs of the government. As long as this is done without damage to the welfare of the country and as long as it still permits us to discharge our responsibilities, not only as private members but as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we are prepared to take this course of action again.
Then again, on other occasions the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), myself, other members of this party and members of the other parties suggested granting additional sitting hours in order that the government might complete certain business and send it to the other place to be dealt with.
I am not going to recite all of these occasions; they are well known to members of this house and to Your Honour. Under the new standing orders members of the opposition have days that belong to the opposition and on which they can move motions touching upon many of the problems that afflict us, problems with which the government has neither the knowledge nor the wit to deal.

The course of action we took in this regard was diming the time when we believed we were approaching the pursuit of a new direction of thought which would make the House of Commons different from what it was in the past. We understood we were going to begin our deliberations at a certain time and were going to end them at a certain time. In the belief that this was what was meant and that certain measures would be dealt with within that period, during the course of some two or three weeks we agreed to extension of the hours. We sat late, and we sat late quite frequently, so that government business could be expedited; and in fact it was.
I am not attempting to deny that there was one occasion, the debate on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, when we took what was, in my opinion, perhaps a somewhat longer time than was required. But this place is a forum for the reflection of the views of a substantial portion of the people of Canada, and the hon. members of the Credi-tistes party, genuinely believing that they had a mandate to oppose certain of the provisions contained in the amendments to the Criminal Code, conceived it to be their duty to debate them rather extensively. I do not fault them for that, though, as I say, I personally did not think the debate required the time it took.
We must remember that we are 264 representatives assembled here to reflect the views of the people of Canada. We are the people of Canada with all their warts and defects. We are no better and no worse. We reflect their thinking. If one group in this house genuinely and sincerely believes it has the duty to attempt to prevent a government measure from being passed-although in this case I did not agree-then I think that group has that right. The question of what is reasonable is another issue, of course. Apart from that one occasion I think the work of this house has proceeded harmoniously and reasonably.
What does the government think will be the spirit that will prevail next session? Let me say at once that I am not making any threats; I merely recognize the hard facts of human nature. Let me contemplate what is going to be the situation next year. If the government persists in this ill advised and improper attempt to obtain the full package contained in proposed standing order 75 I am afraid that, knowing human nature for what it is, we shall not see prevailing here the same measure of harmony, understanding and co-operation that has existed in the past. And
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
these conditions must be present within any legislative body if it is to do its job properly.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the rules are, and no matter what changes to the rules are introduced, if hon. members of this house become convinced that the government is attempting to operate improperly, without due regard for those matters which must be undertaken, we shall not have a good parliament. When harmony, reason and co-operation fly out the window, the result will not be happy for this house or this country. I am offering no threat; I am speaking simply from my knowledge of human beings in public life. I know what the results of the government's action will be. I say that the government's insistence in pressing on with this dogmatic, ruthless authoritarianism does not bode well for this house and this country.
When I practised law in my younger years I enjoyed nothing so much as a good fight. I enjoyed fighting in the courts.


An hon. Member:: You are now junior to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Gerald William Baldwin: Only in the sense that I follow him as a speaker in this debate, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I enjoyed nothing so much as a good fight in court. With the passage of years, when I became more mellow-and I recommend to my hon. friends opposite that they, too, should become mellow-I became a great believer in the cardinal principle that a case settled is a case won. When you settle a case both sides gain something and neither side loses. I based my practice on the precepts of arbitration, agreement, understanding and reason, precepts which also make parliament work. If these precepts are not followed I fear what the result may be when we come back next year.
At this time I shall confine my present argument mainly to proposed standing order 76b. In his remarks the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton tried to tell us that proposed standing order 76c is to be invoked only where agreement cannot be reached under 75a or 75b. When speaking on 75b the hon. member indicated that included among the parties which are to reach agreement under that standing order must be the government. I am having difficulties with my eyes at this time, Mr. Speaker, but even so I fail to find any language in proposed standing order 75b which supports the hon. member's contention. Nor can the President of the

Procedure and Organization Privy Council point to any such wording. I think it is clear that if that wording were included in the proposed standing order, it would never have seen the light of day. The omission may have been unintentional, and may have resulted from a spirit of magnanimity on the part of the government party- which I very much doubt-but the fact is that there is nothing within the four corners of proposed standing order 75b which suggests that "a majority" must include the government. It need not necessarily include the government merely because a minister is delegated as being a person who must make the application for allocation of time in the house.
I ask the President of the Privy Council, what will be the situation if representatives of parties meet, discuss allocation of time and then hear the government's representative say that the government is prepared to allot one day, two hours, or whatever the time may be, for this stage of the debate. The representatives of the other three parties may say, "Oh, no; we have certain amendments to propose; in the interest of our constituents we feel that certain aspects of the bill must be resisted, and in order to make our case properly, submit amendments and subamendments, we feel that six days is essential." Let us say that, ultimately, the representatives of opposition parties, who are always reasonable people, reduce their demand from six days to four days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is that six days for each stage, or in total?


Gerald William Baldwin: It could be for each stage or for one stage. I am speaking of a hypothetical case, Mr. Speaker. Let us say that the minister then says, "No, you will have one day only." What will happen? It is clear that the representatives in question, whoever they may be, constitute a committee emanating from this house with decision making powers. Having exercised their decision making powers the majority of those representatives may say, "We need four days." It could easily happen that the minister may say, "Phooey on your four days. I will not stand up in the house and move the motion." That situation could easily develop, and it is therefore clear that proposed rule 75b is completely useless. Of course the President of the Privy Council and his colleagues may say that a different interpretation is to be placed on the proposed standing order.
We have had experience in this house of how this government operates, Mr. Speaker. Only a little while ago we had a situation in
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization which it might have been said that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton refused to obey insf rue lions of his committee and move a motion. We may well arrive at a situation in which the government representative on that group duly appointed under the standing order may say, "We care nothing at all for the decision of the majority of the committee," and the minister or government house leader may refuse to move the motion. What will happen then, Mr. Speaker. The minister can say immediately, "There is no agreement," even though the majority of that committee may have agreed. The result may be that the minister may say, "There being no agreement under 75b, I am proceeding under 75c to move a motion to impose limitation of time on terms acceptable to the government only." That is an inevitable result of putting together proposed standing orders 75b and 75c. I therefore say that you may as well toss 75b out the window.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You might as well toss the government out.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is where the hon. gentleman's party failed last year. His party is quite liable to toss him out.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that inflation has not got the government up high enough. It would not hurt enough at this time. The effect of this is very simple. Because of the government's insistence in proceeding as it has, I am afraid the opportunities for reaching a consensus, particularly having in mind the character of this government and the way it operates, are going to be extremely limited.
What we obviously have is a proposed new standing order, of which the government proposes to use only 75c. This is the whole purpose of the exercise. The rest is simply chocolate covering over the pill. I have no doubt it will be the intention of the government to move on 75c without regard to the duty cast on the minister to follow the majority decision under 75b. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton suggested that there would be ten days. I am not going to get into the controversy which has arisen from the repartee passing back and forth across the floor. I think hon. members on this side made it quite plain what he said.
If there is an issue, a crisis or a new and novel proposal advocated by the government and brought into this house, I suggest that

the ten days between the time the debate is initiated and the time the last question is put is not adequate. We have many duties in this house. One of them is that hon. members, if they are in fact performing their duties, must maintain the closest liaison between the people of their constituencies in particular and the people of Canada in general. In the exercise of that responsibility they must from time to time keep their fingers on the pulse of public thinking. What do people want? What will be the impact of government proposals being made. For this reason, if by exercising their responsibility in a responsible way they become convinced that what the government is proposing is wrong and must not be passed, they have a duty, using this house as a forum and using the public media to report our deliberations, to make a case so that the public may be aroused. They must gather together public opinion to such an extent that the government will be compelled to yield. If it does not yield, it must face the consequences of a general election.
I submit that ten days is inadequate for that purpose. I am not talking about the question of the number of days of debate, I say it is inadequate. Having in mind the size and the vastness of the diverse economic and social configurations of Canada there must be a reasonable opportunity for the opposition to make their case for the people of Canada. This cannot be done in ten days. The house should not allow the government by the passage of this measure to proceed in that way.
Last December I might have been tempted to go along with 75c, not in its present form but with some possible variations. But I had some suspicions about the conduct of the government and what it was likely to do. I had some opportunity to see some of their members in action. They had not yet manifested the full strength of their contempt, their disregard for parliament, their authoritarianism, and the casual and callous contempt which the Prime Minister shows in his treatment of this House of Commons. That had not yet manifested itself in full. Today, six or seven months later, we have seen this. Any doubts I might have had in December have now been resolved against the government and against the passage of a rule of this kind. I would consider myself derelict in my duty if I did not say as strongly as I could that this government has not shown that it has earned the right to secure the passage of a measure of this kind.
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be referred back to the committee, with instructions to amend it by deleting therefrom proposed standing order 75c.
I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not having other copies. I was not expecting the withdrawal of the motion by the government.
I had other motions ready in case we were proceeding with the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) on being given the green light to proceed with his motion today. He may feel we have been hard on him during the last few days. He does not know what we had planned to say today, but may I assure him we have felt great sympathy for him in having to sit there without moving the motion he had been instructed to present to the house.


Duncan Gordon Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Have you got permission to speak?


Duncan Gordon Blair: That remark is unworthy of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make clear to the house that there had been an orderly disposition of the proceedings disclosed by the President of the Privy Council some time ago, that encompassed the idea that the public business would be transacted before the procedural matters with which we are now dealing. When that public business was concluded last night, I think prematurely, I was unable to proceed. I resist the idea of any suggestion that I have been derelict in my duty.


Mr. Hees:: You don't have to explain; we know.


Mr. Ricard:: You are only making it worse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
will let the record speak for itself, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton when he says that in our Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, at least to a certain point, we had very satisfactory sittings. We dealt with a great deal of work, and produced a number of reports which I think will bear fruit in the future in terms of improving the work of parliament. I would express the hope, too,
Procedure and Organization that when tempers cool over this matter more study will be given to some of the other recommendations we have made. As a matter of fact our deliberations were quite friendly, quite productive and very enjoyable, except for the last two sessions before the third report was presented to the house on June 20.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
What was wrong with those last two sessions? I say to my hon. friend from Grenville-. Carleton (Mr. Blair) that I take issue with a statement he made toward the end of his speech, and in taking issue with it I indicate what was wrong with those last two sessions. In his concluding paragraph he said he hoped that what parliament was now going to do. would not violate the ancient traditions and procedures of this house. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is happening. The ancient traditions and procedures of this house with respect to its rules are being violated. The tradition that the rules belong to all members of the house, that they belong to parliament, is being violated by a proposal that the rules be written the way the government wants them written.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what was wrong with the last two sittings of our committee before-the third report was presented to the house. All the harmony and amity we had went out. the window, as we were told what the government was insisting on putting through and, as has already been made clear, the decision to put 75c before the house was on a vote of six to three, the six being Liberal members of the committee and the three being representatives of the opposition parties.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is much that one could say, but there are only 40 minutes in which to say it, so I had better not waste too much time congratulating people, especially if that produces points of order. But I must say to you, sir, who found it rather strange that I resisted your invitation to continue the debate on the point of order we were making last night, that I found it rather strange myself; but the answer is that I was quite satisfied that the point we made last night got home, namely that it was proper for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to move concurrence in the third report of the committee but. it was not proper for the government to move the motion that was in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Whether the President of the Privy Council agrees with that or not, he has decided not to.
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization proceed with his motion and so we are dealing with this matter in what in my view is the proper way.
I am completely opposed to this committee report. I will do everything I can to see that it is not adopted, and certainly to see, at least, that 75c is deleted. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and my colleagues and I will vote for it, but I repeat that I am glad we are dealing with the report properly under the rules of the house.
Hon. members, are aware of what has brought us to this point. They know that last summer there were discussions as to the possibility of some time allocation rule. We could not reach agreement at the beginning of the session, and so the matter was referred to a Special Committee on Procedure of the House of Commons. That committee brought in its famous report of last December which resulted in a package of new rules being adopted, but not 16a.
Hon. members will recall that that subject was referred to the incoming Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and that it is the report of that committee, supported only by the majority on the committee, that we have before us at the present time. So the issue through all of this is whether or not we have the wit to find some way to allocate the time of the house on the basis of consultation, on the basis of consensus, or whether the allocation of the time of the house is to be done at the dictation of the government. That was the issue all last fall; that was the issue in December over 16a; that is the issue now.
I still take my stand in favour of planning the use of our time, in favour of allocating the time of the House of Commons, but I take my stand firmly with that being done on the basis of consultation, with that being done on the basis of participatory democracy, on the basis of all parties in this house being involved, and not on the basis of unilateral dictation from the government side. But, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we have in 75c, a proposal under which the allocating of the time of the house to debate is completely in the hands of the government house leader, supported by his government majority.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton devoted a few paragraphs in his speech to a description of proposed rules, 75a, 75b and 75c, and in the first part of that description he said things with which I do not quarrel. 
But as he went along he did say things to which I take very strong exception.
I believe we have already straightened out the mistake he made when he said-and I trust Hansard will bear out what he said- that under 75c there would have to be a minimum of ten days of debate on any individual bill. Later he corrected that to say there had to be a lapse of time of not less than ten days. That is correct, Mr. Speaker; but as far as debate is concerned the fact of the matter is that under 75c a bill-any bill- can be put through the House of Commons with only four days of debate-one day on second reading, one day in committee whether it is committee of the whole or a standing committee, one day on the report stage, no matter how many amendments there might be on the order paper, and one day on the third reading.
If one takes into account that under our new rules most of our bills go to a standing committee and there are only three stages on the floor of the House of Commons, this means that under 75c every bill brought before parliament, except those very few bills dealt with in committee of the whole, could be put through parliament with only three days of debate on the floor of the house.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point in talking about an elapsed time of ten days. As the hon. member for Peace River has already pointed out, there is need in our kind of political democracy for public reaction, for people to know what is going on, for time for them to respond, and I suggest this needs more than ten days from the introduction of an important measure until it is finally passed.
But even though the ten days are there, and even though that is not enough time for public reaction, the harm of this rule is that it makes it possible for debate on bills that have only three stages on the floor of the house to be limited to three days of debate in the Canadian House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough; and I suggest we on this side of the house are doing a service to democracy, to parliament and to the people of Canada in resisting this with all the power that we have, in the hope that, just as on previous occasions majority governments have seen the light, so in this case the government will come to its senses and permit 75c to be taken out of this proposed new set of rules.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton says that 75c does not come into play until
July 8, 1969

75a and 75b have been used. He said there has to be prior consultation. The government house leader has to be able to stand up and say that he tried to get agreement under 75a or 75b. Therefore we are supposed to have some kind of protection. Does he not realize that what will happen will be along these lines: There will be a meeting of the government house leader with the house leaders of the opposition parties, and there will be a suggestion that we agree under 75a to a certain limited period of time. Then, if we cannot all agree he will try to get three of us to agree under 75b. We won't like the small amount of time that will be offered, and we will start to argue for a little more time. And after that is done we will be told, "If you are not prepared to operate under 75a or 75b I will use 75c." Even if he does not say this, 75c is there like the sword of Damocles- although not quite, because the sword of Damocles did not come down. The rule is there like a real sword over our heads, which means that 75a and 75b are practically nullified by the power which 75c puts into the hands of the government house leader.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The government house leader and others who will take part in this debate may say that 75a and 75b represent suggestions I made before the committee. That is correct. The minutes of the committee will show that I proposed them almost in the wording in which they can be found now. But I proposed 75a and 75b as a total package. If you remove 75c I will still buy 75a and 75b and be proud to have had something to do with suggesting them, but I cannot buy 75a and 75b in a package with 75c which completely nullifies any possibility of the kind of bargaining that should be possible under 75a or 75b. It is like collective bargaining with compulsory arbitration hanging over people's heads or the threat of government action. Bargaining between the house leaders under 75a and 75b will not be free and meaningful as long as 75c is part of the set-up.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member in respect of 75b whether he agrees with the submission of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the representatives of the opposition parties could constitute a majority, not 29180-693
Procedure and Organization including the representative of the government party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: think that is a nice little point on which one could spend time and not have time to deal with other matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Let the little men howl.


Stanley Howard Knowles: could have the time to deal with it I would be quite happy to do so. I do not think the amendment the President of the Privy Council wanted to put into 75b was necessary at all. I think that the wording in 75b which says that the government house leader "may move a motion under 75b does not require him to move it and therefore 75b does not operate unless one of the majority is the government representative. Concerning what would happen to 75c if it was argued that 75b had not been fully brought into play, that is one of the fine procedural arguments we could have if 75c comes into play. I suggest this is highly hypothetical because surely debate in this parliament is still effective, surely we are still concerned about the procedural rules of parliament, and before this is all over we will not have a 75c.
I congratulate the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton-please do not raise a point of order until you hear what I am about to say-for not making a mistake when he talked about the point at which 75c could be brought into play. He said it could be applied only after there had been debate. I was listening carefully for him to make the mistake of saying how much debate, but he did not make that mistake because he knows that as that rule reads there could be debate for two minutes or indeed for one minute. Let no one stand in the house and tell me I am dreaming something. I was here in 1956. Not many of those who were here then are still here. But
C.	D. Howe is still here.
In 1956 there was a rule, Standing Order 33, which provided that closure could not be applied until all aspects of the measure had been under debate. We thought that when we got into committee on the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation bill we would have a debate on the separate clauses of the bill. But when the chairman called clause 1 Mr. C. D. Howe got up over there, picked up the bill and read the marginal note, taking 40 or 50 seconds, and then said, "I move that we proceed to clause 2." He did the same thing
July 8. 1969

Procedure and Organization on clauses 2 and 3 and the following clauses. I think there were five or six in all. There were protests and points of order, but in a short space of time Mr. Howe and Walter Harris, who was leading the house, said that we had had a debate on those five or six clauses and that the closure rule would be applied. Mr. King, by the way, in the mid-1930's attacked Mr. Bennett very strongly for having done something like that and quoted Mr. Meighen as having said that the closure rule could not be applied until there has been reasonable debate. But Mr. Bennett applied closure in that way in 1932 or 1933 and Mr. Howe applied it that way in 1956.
Under the closure rule the debate could be concluded in 40 or 50 seconds. Similarly, under 75c a minister could utter one or two sentences and then move the adjournment of the debate. The house leader could then get up and say, "By the way, I have not been able to obtain agreement so I move under 75c that the debate be limited to one day."


An hon. Member:: It could be a Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it could be a Wednesday, which is a short day. That is what could happen in respect of the second reading stage. Look also at what could happen at the report stage. While it is not stated in the report and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has not yet taken part in this debate, he has read what I have said and I have read what he said as reported in the newspapers. I understand the reason he feels Standing Order 33 is not adequate is that we now have the report stage and there was no report stage when Standing Order 33 was adopted.
At the report stage we could have 5, 10 or 20 amendments just as we did in respect of the omnibus Criminal Code bill. A motion could be brought in to terminate the debate at the report stage after one day. So if there were 10 or 20 amendments on the order paper for the report stage, a one day debate would allow discussion on one or two of them and no debate on the others. This kind of process of using the closure rule to cut off debate even before there is an opportunity to debate and vote on amendments was described by King in 1933, I believe, as the most oppressive abuse of parliamentary procedure he had ever heard of. This is what we are up against. This kind of rule would permit at the report stagt what Bennett and Howe did. The report stage would be out the window.

In the very good package of rules we brought in last December there were several extremely valuable things. I think we did well in getting many items off the floor of the house into committee such as the estimates and the committee stage of bills. I think parliament operates better because of this. But I also believe that one of the rule changes which has proven to be very worth while is the report stage. This means that a bill which has been dealt with in detail in a standing committee can be dealt with on the floor of the house by members zeroing in on contentious issues. But if all of a sudden the government house leader can bring in a proposal that the whole report stage, no matter how many amendments there are, be limited to one day, then the value of this tremendous innovation, I suggest, is out the window.
So despite the explanation of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that the rule is very good and is an advance by parliament in meeting the problems of our time and all the rest of it, I submit it is a form of closure even more forceful than the one in Standing Order 33. If time permitted I would have liked to go back and read some of the things that were said about closure in 1913 by a great Canadian statesman. I refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Even I was not here then, but from reading Hansard it would appear that he must have been an orator par excellence. But I say, as a result of reading his speeches, it was evident that he was at his best when he was denouncing the government of that day for limiting the right of free speech in parliament. I remind members opposite that he stood in this chamber-not this chamber but the one that was burned down-and said he would rather be here and out of office than to have remained in power by the power of the gag, that true Liberalism believes in freedom of speech and would not use its majority to impose that kind of limitation on parliament.
* (4:10 p.m.)
I urge very strongly that we settle in, accept the fact that we are going to have a few days of debate, and hope that within those few days we can settle this matter in the proper way. Last night's debate was not in vain; we got rid of a motion that was out of order and we are now dealing with this matter on a proper basis. Last December's debate was not in vain, despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said just afterwards that we had fallen into a trap. We got a good package of rules and left 16a out.
I hope the result of this debate will be that
July 8. 1969

the government will again decide that this vicious rule 75c will be dropped.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton suggested that proposed rule 75c is greatly different from 16a. I did a bit of study on the subject this morning in preparation for what I thought would be another point of order, which was obviated when the President of the Privy Council changed the plans for us today. I would have liked to quote Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and give examples of things that seemed different but which were really alike. I suggest that the effects of 16a and proposed 75c are the same. They give the ultimate, dictatorial power to the government house leader to act even when the entire opposition disagrees with what the government is trying to do to the rules of parliament.
I see the time is moving, Mr. Speaker, and I must move on. What I think really has to be said, and to which there is no answer, is that 75c is not needed; there is no call for it whatsoever. We have been getting along well since Christmas in parliament up until a couple of weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
had a couple of delays. The only piece of legislation with regard to which we had any significant delay was the omnibus Criminal Code bill. I was in favour of it, but I submit that there was a case for hon. members to have the opportunity to debate that bill because of the strong feelings they held about it. Even that bill could have been dealt with under 75b. With regard to the languages bill, if you want to say it was debated at length, it could have been dealt with under 75b. Perhaps it could have been dealt with under 75a. There has not been a single instance since Christmas when 75c was needed-not one.
Why, then, spoil the relationships we have had in this house in the past five months? We have had our disagreements and arguments, but we have agreed scores of times. The President of the Privy Council has risen in the house on many occasions and said: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is general agreement about this. What do we do? We get up over here and say: Yes, that is agreed, Mr. Speaker. It is as simple as that. We have settled scores of things. We have given up a lot of days. We have made switches of various kinds. We have had, in my view, one of

Procedure and Organization the best sessions we have ever had procedurally in regard to getting things through the house.
We have dealt with these questions on the basis of consultation. We have reached a consensus most of the time. There have been a few slips. Sometimes my friend the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has said no, and we have sometimes had to agree that he was right. Once in a while a Conservative has said no. It does not do any harm to have a little difference once in a while and take a little time to debate a subject upon which even one hon. member feels strongly. But in the main parliament has operated on the basis of consultation. It has gone well. One of my colleagues, if he gets the floor today, will list the number of items we have put through the house. It has been a good session. Now the government wants to spoil it all by putting us at arm's length, which it has done in the past two or three weeks. We are at arm's length over this issue, and this is a good way to stall parliament.
I submit that the government, having come to its senses last night over one point, should now come to its senses over this proposed rule and drop it. When we talk to people outside, or to the press boys at the coffee table, the one thing everybody seems to agree upon is that this rule is not needed. They ask: Why has the government brought it in? It is not really necessary at all.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with what is perhaps a fundamental, almost philosophical question in relation to this whole business. If someone stands, as I do, and says he believes in allocating time and planning the work of the year, as I do, the question comes back: If you agree to that, if you are in favour of planning, don't you have to do something to limit debate? I agree it is necessary to limit debate. This parliament has done it. We have limited the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is eight days now, it was ten days a few years ago, and at times took 30 days when I first came here. There was no limit, but it went on for as many as 28 or 30 days. We have limited the debate on the budget. We have limited the debate on the estimates. We have made life easy for this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
friends over there are laughing. They just have not been around here long enough.
10968	COMMONS DEBATES	July 8, 1969
Procedure and Organization


Mr. Dinsdale:: That is right; they are too Mr. Burton: You hoys had better remember green.	it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
they will not be around here long enough to learn much, either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are neophytes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For
example, it used to be possible for the opposition, by withholding supply on the main estimates or interim supply, to keep the government at bay three, four or five times a year and obtain commitments and answers from the government on important issues. But now the government receives interim supply for three months on a certain date in March just as automatically as the coming of spring. It receives its main estimates for the full year on a certain day at the end of June just as automatically as the coming of summer. We have the right to vote against the main estimates, but who is going to vote against estimates which include money for agriculture, labour, pensions, or what have you, in the general package? The government does not know what struggles governments in the past have had to obtain this money. We have simplified the rules; we have made it easy for the government. I mentioned Mackenzie King a few minutes ago. I recall him very well. If he came back-


An hon. Member:: He is back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -he would not recognize the rules of this place. Debate has to be limited, and we have accepted that principle. The time limit on all speeches used to be 40 minutes; now it is sometimes 30 minutes, 20 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 minutes, and we even have a 3 minute rule. We have all kinds of limitations. The point about limiting debate is that it is proper for us to do it, but we must do it by agreement and we must all share in the decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
right to speak in this House of Commons is not given to me by the government, it is not given to me by the Prime Minister, it is given to me by the people of Winnipeg North Centre who sent me here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
IMr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
right of the Prime Minister to speak in this house, his freedom of speech, is given to him not by the opposition or the government but by the people of Mount Royal who sent him here.


Some hon. Members:: By Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
Canada did not send the Prime Minister here.


An hon. Member:: Yes, it did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
people of Mount Royal sent him here. I say to you as strongly as I can, Mr. Speaker, that we come here as equals, every one of us, with the right to speak on behalf of our people in the parliament of Canada. It may be said to me: If we all exercised that right and there were no limit on debate, there would be no time for anything. My answer is that this is the reason we get together and by consent and with common sense do what will be fair to everyone. We reach agreement as to limitations we will impose upon ourselves. But these are limitations imposed by agreement amongst all of us. No majority, merely because it has a majority in this House of Commons, has the right to take away from members of this house freedom of speech which they do not want to surrender. That is what this government is trying to do by allocating time by a majority vote.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There is nothing wrong with parliament as a whole deciding to limit speech, provided we do it with the consent of all, perhaps not unanimously to the extent of every last member but certainly by general consent. That is what we have done across the years. Every change there has been in the amount of time members can take has been made under the tradition or procedures of this house which are being violated by the proposal today, despite the fine statement made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I submit that the whole question of the right of individual members to speak is a basic right given to them not by the government, not by the government house leader, no matter how much of a dictator he may be, not by a majority on the government side but the people who sent us here, and we are entitled to retain that right except in so far as we agree to surrender it on the basis of common sense.
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
I still argue that we should work our heads oft to arrive at arrangements for allocating the time of the house, but let us do this byagreement. I thought that is what we were working toward in the committee until the last two meetings.


An hon. Member:: You were fooled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes,
I was fooled. I thought we were going in that general direction. There was good will, good humour and a camaraderie was built up as we get together, ate together, and so on. All this went down the drain when we were suddenly told, "No, it is not going to be done that way. The government is doing to decide when free speech is to be limited."
That is why I feel that standing order 75c simply must be reconsidered. I do not know how long this debate will go on. Last night it took only two hours to win a certain point; I hope it will not take two or three weeks to win this one. We are all going to make the best speeches we can. We are going to argue our cases as strongly as we can, but not just for the fun of hearing ourselves speak or of getting our names on the record. We want parliament to win this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What happened in December was not that we or they won but that parliament won when the decision was made to adopt the rules to which everyone agreed and not to adopt the one to which there was violent objection.
I submit that a victory will be won by parliament if out of this discussion we can reach the decision to continue to wrestle with the problem of time allocation. I am not asking the government to drop the idea of time allocation and of planning the year. I am proud of the start we made and of the calen-darization that we put into our rules. Let us keep wrestling with the problem until we arrive at a scheme for programming the year, a scheme for allocating time to which we all agree, not one that is imposed upon us. What we have is a rule that is before the house today because it was supported by the government majority in a committee, but only by that government majority. If it goes through, it will go through only on the votes of the government majority, and I suspect that some of them have their doubts about it. If it is put through and is brought into play, the farcical votes that will take place after two hours debate will be votes in which a decision to
Procedure and Organization cut off debate will be made on the basis of a government majority. The government wins a decision three times as to what the rules of the house should be. It wins on the basis of its majority three times and parliament is out.
My friends over there will say to me in private and in public, "Don't we operate on the basis of a majority?" Yes, we do when we pass laws, when we legislate. But when we make the rules of the game it is not the strongest side that makes the rules but everybody who is involved. One wins this battle not by muscle but by merit, not by brawn but by brain, and I think we have the wit to do it.
I appeal as strongly as I can to the house to support the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the report be referred back to the committee. Perhaps we can do the same thing that we did last December. Instead of having to take the time to send the report back to the committee and let it report again, we can do what was done on December 20. The minister can get up and suggest that the third report of the standing committee be adopted minus rule 75c. That was what was done on December 20 and it can be done now. It would save much time and we could get out of here. All we are here for is to try to straighten out this rule situation. I hope it will be done that way.
If I still have time I should like to read something that was said by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada for a number of years. These words impressed me greatly at the time.


An hon. Member:: He was a real Liberal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This
statement was made in the year 1946 before he became Prime Minister. We were debating the subject of redistribution, which at that time was dealt with by a committee, and also the means of seeking an amendment to the constitution from Westminster. In the course of a debate on how far the government could go in amending the B.N.A. Act by a simple resolution to Westminster, Mr. St. Laurent was asked by Mr. Arthur Smith of Calgary, the late father of one whom some of you know, whether it would be possible for the government to change the language provision of the B.N.A. Act by the simple device of a resolution to the parliament at Westminster. The debate came back to my mind because of the discussion we have had lately.
10970	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization
Mr. St. Laurent made what I thought was a most courageous reply. Obviously he had given some thought to the matter and had prepared himself to reply. He said that this could be done legally, that under the constitution parliament could pass a resolution, send it to the King, who was the monarch in those days, and ask for it to be laid before the British parliament, and that in this way the B.N.A. Act could be amended to take away the use of the French language. To quote his exact words as recorded at page 2621 of Hansard of June 18, 1946, he said:
Legally I say it can. The situation appears to me to be this. There are persons and nations who reach a high estate in the affairs of men, and the high estate they reach imposes upon them high obligations. There was no obligation on the Tribune Festus to say to King Agrippa that he could not deliver Paul to the Jews when they requested that he be put to death. It occurs to one, however, that they also had reached a high estate, which imposes a corresponding obligation.
And then Mr. St. Laurent said:
I copied out of the Bible on the table of this house, from the Acts, the quite natural statement of Festus:
''It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him."
Then in two or three paragraphs on pages 2621 and 2622 of Hansard for that day-and I invite hon. members to read those paragraphs-Mr. St. Laurent went on to indicate some of the things that his ancestors of French speaking origin had gone through. He spoke about some of the things that had been done, but he declared that certain wrongs would not be committed because, like the Romans, we had reached a higher estate. Finally, he ended with these words:
If it is fair, if it is just, if it is proper according to the standards of human decency, it will be done; if it is unfair, if it is unjust, if it is improper, all members of this house will say, ''It is not our manner to do such things."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. St. Laurent said of the Romans that there were certain things they would not do even though they had the legal right to do them. Mr. St. Laurent said of the government majority of that day-and he spoke of the government majority in any parliament-that though there were certain things they might have the legal right to do, it was not their manner to do them.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
DEBATES	July 8, 1969
I say to the government opposite that they have the majority and they can put this sort of thing through, wrong though it is. They can throttle parliament in the process and they can interfere with the right of free speech. But I thought that as Liberals it was not their manner to do such things.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the eloquent speeches made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); I was truly impressed, in view of the fact that they have much more experience in this house than myself, as this is my first session here.
For several reasons, I do not intend to go back as far as 1946, but I would rather consider the present situation of a Canadian member of Parliament, in 1969, in an attempt to see how much standing orders 75a, 75b and 75c are really in the interest of Canadian parliamentary life.
Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian member of Parliament asks himself certain questions, after having done much research. On many occasions, this parliament has attempted to improve its procedure, its operations, to act more effectively, to give a better performance, in order to bring about a better recognition of each hon. member's right. Every improvement has been done in the interest of the Canadian parliament.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that my words will not be misinterpreted. The amendments proposed by the government party represent for the most part a definite improvement as regards what exists presently in the Standing Orders. I refer more particularly to Standing Orders 75a and 75b, about which the members of my party are in agreement. In this sense, my party wishes to congratulate the government on his contribution.
However, we are not going any further, we do not support the government any longer, we are opposing and we shall continue to oppose, with all our strength, the adoption of Standing Order 75c for reasons that are not due so much to the past as to the present and that I should like to enumerate briefly in a moment.
Mr. Speaker, to sum up the whole thing, I believe that any majority government, be it made up of Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats or Creditistes, will
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
always be very strongly tempted to control everything.
A majority government has control over its members. A very complex system has been established to control not only the attendance of hon. members in the house but also what they must say and do. The government should not be blamed for that, Mr. Speaker, since it is trying to ensure its survival. I do not say that not because the Liberals are on the other side; I would say the same thing if it were the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats or the Creditistes because it is so strong a temptation that one is inclined to yield to it.
Therefore, the control of hon. members, of what they say and of the introduction of proposed legislation is possible. In fact, any government, whatever its political colour, controls also the contents of the legislation, and the standing orders that have been adopted say it clearly: No member of the opposition can introduce a measure that entails the spending of money.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that members of the opposition cannot introduce money bills liable to help the Canadian people. If they did, they would be called to order pursuant to the standing orders and the tradition of this house.
So, any government controls not only its own members but also its own ministers. It may happen that one of them goes astray but he is always called back to order, and many precedents prove it. The government controls not only its members but also the legislation. It controls the spending of money and sets up the legislative program.
In fact, one can never blame the opposition for the fact that during a given session, no significant legislation has been passed. Why? Because all legislative action comes and will continue to come-and this is in accordance with the Standing Orders-from the majority government. The same holds true in the case of a minority government.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, because of the majority it holds, a government controls parliament in a certain way. What displeases me most in the house is to realize that a government is able to control this supreme institution called parliament.
Since September, Mr. Speaker, we have noted a certain change in the way that committees carry on their work. We have seen
Procedure and Organization that, more and more, the government is giving in to the temptation of controlling everything, and in particular the work of the committees.
Again last night, in this house, several hon. members were raising such questions. I was one of them, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the work done in committee is important. That work must be carried on independently from the ministers' will, because the hon. members' work is not subordinated to the political parties. Such must be the situation.
Then, Mr. Speaker, besides controlling parliament and the hon. members on the government side, in committee as well as in the house, the government, by means of rule 75c could-if it was ever passed, and that would be unfortunate-also have control over the opposition members. It could shelve the third parties and, on that score, Mr. Speaker, I need not say that we shall never give in.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said so eloquently, we have all been elected on an equal footing. We have all received a mandate from our electors and once elected, we represent our constituents, and also the whole Canadian population.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As such, we are all equal in the house and should be treated accordingly.
This morning I had the pleasure of taking part in the C.B.C. program "Present", with the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Forest) who recognized that closure was archaic, harsh and unpopular with the population.
Though he did not say it in so many words, it meant that the government was looking for another way to control debates, to stop them when it saw fit and even to impose a time limit.
But what distresses me even more, Mr. Speaker-and I would be remiss in my duties if I did not say it, though it might hurt some people-are the statements made about the opposition. Some seem to believe in this house that the Creditistes are mainly responsible for the extension of our proceedings, and so on, and so forth. The government has often attempted to put the blame on the Creditistes.
When I attended one of the meetings of the committee on procedure and organization-I was then one of its members-I saw many sniggers and noted many hints and allegations, some of which were downright scornful. This was meant to imply that because of the unfortunate behaviour of the Ralliement
10372	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization creditiste when the Criminal Code was under consideration, it was now necessary to force upon us, willy-nilly, a provision on closure which is as hateful as the present one and which although it is more concealed, more modern, would also be a weapon, a guillotine to put an end to the squawks of the members of the Ralliement creditiste.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that allegation and if it were only for this reason, the government has not heard the last of us, because they are not being honest in making such insinuations.
Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable to be criticized by some government members who never rise to speak in the house, who sit here doing nothing, who get their allowance but remain idle in parliament. In accusing members of the Ralliement creditiste, of the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative party of talking too much when they are making every effort to fulfil the mandate they have received from their constituents, I believe those government members are going too far.
That shows you in what spirit the present government introduces Standing Order 75c. That is why I wish to congratulate the member for Peace River and his colleagues, as well as the member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues, for not letting go, and showing the government that even though it has managed to muzzle its men, it will never manage to muzzle the members of the opposition, at least certainly not the members of the Ralliement creditiste, and I would like that to be clear. Past experience has proved that those two parties teach lessons to the two old parties. Indeed, all the members of the Ralliement creditiste, like the N.D.P. members, make it a point of honour, a duty to participate in the drawing up of legislation, and not in delaying it, to reject the government proposals, to amend or study them. To my mind, those members certainly deserve congratulations, and certainly not censure or the imposition of Standing Order 75c.
Mr. Speaker, I say that Standing Order 75c is unfair to those members who are in earnest about their role as members, and who want to fulfil their electoral mandate adequately.
The government will soon rise in defence of efficiency. The partisans of efficiency, of production, of profitability are having their fling today, under the boot of the Prime Minister. Nothing is left to chance. It is a question of anticipating everything, of regulating everything, of prescribing, if necessary, always on [Mr. Fortin.1
DEBATES	July 8, 1969
the ground of efficiency and of output. The content or the quality of the bills matters little. What is important is the number of laws that we shall adopt to impress the Canadian people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we maintain that it is the quality that matters rather than the quantity. This should not make you conclude, Mr. Speaker, that we are agreed to filibuster or to delay the proceedings of the house. That is not the question. We are ready to co-operate and we have proved it.
It will also be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to examine the content of the bills. One is right to oppose a bill when it does not contain anything or when it contains controversial measures. The government can certainly not blame us then because we perform our duty.
Under to the Canadian parliamentary system, the contents of legislation has to be controlled, imposed by the government and more precisely by the government members. In fact, no member, not even a government member, can move a piece of legislation that would involve expenditures. That is important in my opinion and that is why I come back to it.
So members of the opposition are fully restricted as to the presentation of bills. There is only one possibility left to them, which is nevertheless tremendous: To consider government proposals, government projects and then give them unreserved support, criticize them in part, move amendments or reject them completely. Such is our lot. In short, opposition members cannot avail or pride themselves of any serious move, because they cannot make any proposal involving the expenditure of public funds.
The opposition as it is now designed must necessarily wait for government initiatives before initiating constructive criticism on behalf of the Canadian people. The purpose of Standing Order 75c is to take away from the opposition the right of free speech with regard to government proposals. This is the way things are now.
Therefore, the sole asset, the only working tool of the opposition, is the time factor. For the opposition this factor is essential and basic. It makes it possible for it to study bills which generally are introduced at the last minute by the government for fear that they might be considered, that certain controversial questions might be let out in the open such as, for instance, the omnibus bill. The government is afraid that these subjects might be considered and scrutinized and that one or
July 8. 1969

more amendments may be moved or that the whole bill may be thrown out, which remains the basic privilege of democracy. In fact, it is even its corner-stone.
Under Standing Order 75c, opposition members will not only be unable to take any financial or government initiative but the time allotted for the thorough consideration of such measures could also be limited by any minister, at any time, on any subject.
This is sheer nonsense.
Opposition members are blamed for taking too much time but we can indeed blame the government members for never making good use of the time of the house, for never participating in any debate. We even wonder what they are doing here. Why have they been elected? Why are they paid for?
I think that the present debate will, at least, serve the best interests of parliament because members will ask themselves questions about their duties in parliament.
It is easy to blame the members who speak in the house but let us also blame those who never participate in any debate.
Those are the people who would prevent opposition members from doing their job, from doing their part in considering legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is sheer nonsense.
We agree that the rules should be changed in order to avoid, as far as possible any waste of time. We wholeheartedly agree on the wording of orders 75a and 75b, but not on that of 75c.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We must think over the role of the government member as well as that of the opposition member. We must equip ourselves with modern and efficient tools.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that a few days ago, government members met for a famous symposium that will probably go on record, to think over their function. They all asked themselves the following question: What are we doing in Ottawa? What are we doing in parliament? Why did they hold this meeting? Precisely because most of them realized they could not take part in debate. Their role is restricted to being mere numbers in the voting machine.
Mr. Speaker, government members envy opposition members who can be active in debate, and that is why they ought to be congratulated for having asked themselves questions. However, I am at a loss to understand that those same hon. members, who now
Procedure and Organization demand from their Prime Minister the power, the privilege-which indeed they have and do not exercise-to take part in discussions, would like the opposition members to remain seated and say: You are absolutely right. All bills are good; we remain in our seats. Keep on governing, and in four years, we will have an election.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is preposterous. We cannot tolerate that.
Now back to rules 75a, b and c. Under rule 75 a, as one knows, unanimity is required among members of all parties. That means, Mr. Speaker, that whenever the government introduces a bill of national interest or a bill which they believe important and which they want passed as quickly as possible, for all kinds of reason, good in themselves, they seek the advice of the house leader of each opposition party and try to come to what they call a gentlemen's agreement, a friendly agreement between the parties. And if the government does not get that unanimous consent, they could resort to rule 75b, that is a decision between the representatives of the various parties could be reached on a majority basis.
It is clearly mentioned in the amendment, and I quote:
-including that of the government,-
That is more or less what has been happening since the beginning of this session, and it seems that the principle has worked out quite well. Indeed, all parties have been very cooperative, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) could vouch for it were he in the house at this time.
When the omnibus bill was debated, the Minister of Justice decided at one point to ask for our co-operation. Right away we replied:	"We are ready to co-operate."
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, an hour and thirty minutes later we were asking ourselves that the question be put. They cannot therefore blame us for uselessly extending the proceedings. We are ready to co-operate. We are showing our good will, but we would like hon. members opposite to do likewise.
However, Standing Order 75c is unacceptable for many reasons. It states that if an agreement cannot be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a, a minister from his seat, in connection with any question, at any time, can propose a motion aimed at limiting the debate.
2D180-694
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization This, Mr. Speaker, is strangely similar to the present Standing Order 33 which reads as follows:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole

That becomes interesting. And note that is nearly word for word.
-any Minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting-
This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly how Standing Order 75c reads.
-of his intention so to do may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration shall be the first business of the committee-
'This is rule 33, at page 28 of the Standing Orders adopted in January 1969.
Mr. Speaker, there is a strange similarity between Standing Orders 75c and 33. We can find it also between Standing Orders 16a and 75c.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is all one.
Standing order 16a 3(b) read as follows, and I quote:
The Chairman-
In other words, the President of the Privy Council-
-from his place in the house can give verbal notice of the meetings arranged for the said committee-
Or for the sittings of the house-
-in any case, written notice of such a meeting, etc.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take the time of the house to read rule 16a, which was rejected, besides, and rightly so. If any hon. member put side by side on his desk rule 75c, standing order 33 and rule 16a, he would find, on reading them that they are almost identical. He would see that the object is the same in the three cases: to limit debate and to put a stop to it.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we do not accept. The opposition has no wish to be controlled or muzzled.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take up too much of the time allotted to hon. members nor to impose upon my hon. colleagues' kindness, but I still have some important comments to make at this time.
Many before me have spoken with emphasis and have expressed the hope of greater co-operation between the party in power and the opposition.

The President of the Privy Council has complained in the house about the lack of co-operation between the parties. However, the opposition calls the hon. members on the government side high-handed people, who want to establish a totalitarian system.
Mr. Speaker, this is what gave birth, I think, to Standing Order 75c. As a matter of fact, while yielding to the temptation to control everything, the majority government said to itself: By controlling the business of the house, we will avoid quibbling, discussions and loss of time.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not make any sense for the following reason. In the same way that the government is asking the opposition every day to compromise, to make concessions and to co-operate, it should also compromise and co-operate.
I suggest this is the stumbling-block of this discussion which is altogether too often forgotten.
Members of the house rise at any time to blame their colleagues of their lack of co-operation, of abuse of power, of the rules, of anything you wish, but everyone seems to forget that if we were willing to co-operate, nothing would be easier as far as setting up time limits is concerned.
Here is the proof. The whole opposition seems to agree on rules 75a and 75b. Most government members say that the standing orders of the House of Commons are archaic. That is true, Mr. Speaker. They say that the House of Commons is held up to ridicule, in many respects, by Canadian people. That also is true, Mr. Speaker. But blocking the business, imposing closure, muzzling hon. members from all sides of the house, that is not a step forward, it is a step backward.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if there is to be real co-operation, there must not be on any side drastic measures or filibustering, except if we are deliberately provoked, as the government did during the debate on the omnibus bill.
And even there, we were right, because we were faithful to the mandate conferred on us by our electors, for is that not the purpose of our presence here? Were we not commissioned to act in conformity with the will of our electors and to see that it is respected?
However, it goes without saying that in certain circumstances, during consideration of this or that bill, where public opinion is aroused against its adoption, where the consequences of its adoption could be very detrimental to a large part of the population, hon.
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
members, whatever their party, should have the privilege of making themselves heard on a controversial bill. I think it is a privilege that no party, no man will ever be able to take away from the house, without destroying Canadian parliamentarianism.
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me even more is this: If we replace the Liberals by the Conservatives and if the Conservatives brought forward this same standing order 75c we would see the best speakers of the Liberal party-such as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) for instance-make telling speeches and say to the Conservative government that it is authoritarian, totalitarian and dictatorial, and that it is keeping Parliament under its heel. Then we would hear great speeches, by Liberal members, including the President of the Privy Council himself, and I think that he is fair enough to admit it. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) who is smiling, would be the first one to stand up and blame the government for being authoritarian, autocratic and anything you want.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Today, these people are in power and they would like to do so. One wonders whether they are really serving the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people or whether they are as always serving the interests of only one man, the Prime Minister, who wants to rule everything. One can ask the question but I do not know what is the answer. However, they know it. Their conscience dictates it to them.
Mr. Speaker, one must not lose sight, of the fact during this debate which questions and jeopardizes the ability for each member, in particular for opposition members, to speak freely, that we are the spokesmen of the Canadian people, and that on that basis the quantity of the bills must necessarily give place to quality.
Let us come back to the main argument advanced by the President of the Privy Council who clearly stated, during consideration of standing order 16a and who said it again on many instances during the meetings of the committee on procedure and organization and again yesterday, during the consideration of the motion which he introduced, that the business of the house is lagging behind which results into a great loss of time. That is a fact, and everyone admits it. There is no argument about that Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the President of the Privy Council on that score; but that does 29180-694a
Procedure and Organization not mean that we should hurl ourselves at the other extreme to the extent of limiting the debate to one day for instance as standing order 75c stipulates.
Mr. Speaker, let us work it out: after the movers of the motion have spoken, as well as those who reply officially on behalf of each party, I can assure you that there is not much time left for those members who are known as the back-benchers. In other words, a very small minority, not even 1 per cent of the members, would be able to speak on standing order 75c. The other members would sit here to allow the government to either be overthrown or stay in power. We are not voting machines; we are here to participate.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind you that the Canadian parliament, in my humble opinion, is an instrument put at the disposal of the representatives of the Canadian people to legislate; it gives every member the power to participate in the drawing up of legislation. I feel it would be an error on our part if we were to take away that right from the members.
Mr. Speaker, just one more thing before bringing my remarks to a close: any debate on any topic, always gives us the opportunity to throw light on every aspect of a question, and enables us to put it before the public. It also gives us the opportunity of expressing the public opinion in the House of Commons. It affords the public, as well as the members of every party, the opportunity to protest, to judge, to criticize, or to accept a proposal, as the case may be. It also gives the opportunity of delving more deeply into a subject, and to do some research. A debate can compel the members to think, to work and to prepare speeches. Lastly, it enables us to better understand the implications of a piece of legislation and maybe, if it is in the best interests of the Canadian people, to amend it.
If we limit debate according to the state of health or good will of a minister, whoever he may be, Mr. Speaker, then the sovereignty of parliament does not make any sense.
Several government members here are bringing up again the notorious matter of the omnibus bill. I would like then not to consider that matter as a refusal on our part to participate or to co-operate. It would be unfair of them, because they are aware, as well as president of the Privy Council that we did co-operate. In fact, many times he has sought the co-operation of the Ralliement Creditiste members, and we had never turned
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization him down, we have always accepted to cooperate. On the other hand, every time he has tried to impose his own views on us without seeking our advice, we have always refused our co-operation, because as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Center said, we refuse, under the pretext of modernizing the rules of the House of Commons, to be pushed around. We readily accept modernization but we want to truly and fully participate in it.
Mr. Speaker, members of the Ralliement Creditiste will not allow those members who never take part in the business of the house to blame us for extending our debates unnecessarily. This is nonsense and it should cause the President of the Privy Council and his colleagues to ponder and urge the opposition members to be a little more brief in order not to delay our proceedings too much. But at the same time, he should see to it that his own people participate more in our discussions so that parliament would not only for the opposition but also for government members who do not speak too often.
This is why we believe, Mr. Speaker, that there would be an advantage at this moment, even if we support section 75a and 75b, in withdrawing section 75c and in referring the whole thing to the committee for a deeper and more serious study. The very definition of the Canadian parliament, of the meaning of a debate, of the role of a member, whether of the government or of the opposition, is at stake, and I think the question should be of interest to all hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their patience and to ask those who are most experienced to express their views in order to preserve the rights of this parliament. I would also ask them to set an example to the younger members in order to prove to them that this parliament still mean something in 1969, because even if it is modernized, one must si ill respect the right of every member to speak.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as a number of hon. members have already suggested, the committee which has considered and produced the recommended rules spent a fair amount of its time since Christmas trying to arrive at some kind of compromise between the position taken by hon. members on the other side and the position taken by the government. I think it is fitting that this difference in point of view is expressed in the [Mr. Fortin.1
amendment put forward. That is the real controversy that has been before the committee and in fact before the house for most of this session, namely, the point of view taken by the opposition that the majority of the members should not in the long run have the opportunity of determining how the time of the house is to be utilized.
As hon. members have already mentioned, principally in seven sittings of the committee the question of time allocation was discussed. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in one of his lyrical moments, suggested that everything was going swimmingly and there was no hint of difficulty or controversy until we got down to the last two meetings. I think the hon. member will agree he was being lyrical. At all times it was made perfectly clear on behalf of the majority of members of the house, and my colleagues on the committee made it perfectly clear they considered that this and all other questions in the house were to be decided by (he majority of voices, including the decision of programming.
The committee devoted itself to arriving at some kind of compromise to find means whereby the rights of the minority to express their viewpoint in opposition to a particular bill could be made available and at the same time so that ultimately a decision could be taken on all of the measures put before parliament. This is the basic question, and apparently this basic question still remains to be decided in the house and between the various parties in the house.
I will not spend any time describing in detail 75a and 75b. The proposed rule 75a really makes formal what has been an informal practice of the house, that is to say, by general agreement of the representatives of the parties a decision is made as to how time is to be allocated. The advantage that 75a offers which has not hitherto been available under our rules is that it will make it possible for the representatives of the parties to agree on an appropriate order. We will not be in the situation we have sometimes found ourselves in where one or two members can prevent the vast majority of members of the house from arriving at a decision as to how the time is to be allocated at the various stages of a bill.
As has already been indicated, under rule 75b there is a different procedure, recognizing the fact that there is a dissent. One of the opposition parties may well dissent to the proposal put forward. One stage of the bill is
July 8, 1969

to be dealt with at a time. Of course, the report stage and third reading are to be dealt with together. There is to be a two hour debate with opportunities of ten minutes each for hon. members to express their reasons why the order should or should not be made, and in the house, by a majority decision of the house, the majority of voices decides whether or not the order should pass.
I think hon. members will recognize these are useful tools which will greatly facilitate the work of the house. I do not think we can lay down our pens on this particular task without also dealing with the pathological situation, the one that will occur from time to time where perhaps a united opposition, or in the case of 75b two of the opposition parties, perhaps the two minor opposition parties, will not be in agreement with the proposed order and thereby be able to bring the business of the house to a halt.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Rule 75c has a deadlock provision, Mr. Speaker. It is to apply in a situation where, as I have said, there is a united opposition against the government or where even two of the opposition parties, perhaps two of the minor opposition parties, are united in opposing the timetable which may be agreeable to the other two parties in the house.
I think it is only fair to point out the particular aspect of 75b which makes this safeguard proposal necessary, and that is that 75b really declares those things equal which in effect are not equal. For example, 75b declares that the 153 Liberals in the house are equal in weight and quantity to the 14 Credi-tistes. It declares that the 22 members of the N.D.P., are equivalent in size to the 72 members of the Progressive Conservative party. In other words, it equates groups that have large differences between them and thereby creates what is in effect an unreal equity between them.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said he assumes, and I take it he meant this seriously, that in most cases the government house leader will say, "This is it; either you agree to this order or I will make one of my own." I use his quotation from Mr. St. Laurent, and perhaps more in the vein in which Mr. St. Laurent intended it:
While there are certain things which we have a legal right to do it is not our manner to do so.
I would suggest that during the course of this particular session that fact has been quite evident in the running of the house. But I

Procedure and Organization equally put to you, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of two opposition parties using the leverage which 75b would give them to hold the house up to ransom, or even the possibility of one of the minor parties-where the other has indicated it was unalterably opposed to the legislation-trying to squeeze concessions in terms of time or of amendments to the legislation or other particular concessions which in the opinion of the majority might be neither wise nor just. It is because of this leverage that we feel there should be some safeguard against a provision which could so aptly be described as being undemocratic, which can certainly be described as being unparliamentary, and which equally can be described as contrary to the expressed written provisions of our constitution.
First, with respect to its undemocratic character, what it really indicates is that we would have minority rule, that a minority of members would rule how the house should carry on its business. That is not consistent with the basic tenets of democracy. In the long run the majority should be in a position to decide.
Second, I suggest it is an unparliamentary provision in the sense that there is no other assembly in the parliamentary system which in this way gives the whip hand to the small parties in the house, to a small minority of members. Equally I suggest it is contrary to the expressed written provisions of our constitution, about which we have heard reference already today. Section 49 of the British North America Act states:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices-
In other words, I think that without more than is advocated in 75b, we have a rule that is undemocratic, contrary to the parliamentary tradition, and contrary to the expressed terms of our constitution. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was prepared to claim fatherhood for 75b, and I am prepared to accord him the responsibility or, if he prefers it, the credit for having produced this particular proposal. But I just point out that in trying to get minority control of this house under 75b, and 75b only, he is really reaching for that which the electors of Canada refused to him and his party, namely, control of the House of Commons.
Because of the extensive description already given of 75c I will not delay over it long, but I do wish to emphasize its principal aspects. The first is that the application under 75c is conducted only with respect to a single
10978	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization bill, and with the exception of the combination of report stage and third reading it is applied only to a single stage of a single bill.
The way in which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) described it in his second formulation was correct, when he described it as requiring the lapse of at least ten days before the full rule could be worked in detail. In fact, under our procedures I would suggest that as a minimum much more than ten days would be required. This is because, as hon. members know, there is now a rule of the house that unless a special order is made the committee stage of public bills is automatically conducted in a standing committee, and the experience we have of our standing committees during the course of this session is that it is has taken them two to three weeks to deal with major bills. What is more, under our Standing Orders the report stage of a bill cannot be called until at least 48 hours have elapsed from the time the report is received from the standing committee. In fact, and in accordance with our experience in the house, many more than ten days will elapse before all the various stages of a bill are gone through.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Under this proposal how long will a bill be before a standing committee? That time can also be reduced to one day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It can indeed, although I think what we have to talk about is the reality of life and, to repeat again what Mr. St. Laurent said, this is the way public bills have been dealt with. I would point out to the hon. member that up until now we have in fact been in the position in standing committees, merely by the use of a majority, to bring debate in committees to an end, but that has not happened. I would suggest that the practical way in which this proposed rule will be operated in the house is that there will certainly be at least one month's time before a bill goes through all its stages.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I take it from the minister's remarks that he would be prepared to take out of this proposed rule the one day application in reference to the committee stage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, it is a worth-while suggestion and I would agree it follows naturally from my remarks, but perhaps at this point I could put forward the general principles which I think should apply to the writing of a time limit into a bill. I agree that four days on all stages of an
IMr. Macdonald (Rosedale).]
DEBATES	July 8, 1969
important bill may be far too short, but writing in four days may be far too long for many less important bills, and one of the facts of life in this house is that when you have this kind of minimum time limit then, whether it is necessary or not, the debate expands to fill the time limit. So I think it is a reasonable safeguard to have one sitting day although in fact, under the procedures followed in the house, committee stage on occasion has taken many more days than one sitting day.


Mr. Bell:: And hasn't it worked? I ask that as a serious question. Would the minister not admit that report stage and committee stage have worked this session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. I point out to the hon. member that it is the specific weakness in our procedures with regard to the report stage that makes it necessary that we have this provision now. The experience has been that under the arrangements we made for the rules at Christmas time we have put more reasonable time limits on second reading and third reading, but the experience has also been that where there is an uncontrolled stage the debate tends to shift over into it and grow there. Therefore we are trying to provide for that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the house last gave major consideration to this basic question of programming the time of the house and we were considering the proposed new rule 16a, the complaint was made that it would provide for an order with regard to more than one bill and more than one stage of a single bill. What the present proposed rule does is provide that on three different occasions the government will have to come into the house to seek an order of the house, after a two hour debate, on the manner in which time is to be allocated. In other words, there will have to be three separate applications for such an order, and to that extent the objections to 16a have been met. In addition, we have stipulated-and this was a matter of some considerable negotiation in the committee-a minimum of one day's debate at each of the three stages.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The second objection made to the previous proposal with regard to time allocation was that it would be possible to limit the debate on a bill at all stages even before the debate had started. Because of the one stage provision that, of course, is no longer possible and
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
in addition the debate will have to have started on the particular stage before the rule may be invoked.


An hon. Member:: For how long?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer a question? I put the same question to him that I put to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton this afternoon, in reply to which he said that the debate under the rules would last ten days as a minimum. Does the minister go along with that or was the hon. member somewhat exaggerating?


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I checked what I said in reply to the hon. member's question and Hansard will show I said there will be an elapsed time.


Mr. Peters:: Did you change the blues?


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has made a completely and unworthy parliamentary suggestion. I made no alteration. I tell the house now I was not speaking from a prepared text and my first formulation, as the hon. member has said, was different from the second.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You made a correction.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In answer to the question, I make no correction because I gave the correct answer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think I actually have the floor, Mr. Speaker, and should be allowed to continue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister answer the question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Actually it may have been before the hon. member came back in the house, but I indicated what I was talking about was the lapsing of a period of time. I did not say there would be a minimum of ten days debate. I indicated that with the period of time customarily taken at the committee stage it may be closer to a month than a minimum of ten days.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What do you say is the
minimum under the rule?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My experience in dealing with major legislation in the house-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just answer the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will answer it if the hon. member will be patient. The
Procedure and Organization anticipated experience is about a month's elapsed time.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I say nicely to the minister that I hope he would not mislead either the house or the communications media. I have asked a point-blank question. Surely the minister can tell us the minimum number of days that would be involved if the rule were implemented. I do not mean his experience. I mean under the rule as it is drafted.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say I do not think I should have to repeat the remarks I made when the hon. member was not in the chamber.


Thomas Miller Bell: He did not say anything.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In respect of bills which have been referred to the standing committee our experience has been that a period of two or three weeks has been involved and even the report from the committee stage has a minimum of a two day delay before it can be taken up again. It would be difficult to use the procedure in a shorter period than one month's elapsed time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, surely this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the house. The minister knows perfectly well that the time in which a matter may be before a committee can be limited to one day. We are not talking about anticipated time or past experience-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I want to point out to the hon. member that there is no point of order; this is debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that an hon. member who apparently can be very indignant about the rights of others to speak should interfere with my right to speak. I point out to the hon. member for the third time that the proceedings of the committees of this house in respect of a major bill can take two to three weeks and that the report cannot be dealt with again for a period of 48 hours.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like an
auctioneer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is right. What we are involved with here, after all, is a mathematical calculation involving the number of bills to be dealt with in the course
109S0
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization of a parliamentary year and the number of sitting days.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Would the President of the Privy Council permit me a question at this time?
I would like to ask him this: In view of his statement concerning the allocation of time at different stages of the bill, would he tell us if he would be prepared to amend section 75c so as to insert a certain guarantee for the house, in particular a certain period of time for the study of a bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out to the hon. member that I already indicated that if we put in a limit of greater amounts of time, then for smaller bills that may turn out to be too much and on larger bills it may turn out to be too little. What we want to arrive at is some kind of a median which will provide a basic minimum for any piece of legislation, recognizing, however, that in respect of important bills very much more time will be taken up.
In the last debate it was suggested that the change here is more severe than the procedure being used in the British parliament. The fact of the matter is that in the British parliament the procedure in respect of allocation of time for debate is far more drastic than that proposed here. In that procedure it is customary for the debate on second reading to take only one sitting day. This is generally respected by members and may be enforced by the Speaker if it appears that the time may be exceeded.
It is the general practice in the British parliament to have an order not unlike the one proposed under 16a except that it is confined to three stages of a single bill whereby the committee stage, report stage and third reading are all allocated under the same order. While the practice of the British house provides for a single day to debate whether or not an order has been made, the procedure provided here gives many more opportunities at different stages for the opposition to debate whether or not the order should go, and since the orders are confined to a single stage of a [Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
bill they are less encompassing than the British orders.
It has been said in the discussions which took place that you, Mr. Speaker, should be involved in the proceedings. Indeed, there was an article to this effect written by a former colleague of the members of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Douglas Fisher, in respect of the question as to why the Chair had not been involved in these proceedings. Without disclosing the committee discussions in that regard, I think it is fair to point out that there was, I believe, a general consensus that in what is essentially a partisan political matter that is the amount of time to be taken on a matter Mr. Speaker should not be caught in the middle of that particular debate. Reference can be made in that regard to the fact that the British in their allocation of time procedure equally have been very careful not to put Mr. Speaker in the position of having a conflict of interest in which he would have to choose between two contending sides on a political question.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What alternative did the British have to involving the Speaker in these delicate negotiations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They have an institution. It is interesting that the hon. member should mention it. I see the hon. member for Peace River is smiling. They have a very able gentleman known as "usual channels", a public servant who negotiates between the government and the official opposition. It is very interesting that "usual channels" in the United Kingdom does not consider the minor parties, for instance, in Canada the N.D.P., in that regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are getting pretty important.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They certainly think they are anyway. The question has been raised from time to time as to why Standing Order 33-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member for Lotbiniere rising in order to ask a question or to raise a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

July 8, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have only a limited time.


Gerald William Baldwin: We will give you extra time.


Thomas Miller Bell: We will give the President of the Privy Council extra time, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to direct a question to the minister?


André-Gilles Fortin: I wish to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: It seems to me that since standing order 75c has not yet been carried, it may still be dealt with in this house, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the minister whether his intention is to eventually become more Canadian than British. We have heard enough of-


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The question has been raised on many occasions, why has not closure been used? For example, it was raised a great deal in connection with the omnibus Criminal Code bill and people asked why closure was not used at that time in order to shut off the debate. This was particularly so in connection with the very lengthy debate that occurred at the report stage of that bill. The shortest answer to that question is that in effect Standing Order 33 is not effective in dealing with our new procedures. In particular, it is not effective in dealing with the report stage when you can have, as we did in the debate on the Criminal Code bill, many different questions, each one of which would have to be the subject of a closure motion.
I believe I am right in saying that 44 amendments were filed in the omnibus Criminal Code debate, and by the ruling of the Chair that number was reduced to around 30. Given the fact that under Standing Order 33 closure requires two sitting days to run its full course, this would have meant that 60 days or a longer period would have been necessary to close off that stage alone. In other words, I think it is important that we have this new procedure.
Procedure and Organization
When we adopted the new procedure last December we failed to provide for the eventuality, which subsequently was proven to be an actuality, that the debate would be prolonged at the report stage far beyond a reasonable discussion of the issues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the President of the Privy Council permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will
he deal with the point I tried to make, that that situation could have been dealt with under 75b? I recognize the report stage problem, but I wonder whether 75a or 75b would not be sufficient to deal with the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, if the two minor parties, that is, the hon. gentleman and his colleagues and the party to his left, were not in agreement with the time allocation, we would be no farther ahead; we would have, in effect, a deadlock in the house brought about by the agreement of the two minor parties. Again may I point out that the difference with regard to Standing Order 33 is this: under proposed standing order 75c there is an obligation on the part of the minister to consult with the parties in accordance with the consultation process. This is prerequisite to his attempting the programming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member may laugh, but the fact of the matter is that under 75c the procedure cannot be used unless there has been advance consultation. The final objection-this is really the basic objection-of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that with regard to a small minority in this house, or even with respect to the minority in the house represented by the united opposition parties, the majority should not be able to compel a decision as to the amount of time to be taken on a bill. I would point out that there is also, in effect, minority closure; that is to say, there is the position that the house is put in when so much time is taken on one or two measures, such as was taken in this session by the Ral-liement Creditiste on the Criminal Code bill, that as a result a dozen measures are left on the order paper and could not be dealt with.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this confirms what I was saying a moment ago. I should like the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to withdraw his remarks and to say clearly that if we took a greater part than usual in the debate on the omnibus bill, it is because it was a controversial bill. It is exactly the principle we are advocating at this time-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, this is not a point of order, the hon. member is starting a debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out that what happens,, in effect, when an excess of time is taken on one or two bills is, as has happened so often in this parliament recently and as is the case with the present order paper, that major matters of importance on the current order paper, for example, with regard to educational television, financial institutions and expropriation, cannot be dealt with in the time available. As I have already indicated, there are only so many sitting days in the year and the time has to be divided carefully among the number of sitting days so that we can assure that each measure will be dealt with.
Perhaps the best statement with regard to minority closure, that is, where a small number of members of the house take up so much time that all the measures on the order paper cannot be dealt with, was made in the debate of May 20, 1965, on the resolution regarding House of Commons procedures. The particular passage to which I refer will be found at page 1531 of Hansard, when the speaker said:
Let us on the opposition side of the house realize that arrangements for the limitation of debate-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who said this?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -arrangements for the allocation of time, are not to be shouted down by calling them closure. Methods whereby debate is limited, whereby debate comes to an end at a certain time, are not nearly as serious a form of closure as is the situation we are faced with when, by endless talk on one or two subjects, the opportunity to get at other subjects is completely foreclosed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the interests of those of us on the opposition side of the house that there be planning of our time so that we can get at all of the items that are before parliament-all of the matters of business that demand our attention.


That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in 1965. I agree with him that minority closure involved in not allowing sufficient time to deal with major measures before the house is something which has to be dealt with in this parliament. The present set of rules suggested by this side of the house is, in our opinion, the best means of assuring this in any particular case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I might be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker, because my time is limited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
will give the President of the Privy Council all kinds of time. In addition to his agreeing with what I said, will he also agree with my contention that this should be arrived at by consent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member, of course, says that this should be arrived at by consent. To say that agreement has to be arrived at by the consent of all four parties is to say that one of those parties is to have a veto. That is what the hon. member seeks; he seeks to have a veto over the conduct of the house. I do not blame him. I do not suggest it is immoral or that there is anything improper about it. It is an attempt to gain political power, and he is entitled to do that. Equally, we on our side are entitled to reject his attempt to get that power and control over parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is no doubt about it; Perrault is the toughest pounder in the west.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to the fact that in many instances since the beginning of this debate, the President of the Privy Council-perhaps he is not
10S83
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
to blame and the fault lies with the interpreters, I do not know has spoken of the "minor parties" when referring to the Ralliement creditiste and the New Democratic party.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that speaking in this manner of those two parties in the house is disparaging and a violation of our privileges.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. members has just made his opinion known and the question of privilege does not arise.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I had not completed my explanation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
hon. member rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


André-Gilles Fortin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to point out that I had not concluded my remarks.
When someone says that we belong to "minor parties", that implies, in a disparaging sense, that we do not represent the whole population across the country. The same remark would apply to the New Democratic party. I believe that we should be referred to as "minority parties".


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

Procedure and Organization Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): You
are not showing your elegance.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not indeed. It would be interesting to remark on the comments made in anticipation of the debate by a newspaper which is not unfriendly to the hon. gentleman opposite. Indeed, it was referred to favourably by both the hon. members for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) yesterday, although not on this subject.
I am referring to the Toronto Telegram of Friday July 4, 1969, and its lead article entitled "The Battle Of The Rules". It commences in this way:
Conservative and New Democratic M.P.s aren t likely to elicit much public sympathy if they continue to delay approval of new parliamentary rules that will empower the government to limit House of Commons debates-[DOT]
Despite the criticism of rule 75c, it seems to be reasonable. For, in effect, it has two main objectives that remove it from the category of closure. It would preserve the power of the opposition long enough to arouse public opinion. At the same time, it would enable the government to bring an issue to a decision within a reasonable period.
To suggest, as some Opposition M.P.s have, that the passage of rule 75c would degrade parliament and make it a rubberstamp of the executive, is stretching matters.
I suggest that, given the usual inflation in debate which occurs, this is a pretty fair statement of the situation by a newspaper which, as I said, has not been known to be uncritical of this government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the Ottawa Citizen say?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the categorization of his party as a small party was not imposed on his party by me but rather was imposed upon them by the electors of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
represent a minority of the electors.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is a very interesting argument because if the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are really in favour of a system of proportionate representation they should be advocating that when they stand at the polls. Of course they have not advocated any such thing. I am sure that nobody is denying, for example, the former hon. member for Selkirk the right to form the government of Manitoba because he happens to represent such a minor fraction of the total vote cast in that province. So this applies both ways.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have it, so you should know.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have it and I will read it to you in a minute.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am glad that we will be entertained by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
While it is the essence of our parliamentary system that the opposition must have an opportunity to criticize government measures, it is also essential that after debate the house should be permitted to come to a decision. Unhappily, the Canadian House of Commons has acquired the habit in recent years of opposition by delay, and experience in recent years indicates that with this habit the increasingly heavy legislative work load which our house must face is met not by analysis and criticism but merely by delay.

Procedure and Organization Let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) look at the order paper and be convinced in this regard. It is fair to point out that until now-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed this out himself-time limits have already been provided for in other aspects of house business, such as in the throne speech and budget debates and in the supply procedure for scrutinizing government spending. What is needed is some flexible procedure for dividing the time needed for public bills in a way that will ensure that each one is debated and brought to decision in that particular session.
As time goes on-and this is already evident in the order papers of recent years-the carrying on of the public business requires an increasingly large number of bills. For example, on the program for October there will be 83 measures which, of course, may be added to or subtracted from as time goes on. The fact that these 83 measures must be divided into approximately 155 to 160 sitting days that we have in our parliamentary calendar, and allowing for approximately 45 to 50 days of generalized debate such as the throne speech and budget debates as well as opposition days, means that a very strict timetable will have to be worked out for planning the business of the house.


Mr. Aiken:: Would the minister permit a question? On the basis of the mathematics he has just given, if it is going to take a month for any bill to be passed by the house, how many bills are we going to get through in a session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps this gives the best demonstration. As the hon. member may not be aware, under our rules this would not mean a month of actual sitting time of the house. In view of the two or three weeks in committee stage, of course it will not be necessary for a bill to be under full consideration in the house itself for a month.
It is a fact that we do have the committee stage in our legislation which now provides the elasticity that was not available previously when bills had to pass through committee of the whole stage in the house.
In conclusion I wish to say that efforts were made in the committee to arrive at some solution which we felt would be fair to both sides, that would be fair to the government in attempting to put its programs through parliament and would be fair to the opposition in giving them the opportunity to criticize legislation. What have been arrived at are medium time targets to be set which, in the case 
DEBATES	juiy iggg
of important bills, are minimal. I think it is fair to point out that, as hon. members feel perhaps rightly, they should take every step possible to prevent these particular measures from being adopted by the house. That is their view in this debate and presumably they will also have the same conviction about measures which are not just related to procedures of the house, that is to say, major legislation such as with regard to taxation, Indian policy or other important questions.
But I should like to make clear to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) that I do not think his party should be criticized for having felt on a matter of principle that they had to take a long time in debating the omnibus Criminal Code bill. What the house has to do is to make a provision that while hon. members may feel they have to take that time they can at least be relieved of that obligation by some kind of fair allocation of time order which will enable other measures to be dealt with.
I really do not expect hon. members to support this. On the other hand, I am sure they do not expect me to favour a system whereby a minority in this house controls the business of the house. However, I trust we will have a meaningful debate in this regard, and I hope that perhaps even at this late date we may reach a general agreement in the house as to some effective means of programming the business, bearing in mind that section 49 of the B.N.A. Act says that ultimately the decisions of the house are to be made by a majority of voices.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough
(Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office Department___
zoning of postal addresses in large centres; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr! Nystrom)-Agriculture-possibility of aid to western farmers following meeting between premier and Prime Minister; the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt)-National Reve-nuc-Ingersoll, Ont.-steps to restore customs services.
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: The Speaker, it is the arrogance of the government that sticks in my crop. In July the place to play the numbers game is at country fairs and not in the House of Commons. The minister who has just spoken knows perfectly well that the committee on which we served held meetings all through the spring, and it was not until he served his ultimatum in May that we realized that he and the government were determined to bring on a form of closure which had proved to be such an impossible plan last December.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I ask the
hon. member a question? Is it not a fact that by general consent of the committee the question of the allocation of time was left over to be dealt with in the latter part of the session while other matters, such as the committee system, were dealt with? At all times hon. members knew that this was something which we felt the house would have to deal with in this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
thought you would be reasonable.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is the point. We made a mistake, and that is the problem with this motion. Because some people in this parliament are reasonable we had expected that we would not be faced with such an arrogant proposal. We went on to discuss other issues upon which agreement could readily be reached.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If we are in the game of reading editorials I suppose it is only fair to give measure for measure. I shall not go through a long preamble as to which party the Ottawa Citizen usually supports but, by coincidence, on the same day the Toronto Telegram was giving the minister the benefit of its editorial excellence there appeared an editorial in the Citizen entitled "Rights Imperilled". Not a bad day, July 4, considering the significance of that date in the history of this continent.
Criticizing the closure rule as being too drastic, the article reads:
It is no accident that the government decided to wait until the dying hours of the present session to introduce its new closure rule-and that is what rule 75-C is.
The apparent fatigue of all members might help the government slip it through. But the weapon will backfire if the opposition remains determined to fight.
No parliamentarians can become as intractable, as unwilling to compromise, as those who are tired, who want to go home, but can't because they feel put upon and must stay to do battle. Much of the good work accomplished in gaining opposition cooperation to speed the work of parliament may be undone if the government keeps to its course.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised this important question in his contribution to the debate. The article continues:
When a majority of the house leaders cannot agree on a time limit for debate on a bill, rule 75-C would permit the government to impose a limit of one day at each stage. The result could be a mockery of parliament's rights.
It is impossible for the President of the Privy Council to admit what the ultimate result of this change would be, because he finds it inconvenient to share this information. He talks about meaningful debate. Certainly we could have a meaningful debate if the facts were given frankly. I return to the editorial.
The opposition should be given reasonable time- perhaps two or three weeks-to rally public opinion against legislation it considers iniquitous. If, after that, the public is still unmoved by opposition arguments, further debate becomes wilful obstruction. Closure can then be imposed without the taint of dictatorship.
That is a frank editorial and I read it in totality, which all too often is not the practice here. The minister speaks of the difficulty he would face in connection with the closure rule, rule 33. Surely it is within the capacity of the ministry and its programming department to put before parliament a reasonable amendment to that rule.
No matter what numbers game the minister plays the rules are not the property of the government of Canada. They are the property of individual members of this house. I presume we shall hear this from speaker after speaker. They are the property not only of members who belong to large parties but of those who belong to the smaller parties, even to those who may be independents. It is the rules of parliament that we are debating, and it is because these rules were not altogether acceptable to the members who make up this parliament that we are engaged in the present exercise of altering them.
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in the course of what I thought was a masterly speech, ended with a quotation from Louis St. Laurent. Since it is almost six o'clock I hope the minister will eat his dinner recalling a quotation from a speech by one of his colleagues, a minister who has been under fire lately. This comes from yesterday's Toronto Star; it is an editorial commenting on a speech made recently by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). The editorial speaks of the debt of gratitude the people owe him, and goes on to say:
Their real debt of gratitude will be for the thinking he is doing to try to determine what is needed to restore a human dimension to the world; to restore to man his status of man; to give him mastery over himself once more; in short to protect man from the very efficiency the communications minister is expected to provide.
In his second speech in recent weeks on the need for creating a new humanism, Mr. Kierans put the problem rather well when he said: "Mechanization, speed, technology, communications and computers; these are the key words which predominate today. These are the words which are driving men forward. But the one factor which is often forgotten in all this, I am afraid, is man himself-[DOT]
Recent generations have failed to create a new humanism, he said, because in a hectic century they have failed to take time out to ponder their own position in the scheme of things. As a consequence, man has become a stranger to himself, to his own personality.
One way to overcome this, in Mr. Kierans' view, is for government to provide not only efficiency and leadership, but also sensitivity.
It is the absence of sensitivity on the part of the President of the Privy Council and his colleagues which has got us into the dilemma we face today. The editorial goes on:
That won't be easy, because "government naturally is a self-perpetuating institution which justifies its existence on grounds that are often quite unclear."
I do not know what went on in the cabinet when the Minister of Communications was taking part in the discussion which led the government to change its course and permit the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) to introduce his motion. But I have the notion that the hon. gentleman did not think of the word "sensitivity". Nevertheless, because we are sensitive people, I suggest this is a good point at which to observe that it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.

At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Mr. Fairweather.I


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, when I demonstrated my sensitivity at six o'clock by not asking for an extension of time I was reminding Your Honour and others of the warning given by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) about the danger of a government that lacks the essential element of sensitivity.
I should like to move on to a thesis that should be obvious to all. I refer to the property of the rules of parliament. Generally speaking, if the rules of this parliament have broad acceptance in this chamber they are bound to work efficiently. If, on the other hand, they are rammed down our throats by an insensitive government, they are likely to frustrate the very purpose the government has in mind in introducing them. Other hon. members have said that the rules are not the property of parties; that in fact parties, in our parliamentary system, have no place in parliament.
I should like to make one or two suggestions that I think might result in a much better examination of government bills. My first suggestion, to which I think the government is agreeable, is in connection with the laxity displayed by governments up to this time in getting their bills to the first reading stage. I hope that early publication of the new stream of legislation we are about to be faced with will be the rule, and that the exception will be the introduction of a bill in the latter stages of a session. This would bring about much better public understanding of the issues involved.
If I recall, it was a committee of this parliament that prepared the public for such fundamental changes as were embodied in the Divorce Act, and this made it possible for parliament to consider those changes quickly and effectively without requiring allocation of time or any unilateral decision by the ministry.
We have also had two examples of this laxity during this session. Although the piece of legislation that the house completed yesterday, the official languages bill, was clearly acceptable in principle to the majority of the citizens of this country, owing to the lack of explanation of the provisions contained in the bill I think there is real danger of its being misunderstood. The second example was the Criminal Code amendments which went to the basic consciences of a good many people.
July 8, 1969

Again, had the issues involved in that legislation received wider public discussion, perhaps there would not have been quite as much resistance to those reforms as was the case.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) used the British experience and the British rules as an analogy. There are a couple of procedures used by the United Kingdom parliament that I think should be copied here. The first is the use of what is known as the "honest broker"-"the usual channels". The President of the Privy Council made reference to this officer and stated that in the United Kingdom parliament he did not pay attention to other parties in the house. We make our own jurisprudence in this house and no one suggests, that in the Canadian context, the senior public servant who acts as "honest broker" between the parties in parliament should not have due regard for the wishes of all parties represented in this parliament.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The second procedure, one which I think is fundamentally different from ours, is the use of the panel of committee chairmen. There is much less partisanship in the British parliamentary committee system than has unfortunately been evident in several cases in this parliament. The Order Paper for today displays evidence of an extraordinary manoeuvre that was used by the government in order to try to circumvent the wishes of the transport committee. An attempt was made by the minister, the last speaker, to frustrate the debate upon which we are now engaged. It is clear why hon. members are taking some time. We have an obligation to the country to spend some time examining this nefarious proposal embodied in proposed rule 75c. In the United Kingdom they have a panel made up of committee chairmen who are representatives of all parties in that house. Those chairmen are potential speakers. In many cases when an important government measure is being processed in parliament, the committee chairman may come from a party in opposition-a civilized way of doing things that we might emulate in this country. I have been informed that often when the United Kingdom government has a particularly ticklish bill that it wishes to put through the house, it is glad indeed to employ a committee chairman from some opposition party. The neutrality of the United Kingdom government in these instances is very obvious.
Procedure and Organization The minister spoke sadly but unconvincingly about the number of items to be processed on the order paper. If he will examine the order paper closely, and I might add that I did not spend my entire supper hour reviewing the order paper, I think he will find that from pages 8 to 17 inclusive are listed more than 100 proposals that this house has approved. There are 18 items on the order paper, but many of them are routine and are not ones about which we need be overly concerned. The minister spoke about the Expropriation Act amendments. He ought to know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is not disposed to move those amendments forward at this time. The matter has been referred quite properly to the lawyers of this country for comment, and undoubtedly this fall the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will consider the implications of the new bill. Even if this house were to give its unanimous consent, the Minister of Justice could not move this bill forward at this time; and the President of the Privy Council knows that to be so. There are one or two items to do with the Senate that the government does not wish to put before parliament at the moment; neither does it wish to proceed with item 29, the bill to amend the Supreme Court Act. Educational television has been under consideraton for some time and no one in this house wishes in the least to hold, up this measure. The minister knows that policy in this important area is in process of evolution and that the government is not ready to proceed with the bill until certain policy considerations have been thrashed out. I think the minister is being unjust to the most co-operative parliament, of which I have had the privilege of being a member when he says that we have hamstrung the government. If anything, we have been far too easy with the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: Especially when one considers how the government acts.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: If we ignore the one
example alluded to earlier in the debate, government spokesmen have advanced a specious argument in support of reasons for introducing a ruthless new rule such as the one proposed by the President of the Privy Council and the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I have had the privilege since coming to parliament of serving on several committees on procedure; and always, and I say this with
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization the greatest respect to those government supporters who serve on the present Committee on Procedure and Organization, we have tried to get the widest agreement from hon. members who espouse the various political doctrines prevalent in this country. We have tried to accommodate all shades of opinion existing within our political spectrum. If this government had followed such a precept in this instance it would not be in the trouble in which it now finds itself.
I wish to refer to one or two other points that have come to my mind. It might not be amiss, when speaking of our obligations, to read remarks attributed to Edmund Burke in 1774. He said many important things on that occasion, and particularly apt is the following statement:
-government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination preceded the discussion;-
It is because the government intends to predetermine parliament's program in advance of that program being deliberated in this assembly that Burke's words uttered almost 200 years ago apply clearly to this debate. Is I see the issue, it is that we are a deliberative assembly and the government should not be surprised that members of parliament need time to examine matters coming before parliament and to muster the public opinion of Canada. Any legislation not supported by widespread and well informed public opinion is apt to become bad law from the standpoint of the public's acceptance of that law. That law may entail good draftmanship; that is, the law may be well drafted and the statute may be very neat and tidy. The law, nevertheless, will be bad.
Over the years many people have wondered what are the obligations of hon. members under the parliamentary system. I suppose one could say that we play a part as representatives. In a minor sense we are indeed representatives; but that is not our primary obligation. Our second obligation is to take up what one might term an educative role. We are here not only as representatives of our people in parliament; we are here also, for good or ill, as educators. If the departments of government wish members of the house to fulfil their obligations to their constituents in full, they will have to give members the opportunity to exercise the educative part of their duties. Only in the narrowest sense are we representatives. In a much broader sense we are agents of all the country, and we [Mr. Fairweather.l
therefore are under the obligation when considering government measures to exercise whatever native judgment we have. I am very serious about this. These three rules are inherent in membership in parliament. This is why I deplore this illiberal and arrogant challenge to a 700 year old institution which many, many times has done things for the betterment of the citizens of the country. Far more times has it been a positive aspect of our lives than it has been a negative aspect.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The people from the party I have the honour to serve who were on that Procedure and Organization Committee felt we had an obligation, an obligation we were glad to try to exercise, to assist parliament to reform its procedures. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) have said, we have taken giant steps toward bringing up to date our system of government and our rules and procedures.
The minister should be more frank. The order paper has dozens of items to the credit of the government to some extent, but also to the credit of the total institution of which we are a part. Whether the minister likes to continue his game of numbers, the 12's, 15's, 22's and 72's, we too have been sent here to exercise a constitutional role. This role is recognized by the jurisprudence, the conventions and the rules that have been adopted. This is not a threat, but I hope that this debate that is trying to turn an illiberal aspect of the government's policy toward a more sensitive and co-operative understanding of the fundamental issue which is involved here will challenge this illiberality until the government comes to its senses.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I think we now have under debate the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), the Chairman of the Procedure and Organization Committee because of the government house leader's attempt this afternoon to make a virtue out of necessity. I feel that the clear presentation that was made here last night to Your Honour to the effect that the government was asking the house to reverse a decision which it had already taken may have influenced the decision the house leader has taken. At least he may have felt inclined to believe, as I did, that the argument was clear and lucid enough to make an impression on the mind of
July 8, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Procedure and Organization
Your Honour. Therefore, I feel the opportunity to debate this committee report was not brought about by any real change of heart on the part of the government house leader.
It is a real tragedy, Mr. Speaker, that the first serious attempt of the Canadian parliament to arrive at a procedure for the allocation of time for debate of government legislation should be marred by the poisonous atmosphere that is being created in this chamber. This atmosphere is being generated by the way in which the government has sought to impose upon this house the proposed rule 75c.
This proposal, and this particular rule which gives the government house leader the unilateral right to seek an allocation of time, should be considered in light of the fact that the house, by general agreement, has already arrived at some very drastic limitations of time as distinct from allocation of time for debate. This has been done by mutual consent of members from all parties in this house working through our various procedural committees. I could give examples, and a number have already been mentioned in the course of this debate.
Very drastic changes have been made in the whole manner of dealing with supply, and also in the procedure for dealing with bills in standing committees. To anyone who has been in this house for any length of time, Mr. Speaker, these time restrictions cannot help but appear to be very drastic. Only a few years ago these time restrictions would have been opposed most vigorously by many members in different parts of the house.
This proposal for time allocation under rule 75c should also be considered in light of the fact that these various restrictions on time began in a minor way quite a few years ago with the fixing of time limits for speeches in certain debates, such as the address and budget debates. In addition, there was a limitation on the actual number of days to be allotted to these debates. All of these things which have been agreed to at various times by members of the opposition have restricted in a very drastic way the rights of private members to challenge the government which, after all, is the Crown in our midst.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the original function of parliament, as an institution, was to protect the people from the tyranny of the Crown. Many changes are necessary in these fast changing times. We required to consider and alter the techniques
under which parliament must operate. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we should never lose sight of the fact that the basic function of this institution is still to protect the people against tyranny.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that through careful consideration, and through arriving at a consensus on previous occasions concerning the manner in which our rules should be changed, we have kept pace with our times. We have arrived at techniques which make parliament a more effective institution. We have done the things which were necessary to restore the image of parliament in the minds of the Canadian people. We have done these things in a manner which, while it has placed some restrictions on private members, nevertheless has not altered our fundamental freedom to oppose tyranny as and when it may appear in our midst. I believe this should be the approach that hon. members should take when dealing with proposed changes to our rules.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The placing of the allocation of time into the category into which the government house leader has tried to put it is a result of a disregard for, and misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of parliament. I readily agree that it is not the fault of the government house leader that he was thrust into a position of power and responsibility in this house after serving only a relatively short period of time as a member of this institution. However, having been put in that position, he might have applied himself a little more to reaching an understanding of what parliament is all about, at least more than he has revealed so far in this debate and in some of the discussions antecedent to it.
In his speech this afternoon, the government house leader revealed the government's lack of understanding of what parliament is all about, and having allowed himself to accept responsibility for pushing this proposal forward he cannot absolve himself from blame for the situation in which we find ourselves. I submit that his argument this afternoon was specious on at least three counts, and I wish to deal briefly with each of them.
He made a lot about the number of items of government legislation that must be dealt with, and mentioned the fact that in a certain debate which took place not long ago one group in this house took up a fair amount of time discussing something about which they felt very strongly. The implication of his argument in this respect, seeking unilateral
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization authority to allocate time, completely ignored an equal responsibility resting on members of the Liberal party with respect to a legislative timetable. When I mention the Liberal party members may I say in parenthesis that they may have been liberal at some time or another in their history.
The minister ignored the very development of the party system which gave to the Crown, as it moved into the centre of parliament through the instrument of cabinet, a greater potential for tyranny than it ever exercised when it remained outside parliament. At that time your predecessors in office, Mr. Speaker, had to be bold and courageous men to present the messages of parliament to the king.
The minister also ignored the political history of recent years. He ignored the fact that the political manoeuverings of his party were certainly as much responsible for any backlog of public legislation as any action taken on this side of the house. Here, I am referring to the period that goes back to 1963. I have said it before, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again, that I do not recall ever being more angry in my life than when I was sitting at home and heard the Prime Minister's predecessor in office announce that he was calling the 1965 general election. We had just left Ottawa for a recess with full arrangements made for a timetable of programmed legislation in the fall.
If I may mention one thing in which I happened to be involved, arrangements had been made for a program of visits by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs to various Indian reservations across the country, so that members of the committee would come to know the needs and ideas of the Indian people. Had that tour taken place, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) might not be in quite so much hot water as he is with the Indian people. In the light of the performance of his own political friends, I submit that the government house leader should take a second look at his request for this authority on the basis of what he suggests was obstruction on the part of the opposition.
The minister also made much of the argument that the will of the majority must prevail in this house. I listened to him carefully on this point. Nobody would quarrel with the statement that the will of the majority prevails in making decisions in a democratic assembly. However, he failed to recognize the distinction between coming to a majority decision on a government proposal and the

fact that the basic rules of parliament should not be altered by a majority vote without regard to the wishes of members of a particular group who, at a particular moment in the history of this institution, happen to be in a minority position.
He also failed to draw a distinction between arriving at decisions on time allocation and arriving at decisions on how and under what circumstances we should change the rules of the house. I would agree that in considering the allocation of time there is a point at which the decision of the majority of the house must prevail. But the minister's argument on this score was specious because he ignored another fact. It is that the rules of the house already provide for a means of terminating debate according to the wishes of the majority of the members of the house.
While that rule in its present form may not be perfect, nevertheless it was put into our standing orders after a great deal of wrestling and rather violent debate many years ago. Its existence in the Standing Orders has not been seriously challenged during the last several parliaments. In fact, I have heard no suggestion from any quarter of the house that the present closure rule be taken out of our rule book.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If the closure rule is not quite appropriate to deal with certain situations brought about by recent rule changes, then this is a matter which the house could very well ask the Procedures Committee to consider. I have not been one of the members of this house who has seriously attempted to become knowledgeable on some of the finer points of the rules of this house. I have had, however, a considerable exposure to argumentation on the subject over a period of years, and there have been a good many arguments about the rules in recent parliaments. Certainly, during my experience as a member of this house in six of the last seven parliaments, this is the second time a naked attempt has. been made by the government to use its will to bend parliament as an institution. I do not like it now any more than I did when I witnessed it in this house in 1956. I have in my hand volumes 4 and 5 of Hansard lor the sessions of 1956. I took them home a week ago last Sunday and read a certain debate, commonly referred to as the pipeline debate, more or less from cover to cover. I should like to commend these volumes of Hansard to members of this house, particularly those members who sit as supporters of the government. I
July 8, 1969

commend these volumes as required and interesting reading for the next few days or few weeks during which we may have this matter under consideration in this house.
If the government supporters want to understand what their government is attempting to do on this occasion I do not know of any better way they can find it out than by reading these debates. In the parliament of 1956, there were a great many members with a great many years of experience as parliamentarians. Those men, as a result of their own experience and a reading of the debates which have taken place in the past, have had distilled in them a great deal of the essence of what parliament is all about. That is why I feel, as a member of this house, that really in order to come to grips with what is being attempted here perhaps there should be some reference to some of the things which were said during that previous debate about the meaning of this institution. If I may I should like to trespass on the time of the house just to quote one or two excerpts from the debate. I shall quote from page 4512 of Hansard for May 31, 1956. I shall quote the right hon. member for Prince Albert, (Mr. Diefenbaker) but this was before he acquired that particular title. He also quotes another distinguished parliamentarian.
Mr. Diefenbaker was speaking after the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, had moved a motion that the consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a brief reference to this situation this afternoon when he mentioned that a few words had been read from the notes about clauses 1, 2 and 3 and that they were then considered to have been debated. There was some debate on clause 4 and clauses 5, 6 and 7 were never even called. The argument here is how you can have further consideration of something which has not been considered. Mr. Diefenbaker said:
I am going to quote one who has a distinguished son as a member of this cabinet. In 1932 the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the leader from the province of Quebec whose successor is the Prime Minister, had this to say as reported on page 1497 of Hansard for that year:
"It means that parliament is being asked to abrogate its position as the predominant factor in legislation. It means that we are being asked to agree to be dragged at the wheels of the Prime Minister and to make parliament an appendage of the executive."
Procedure and Organization


Mr. Harris:: He was not talking about closure.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I will read it all.
"This attitude of the Prime Minister makes our duty to resist this legislation more imperative."
I am glad the minister suggested that because it is more applicable having regard to the Prime Minister's conduct in the last day or two.
"The first duty of parliament is to remain a parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental body. Parliament has a right which is certainly paramount to the convenience of the Prime Minister, the right to live."
May I interpolate, it is also superior to the frustration of a prime minister.
"It has the duty to defend itself and not to allow anybody to invade its rights and privileges. It is the will of parliament, not that of the government that is the will of the nation. When the Prime Minister says that he speaks for the whole of the country, he is mistaking the echo of his words for the voice of the Canadian people. It is parliament which is and must remain the authorized exponent of public opinion and of the public will."
And then later on:
"The sovereignty of the people is delegated to parliament, not to the executive, and when I say "parliament", it means the minority as well as the majority in parliament."
Later on, he quotes the following remarks made by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe: "What he would conceive as a parliament is that we should stand at attention and salute when the Prime Minister wants us to do so, a parliament that would be ready to goose-step at the behest of the Prime Minister. Sir, the methods of the czar have produced bolshevism, and we do not wish to introduce that in Canada. It is an evil work. I claim, on the part of those who are in this way undermining the authority of parliament-"
I submit that is precisely what the government house leader of this parliament is attempting to do by putting forward the proposal in this way. I suggest we already have in our rules a way to arrive at a majority decision so far as allocation of time is concerned or so far as termination of debate is concerned. I submit in this initial effort on the part of the Canadian parliament to put into its rules an arrangement for allocation of time of debate, the waters should not be muddied by bringing into the picture the unilateral authority of the government to make the decision in its name concerning when and how a debate will be terminated, unless it is prepared to use the rules we already have and unless it feels it can establish before the people of Canada that there has been a clear case of obstruction. Then, and only then, and under the proper circumstances do I believe that kind of motion should be made in this house. Then, the people of Canada would be
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization in a clear position to come to a decision concerning on which side of the argument their interests lie.
To attempt to take this proposed method of establishing the will of the majority in respect of the allocation of time for the ordinary processing of business in the interests of the people of this country, I submit is to invite disaster for this institution and to make virtually impossible the free exchange of ideas between the representatives of the various political groupings in this house. If I have time, I should like to quote one other extract from the debates to which I have referred. It has to do with the use of what is commonly referred to as closure.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The speech was made by a member who was at that time in the political group with which I sat in the house. He was considered, under the particular circumstances that prevailed and the atmosphere of the house at the time, to be rather heretical in making the speech. I refer to the former hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mr. Maclnnis, who if I recall correctly came to this chamber against the advice of his doctor to make his speech. At the beginning of his remarks the hon. member said:
This is the first word that I have uttered in this debate-[DOT]
He went on to say:
-and I would not have risen now if it had not been for what has happened since this house opened today. At the opening of the house the Prime Minister made a statement that after we had disposed of the motion before us, then we could proceed with debating the bill.
Later in his remarks, which are reported at page 4377 of Hansard for May 28, 1956, in connection with closure he said:
What has happened, and this was the initial mistake that was made, was that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced the resolution preceding this bill he also made a motion that closure would be applied. Closure would be applied, why? Because the debate had been obstructed? No, closure was to be applied because the government had set a time limit to the debate and because it was anticipated that there would be obstruction. We do not carry on business in this house on the basis of anticipation.
It seems to me we have heard recent references to this basic principle of parliamentary procedure. The then hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway went on to say:
I have been here for over a quarter of a century and I have never yet seen a Speaker who would make a ruling on an anticipated situation.
[Mr. Barnett.J
However, rulings and decisions have been made and the decisions made today will be the precedents for tomorrow. I suggest to my hon. friends on the Liberal side of the house that they read the speech which their former leader, the late W. L. Mackenzie King, made when he was leader of the opposition in connection with a motion for closure moved in 1932.
The hon. member said later:
What has happened is that from now on any time the government introduces a resolution preceding a bill and there is some talk that the opposition is opposed to it-that is why the opposition is here: it is their duty to obstruct from time to time: that is their right. I have seen my friends over here put on a filibuster.
He was referring to the then Social Credit group from Alberta. The hon. member went into the whole question of the rights of the opposition in relation to debate in the light of what had been happening regarding the question of closure being moved on the basis of anticipation rather than on the basis of the fact. In another part of his remarks, the hon. member had this to say:
I think the initial issue in this debate is the question of closure. May I tell hon. members, government members, official opposition members, C.C.F. members and Social Credit members, that I favour closure. The government has a perfect right-not only a right but a duty-to invoke closure at the right time; that is, when it has been demonstrated that the business of the house cannot be carried on in any other way but by closure. I said I am in favour of closure. I am in favour of closure, old style. I am not in favour of closure, new style. I do not believe that the members of this house, I do not believe that the members of the government understand, indeed I cannot believe that the Prime Minister understands what has happened.
I think those remarks are applicable to the present situation. It seems to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government house leader cannot understand what they are seeking to do in the context of the motion, and the proposal in the amendment moved earlier today which we are now considering. If it had not been for certain developments in the sequence of events, the proposal might very well be before us now as a direct motion of the government house leader.
I hope that private members on both sides of the house will give some thought to these issues. There are not very many members in the house who have personal knowledge of the previous attempt of the government to use its power nakedly to alter the basic facts of this institution. As I look across the way, the only hon. member I can see on that side of the house who was present at that time is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). I suggest that he should do
July 8, 1989	COMMONS
a great deal of whispering in the ears of his colleagues in the government as this debate progresses, and he may be able to help them understand what they are seeking to do to this institution, which I think all of us in our hearts cherish as a very important part of the fabric of Canadian life.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is not new that the major and serious problem in this house is its incapacity or rather its inability to set up its program and foresee its business or its proceedings on a more realistic, more practical and more efficient basis, and also more in keeping with the increased volume and the complexity of present legislation, more in line with new needs and the present times.
When last December this house approved the vast majority of the recommendations of the committee on procedure and organization, we made a greater step forward than ever before to modernize our procedures, recognized by all as obsolete. Moreover, this question was raised many times, particularly during the last election campaign, and I think we might say that we received a formal mandate from the people, to go ahead with reforms in respect of our procedures.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
All are now aware, I believe, in spite of certain apprehensions expressed during the debate, that the prestige of parliament has grown, that bills are examined more adequately and that estimates receive a more serious and profound study. We must also point out that the opposition has better opportunities of changing the legislation when expressing its point of view, particularly through the amendments it can propose in committee as well as in the house.
Naturally, there are still improvements to be made, particularly as regards the operations of the committees. Certain committees are overloaded with work and need, for instance, experts, additional personnel, more appropriate and more numerous locals, etc. Besides, the committee on procedure and organization has studied this problem and has made certain recommendations.
But we still have to complete the work so well begun and bring ourselves to the same level as the modern legislatures of the democratic world, which have, most of them, if not all, adopted rules to limit the debates that drag on without reason.
Procedure and Organization
It is yet impossible to establish or to provide a legislative timetable during a session. The present one will be adjourned while there is still on the order paper or in abeyance, here, or in the other place, a whole series of important bills that could have been considered and passed.
It is impossible to allocate time for the passage of a bill at any stage, either in the house or in the committee. This session that was to adjourn on June 27 is still going on and the end is not in sight.
It seems obvious to me that our parliament must have, in order to meet this country's needs and to work efficiently, and in an orderly and constructive manner, a procedure that will enable it to impose a limit when no agreement has been reached and that we are faced with systematic obstruction on the part of a minority that endlessly repeats the same arguments solely for the purpose of delaying a decision, to upset the government's legislative program or, perhaps for political or party purposes.
Last December, no decision was reached, contrary to what has lately been stated in that regard. The only decision was to refer once again this important question to the same committee so that it could re-examine it in the light of the views expressed during the debate in December and taking into consideration the rules and practices applied at Westminster which is always considered as the model of all parliaments, especially of our own.
During the first debate and again now, those who wish to strengthen their hold on the proceedings in parliament and also their right to veto the opinion of the majority which, constitutionally and normally, must make the final decision, have suggested that we should rely on common sense and on the judgment of all hon. members or party representatives.
Mr. Speaker, experience has shown that this is neither practical or realistic, and I am sure that if all opposition members are reasonable-let us not forget that there are three opposition parties, and that a party cannot speak on behalf of another to guarantee an order given or deemed to be given with regard to expediting the business of the house-there will never be any danger that Standing Order 75c shall be applied because the government which would certainly not want to be accused of dictatorship and so forth will do its utmost to reach an understanding with the other parties and provide
July 8. 1969

Procedure and Organization more than reasonable delays indeed regarding the various stages of a bill. Everyone will benefit from it and that Standing Order will only be there as the Sword of Damocles, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said.
We had such an instance not so long ago, when a minority party comprising 14 members kept the house back for 20 days on a bill which had had also 14 extended hearings before the committee on justice and legal affairs. Without entering into the aims and reasons the members of the Ralliement credi-tiste had in mind when making use of their rights and privileges under the present Standing Orders, I should point out that they could have made that verbal marathon last still much longer.
However, when a deadlock occurs, when the right of speech and discussion becomes a closure in reverse, an exercise which is a deliberate violation of the majority's right to come to a decision, it is absolutely necessary in such cases-possible, though scarce-that our procedure contain a machinery for closure, and that, quite often, will greatly relieve even the opposition.
I am satisfied that is what the great majority of the Canadian people want: that we discuss, of course, but that we finally take a decision after a sufficient and reasonable time.
That is what is proposed, Mr. Speaker, in the recommendation of the committee that considered the matter at length and which took into account most of the objections raised last December, and which proposed a procedure considerably different from that known as rule 16a.
Last December, several members of the opposition agreed that the government should assume its responsibilities and its powers, and put an end to an endless debate, by closure or otherwise. The closure rule has seldom been applied here, in fact, 16 times only since 1913, and since the latest amendment of the Standing Orders, it is now very difficult to apply. The experience of 1956 proved to what extent that procedure can be complicated in its implementation. It is in fact proposed to apply it only when the difficulty arises, when the debate becomes violent and when the minds become excited. It is not, Mr. Speaker, a proper cure for the problems which could come up in the house.
I would refer you particularly to what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin)

said in December, as reported on page 3867 of Hansard, and I quote:

Surely some reasonable provision can be found. The case of an impasse between government and opposition occurs, and I think should be dealt with. It is true that in a case where all of the opposition parties obstinately refuse to agree to any reasonable time allocation on an individual item, the process of closure would be open to the government. But it may be, however, that in respect of individual items and after a reasonable time for the opDosition to state its objections in debate, and subject to some reasonable limitation, the majority supporting the government should be able to resolve the impasse. I am not pleading that there should be no rule dealing with situations where there is an impasse, but this is a far cry from the present proposed rule.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal of the hon. member for Greenwood was supported by many other members, and I refer to the debates which took place at that time.
This afternoon, I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say that in December he relied on the support of the press, and that he still had it. Yet, this afternoon, two editorials were read to us and I would like to quote to the house what the Montreal Daily Star particularly said on June 30 last. Here it is:

Opposition parties need not expect much public sympathy if they launch another filibuster to prevent the House of Commons from adopting the government's proposed new time-allocation rule. The experience of the past six months has provided sufficient proof of the need for machinery to ration the time spent on public business.

And it goes on to say:

Every day wasted by an opposition filibuster will provide more evidence of the need for rules to insure that parliament is a place not only to debate, but also to decide.

And on May 24 last, the Financial Post which is surely a very responsible newspaper stated in its editorial and I quote:

The government, whether this one or the next one, must have the power to carry out its prime responsibility which is to pass legislation. There is no justification in the name of democracy which allows a small group of MPs to frustrate that extremely important responsibility.
The opposition must now accept its true limitation and join with the government in approving some form of restraint on debate. The time for anything less has run out.
July 8, 1989	COMMONS

Mr. Speaker, in the Financial Times, on April 7 last as well as on July 7, 1969, the following could be read and I quote:

It is clear that what is still needed is an orderly flow of legislation through the system. The only way to ensure this is to set progressive deadlines for bills at each stage. These deadlines need not be inflexible, but they should be postponed only in special cases.

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I go on quoting.

There will be cries, of course, that this is antidemocratic. In fact, the ability of the opposition to influence policy is greater, because of the increased use of committees, than it was before. The rules will not really be reformed until there is time allocation. And until then, Parliament will not be prepared to meet the demands on it in this fast moving and difficult age.

And on July 7 last, Mr. Speaker, one could read this:

The genius of parliamentary government should be to ensure that all legislation is open to criticism by any minority, that it is examined as fully as it can be and that it always carries the assent of the majority. But it is also to ensure that the important business of the nation is attended to.
The rights of adequate debate are very thoroughly safeguarded-in some respects too thoroughly- in the procedural proposals now before parliament. What is still lacking, but is partially provided in Rule 75c, is some means of providing (as we put it on April 7 this year) "an orderly flow of legislation through the system".
The basic problem of the House of Commons is no different from the problem which faces all of us-how best to use a limited amount of time. The new use of Committees and the increased number of opposition days have already given the opposition more chance than it ever had to influence legislation. What it is now claiming is the right to stage a sit-in or a teach-in whenever it likes. And that is the negation of orderly government.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not go on quoting but I want to draw your attention to the fact that the new proposal of the committee differs from that which was made in December, which provided only for the establishment of a business committee made up of the representatives of the various parties. At that time, even prior to debate and whether there was unanimous consent or not, a minister of the crown was allowed to propose a motion providing for a time allocation for one or
Procedure and Organization several stages and for one or several bills at one time.
I do not intend to come back over details about standing orders 75a, 75b, and 75c which have been very clearly explained this afternoon, especially by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair). I would however, like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that standing order 75c will only be used in the last resort, when no agreement has been reached under orders 75a and 75b. My contention is that there will always be an agreement if the opposition is as sensible as it claims to be. It will not be possible to invoke it in advance but once the debate has begun, its use will be limited to one stage only and also to only one bill.
The use of this method will certainly take more time than the minimum period of 10 days and in contrast to what was said this afternoon, the opposition will have all the time and all the means to warn the public against any measure that it would deem harmful or dangerous.
I am convinced that most opposition members realize the necessity of this procedure but since we have not yet reached here the same degree of political maturity as in England, for instance, we will hear the same old stories to the effect that democracy is in danger, that parliament will disappear and so on, while we are not denying the right to discuss, the freedom of speech. We only want to put an end to the endless discussions and to the repetitions which rather discredit Parliament and which the Canadians of today do not accept any more.
It is obvious that the government, in its own interest will do all it can and will make all the reasonable concessions to proceed by agreement, before using rule 75c in the extreme cases which will probably be even scarcer because of this rule.
What must be avoided above all is that a small minority can prevent almost indefinitely a majority elected by the people to adopt the measures that are necessary for the welfare and the progress of that nation during the time which is still necessarily limited for the discussion of public business.
Mr. Speaker, among the democratic parliaments of free countries we are almost the only one that has not yet adopted any rule to restrict the length of debates. I would even say that democracy is not yet in, danger, nor has it disappeared in the countries which
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization have adopted it, like Australia, New Zealand, India or England, for example.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the United Kingdom which is rightly considered as the model or the mother of all parliaments, they have realized long ago that there are only 365 days in a year and that in the course of any debate there comes a time when a decision must be taken and when the rules must be applied.
And in the British parliament, the closure rule is not the same as ours and is even more drastic. It is often applied without raising a general outcry.
In this case, the government will be able to plan a legislative program and at least expect it to be considered and adopted if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by quoting from a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in December of last year:
We must not refuse to make the necessary adjustments and improvements in our institutions. For it is true that parliament and each of its component parts are, like living organisms, subject to the universal law of life: adapt or wither away. It is not sufficient for us merely to cherish this heritage as if it were a relic, of interest only to historians. We must reform it so that in our time it will serve us well. We must revitalize it so that our successors will receive from us, not an outdated, moribund survival from an earlier age, but a vital and responsive institution of democratic government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Speak up, we cannot hear you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not got started yet, but I know you fellows have patience. Let me refer first of all to the remark made by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) to the effect that he was a senior member of the university from which we both graduated. Well, we young fellows, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself, can appreciate that when we get to his age we see things through different eyes.
I believe the first question I should ask tonight is: what are we doing here? After all, the government said it would run parliament according to a timetable, and that we would adjourn on June 27. We are here, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) said, quoting from the Citizen, because the government thought it could put something over on the opposition 
parties by rushing these proposals through, anticipating that members of the opposition would want to go home for their holidays, like some on the opposite side whose empty seats we see here this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope those who are in their places tonight will realize that they have underestimated the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me say that we intend to stay here to oppose these proposals, and if we have to stay here all summer, we intend to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Our party intends to do so, and after listening to spokesmen of other opposition parties in the house I have the impression they intend to do the same. I might say here and now to all those who want to write articles about a fillibuster that if this place does not close until October 8, when it is supposed to open again, it will not cost the taxpayers one more dollar, since the cost of this institution is identical whether it is open or closed. We are really travelling on our own time for the sake of preserving for the people of Canada this living institution, namely, parliament.
In my introductory remarks I should like to say I was shocked that this proposed new rule, which is 16a in another form, should have been introduced into this particular parliament. I have sat in this institution since 1958. Many in this chamber have been here even longer than I have. But there is one thing on which I believe we can all agree: none of the parties ever had more responsible leadership, whether it be the Official Opposition or the N.D.P. or the Ralliement des Creditistes.
It would seem to me that having regard to this kind of leadership-and I refer, now, in particular, to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a reasonable man-this is the wrong time at which to come to parliament and try to ram down our throats a proposition of the kind now being advanced.
This country has called for responsible leadership for a long time. Whenever we got into prolonged debates in the past our actions have been called irresponsible. Now that we have responsible leadership throughout the whole house-and this is no criticism of any
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
leadership we have had in parliament on previous occasions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now that we have responsible leadership under a very reasonable man, a man who has always been ready to work for parliament, I would have expected a far different approach from the other side.
Let us consider for a few moments the record of my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition. When the government put forward the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code we asked that it be split into three parts. This was refused. But our leader went along with the party opposite and the N.D.P.-the Ralliement took a somewhat different view with regard to certain clauses of the bill-because we believe in reform and we thought there was a great deal in the bill which was commendable. We voted for the bill and we helped its passage through parliament. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) were here tonight he would confirm that both in this chamber and in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs we were co-operative at every stage. We were co-operative during the report stage, on second reading and on third reading. There was no fillibuster or hold up on our part.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Let me give one more example before I move to the rules themselves, the official languages bill. No one could have taken a more nationalistic or realistic approach in the interests of this nation than the leader of my party. In this regard he was supported by the leaders of the o.her opposition parties. We have co-operated with the government and tried to assist them to plan a timetable for getting legislation and other matters through this house. In spite of this, we are today faced with what I call a guillotine rule. What has brought about this new approach by the Liberal party?


Mr. Nowlan:: Not new, it is old.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, it has been given new leadership. I should like to quote from the 1967 debates. An examination of the index to the debates reveals that the former minister of justice, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada, was not a man who made many speeches. One can say that he was conspicuous by his absence in this institution. After all, he was a newcomer.
Procedure and Organization
On the occasion when the opposition parties defeated a former government on a tax measure, he was asked several questions, one of them put by the then hon. member for Calgary North. The former member for Calgary North at that time asked why the minister of justice called the defeat of the government a technicality, and why the government did not resign according to the constitution of the country. I feel sorry for the president of the privy council, but I feel far more sorry, Mr. Speaker, for this newcomer to parliament who represents the riding of Grenville-Carle-ton, because he has been used as a government yo-yo. First of all, he thought he could move his committee report. Then he was told he could not, and then that he could after all. He should really thank us, because if the opposition had not won the day yesterday he could not have made the speech he did today.


Duncan Gordon Blair: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is rising to a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Somebody must have pulled the
strings.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I mentioned my hon. friend had been to the same university as I. I should point out that he was not a graduate in history.


Some hon. Members:: Yo-yo.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with that point except to remind the members of the house that at university the hon. member led the Conservative party, but since then has become an opportunist and joined the Liberal party. I had the misfortune to sit under his leadership at university, and he was such an opportunist that that was the only time one could flush him out.
Let me go on and relate what the Prime Minister said. Replying to the then hon. member for Calgary North, the right hon. gentleman said: "We are masters in the house in the sense that we have to conduct the affairs of the government".


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Does the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) wish to rise on a question of privilege?
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): It is not very serious, Mr. Speaker, but the interpreter does not hear the hon. member who is speaking. I do not know why, but the simultaneous translation system is not working. If it were possible to re-establish communications, we would be very grateful.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was going to quote what the present Prime Minister said in one of the first speeches he made on February 27, 1968, reported at page 7042 of Hansard. In answer to the then hon. member for Calgary North he said:
We are masters of the house in the sense that we have to conduct the affairs of government.
When the right hon. gentleman took over the leadership of the Liberal party he said: "I am going to be master as soon as I get a majority in this country". It is he who is using members of parliament and the President of the Privy Council to pilot through this kind of measure.
Let me refer to another statement of the Prime Minister, one I have quoted on other occasions, made in February, 1963 before he was even a Liberal. Let us also remember that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was not always a Liberal. At that time the right hon. gentleman was attacking the Liberal party for their opportunism and expediency, and he said their philosophy was:
Say anything, think anything you like. But put us in power, because we are best fitted to govern.
As he said, the political philosophy of the Liberal party is simplicity itself. That is the attitude that is behind these proposed rules.


William Arnold Peters: And they believe that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, they do. I am not surprised, as a member of the opposition, that the right hon. gentleman stated "We are the masters of this house", because on a former occasion before he had joined the party he had criticized that same party's philosophy of: Say anything, think anything you like. But put us in power, because we are best fitted to govern.
When the Canadian people give the Liberal party a majority, the Liberals become drunk with power. This is the reason they are proposing these rules.
I turn now to some of the arguments that were made this afternoon. Proposed rule 75c states:
A minister of the crown who from his place in the house at a previous sitting has stated that an [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration-
Stopping there, if no agreement is reached under 75a, and 75b, which is pretty ambiguous, is not put into operation, the government can move in with their guillotine rule 75c.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The backbenchers in the Liberal party applaud. The adoption of this rule would mean that they would be even more silent in the next two or three years than they have been in the first year of parliament. This guillotine rule will operate just as effectively against them as against opposition members. They should be on our side, not on the side of this all-powerful cabinet.
The government is saying, in effect, that in the absence of agreement under 75a or 75b, the government will bring down the guillotine rule 75c. In other words, that remains as an ever present threat that hangs over the leaders of the major parties if they cannot reach agreement. The house leader of the Liberal party, this all-powerful baron in the House of Commons, is saying that unless agreement is reached under 75a or the formula of 75b is adopted, the government will bring into operation 75c. The government wants not only to use this rule but to abuse its implementation in the sense that it will use it to destroy any chance of real consultation. How can there be consultation, Mr. Speaker, when we are blackmailed into either agreeing or being guillotined? That would be the position if these rules were adopted.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said this afternoon that there is nothing really bad at all about 75c. He said that if no agreement is reached under 75a or 75b, debate can continue for ten days. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton no doubt is a senior member of parliament.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: He is still wet behind the ears.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I continue quoting proposed rule 75c. The nub of it is contained in the part I am about to read:
-in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee and has given notice at that sitting of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill-
Really this proposal sets a minimum as well as a maximum time. It says that you can spend one day on second reading, one day in committee-and just imagine what would have happened if we had spent one day only in committee on the Criminal Code amendments-one day on the report stage when amendments have to be moved, and one day on the third reading stage. According to my mathematics it seems that we are to be allowed four days to debate a bill. Of course, the hon. member says, "But we can have a little hanky-panky; before the introduction of each stage we can have a two hour debate." What a waste of time that will be. None of us is here to waste time. I think I speak for all intelligent members of parliament when I say that we are interested in debating the substance and principle of a bill. We are not interested in wasting time at the second reading stage, the committee stage, the report stage and the third reading stage by indulging in a two hour procedural wrangle. At every stage we are to have a two hour debate. Well, those of us in opposition are interested in getting to the substance of the bill. We want to get at the principle of a bill and let our people in this country know what the import and purport of the legislation is.
A few minutes ago the minister read briefly from the Toronto Telegram. I, too, wish to read from the Toronto Telegram of July 8, 1969. In my copy the author of this article, Mr. Lubor J. Zink, writes as follows:
With rule 75c in operation, they say, the Government would be in a position to arbitrarily limit the debate of any controversial Bill to three days and thereby make it impossible for the opposition to alert the public to potentially detrimental measures.
It is this danger and not the principle of allocation of time for debate the opposition is determined to fight resolutely. For unless the opposition parties manage to hold on to the weapon of prolonged debate when they see danger to the nation in some specific legislation or policy proposal, the Government will be in a position to enforce its will before the public grasps the issues involved.
What is parliament all about, Mr. Speaker? I know my friends of the Liberal party will not be influenced by what I and others in the opposition have to say. The only time the 29180-6952
Procedure and Organization government changes its position is when the opposition brings something to the attention of public opinion. Only when public opinion has been made fully aware of something does the government back off and amend legislation. That is what the opposition does and that, in part, is what parliament is about. I know that when hon. members opposite come out of caucus, they are brainwashed and trained seals; but they are nevertheless sensitive. Oh, yes, they are sensitive because they love power, as the Prime Minister so aptly said before he became a Liberal. They love power so much that they have been forced to respond to public opinion in western Canada. The Prime Minister is to make a trip out west to try to calm the fears of our farmers.


An hon. Member:: He does not know when he is going.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right. He does not know when he is to go; but the very fact that he is going indicates that he is sensitive to public opinion. He is also sensitive to the pin pricks of his backbenchers who say to him in caucus, "You've got to do something, Pierre; we are going to be defeated next time round."


Mr. Perrault:: That is arrant nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the mountain of British Columbia rumbling. I always call the hon. member Rip Van Winkle because he rumbles like a mountain. You can always tell when he comes into the house. The Prime Minister should know who he is, this hon. member who comes from the mountains. I continue quoting from Mr. Zink's article:
This danger is acute despite the marvels of instant communications. For while three days of debate may be sufficient for raising most of the arguments the opposition wishes to make in the Commons, they are woefully inadequate for making an impression on the public mind.
He continues:
There is no objection to limitation of debating time by agreement as stipulated in the proposed rules 75a and 75b, but the opposition parties cannot swallow the arbitrariness of Rule 75c. It is their duty to block the dictatorial measure until the Government either rams it through by invoking the standing closure rule or removes the unacceptable part of the package as it did before Christmas.
Is it not a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that every time we are about to adjourn for a holiday the government brings in a proposal to change the rules. Just before Christmas they brought in the proposal for rule 16a and now, just before we are to rise for the summer, they bring in proposed Standing Order
11000	COMMONS DEBATES	July 8, 1969
Procedure and Organization 75a, 75b and 75c. What does the government expect to gain by its tactics? What does the hon. member tor Grenville-Carleton expect to gain?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He is the Santa Claus of summertime.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He certainly is. At Christmastime, when the government withdrew proposed rule 16a, I knew that we should have to face another discussion on the rules. At that time the Prime Minister said he had trapped the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of all other parties in this house. He suggested that he withdrew the motion with respect to 16a because he had rammed down our throats the other part of the package then before parliament. How can one negotiate with a Prime Minister who talks this way?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How can you establish good will among members and good faith in this house in the light of such remarks?


An hon. Member:: Where is the just society?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would expect some hon. members who did not take part in the Liberal leadership race to display a much more intelligent attitude than has been displayed here. I am not referring to the acting prime minister, either.


An hon. Member:: You are talking about the "Gold Dust twins".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am talking about the "Gold Dust twins", that is right. This government does not want members of parliament to discharge their duties. This government supports the principle of dictatorship. It wants to dictate to committees and it wants to dictate to this house how debates shall be conducted. The government does not want information to be disseminated to our people; it only wants our people to know what it thinks the people ought to know. It only wants the kind of opposition it can stand comfortably-it only wants nice, quiet, gentlemanly opposition that will do nothing to disturb the all powerful Liberal party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It would like to suppress committee reports.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right. This government thinks it can do without parliament. It imagines that parliament is here to serve the government. What the government really
IMr. Woolliams.]
would like to do is ignore parliament entirely. That is what the government wants to do.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know it is a shame. That is why I am talking tonight and that is why I intend to talk all summer so you will not get a holiday.


Raymond J. Perrault: You took your holiday in the winter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear Rip Van Winkle again in the distance! We can just see what will happen as soon as this legislation is passed. As soon as the government can say we have four days to debate a major bill, they are going to ram through the legislation without the people being informed. Take the language bill, for example. I am one who supports the principle of the bill.


Raymond J. Perrault: Good for you.


An hon. Member:: There's the nut again!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That Rip Van Winkle is an
amazing man!
Even today Canadians do not understand what the language bill means, although there was a fairly intelligent debate. Because of the opposition, Canadians do know that there will be decisions made by this great commissioner who was not supposed to have any power.
Canadians know today that this so-called non-powerful commissioner can summon witnesses. They know he can have hearings in camera without even that great lawyer, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), being present. Even he will not be able to be present. They also know this commissioner can get documents, go into offices without search warrants and make decisions. All this can be done in the great image of an investigator, according to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). All of this can be done under this bill which was passed by this chamber, and which contained no right of appeal.
If a French Canadian member of a minority group in some area of Canada lost his job and was unable to educate his family because the commissioner, for some reason or other, was prejudiced, he would have no right of appeal. The Canadian people know this, not as a result of any explanation made by the government but because of the actions of the opposition.
July 8, 1969

What is the function of the opposition? Perhaps it is time a few words were said about this. The opposition is not a piece of furniture or a piece of ivory, nor does the opposition want to spend the summer here in order to debate something we know is inherently wrong as far as this institution and as far as Canadians are concerned. What is the major role of the opposition? The opposition has a continuing responsibility of vigilance. It must do the job of checking the government, opposing the government vigorously when necessary with all the tools and ability at its command. What the government is trying to do is take away those tools.
Checking the government is the most obvious task of the opposition. This applies to legislation such as the Criminal Code bill, medicare, and it should apply to measures to increase our taxation. The opposition must prod and push the government into action. Goodness only knows this government needs some pushing! They do not know how to sell wheat; they are losing the oil and industrial markets and they are prepared to lose $80 million to the automobile industry. I say they have to be pushed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They have inflation under control!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As my leader has said, inflation-


An hon. Member:: Which leader?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Governments everywhere must find a solution to inflation and the housing problem. Who would have thought during the election campaign that interest rates today in the city of Calgary and other major cities in this country would be as high as 10 per cent? Only Benson!
The opposition must be the type to advance policies. What do we mean by that? We recommended in our amendment that the language bill should contain a right of appeal in order to guarantee the civil rights of this nation. We are recommending positive policies, and that is our function. If the government implements this rule, in spite of what the hon. member says about ten days, the government will be able to ram a bill through in four days, so what chance will we have to make any serious recommendations? They do not want to hear the opposition. It just bothers them.
The opposition must advance policies that will persuade the electors that its members

Procedure and Organization should be on the treasury benches, and therefore, form the government. These members could provide a better government, one that the Canadian people realize would bring about changes. The failure of the opposition to perform these functions will relegate them to the role of the opposition forever. Sir Charles Tupper said:
The duty of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to exercise its vast influence in restraining vicious legislation, and in giving a loyal support to proposals of the interests of the country; while initiating itself such measures for the commonwealth as are neglected by the administration.
We have heard many quotations, and perhaps some of them should be referred to again.


Mr. Gibson:: Who are your research teams?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe some Liberal backbenchers should have research teams because all they do is laugh and scoff. They are not interested. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) is just back from another holiday.


Colin David Gibson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Extensive quotations are being delivered from a document and no source date or page reference has been given. I ask the hon. member to give us details of the document from which he is quoting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the hon. member really wants to know, this is a speech prepared by me this afternoon. I am quoting some political scientists to whom, no doubt, Rip Van Winkle has never exposed his intelligence.
Quentin Hogg said:
Countries cannot be fully free until they have an organized opposition. It is not a long step from the absence of an organized opposition to a complete dictatorship.
Possibly I should quote Lord Acton again:
AH power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And that fits the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault). A former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson quoted the late R. B. Bennett with approval as follows:
Oppositions are essential and necessary in the development of a democratic state. They serve a great and useful purpose. To the extent that criticism is frank and thorough, to that extent they do a great service to the country.
July 8, 1969

Procedure and Organization
Disraeli said:
No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition.
I think it was the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who quoted Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke said:
He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
I might just end on this note. We have gone along with reform on the rules of parliament, and we have gone a long way. When that reform did away with committee of the whole procedure for bills and did away with committee of supply in relation to estimates, I said we should at least retain control of 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the estimates in the house, because the only control the opposition has over this kind of arrogance and dictatorship is the control of the purse strings of parliament. The government has gone a long way on the road towards dictatorship. The Liberal party said their government was going to be made up of young men with a new image and new vision. We were going to plan our work so that we would be able to leave here on June 27 and resume the session in October. Surely, the government did not think it could try to ram this rule change through parliament without the opposition being aware of its tactics? What the government is doing today is taking away the effective tools of all members of parliament, and particularly the effective tools of an opposition whose functions are as I have outlined them this evening.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I had hoped that the Prime Minister would have been in the chamber tonight. In his absence I would ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to have another look at this matter in the hope that the government would withdraw this motion, just as it did at Christmas, and let parliament remain a living institution where Canadians can speak through their elected representatives.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: I would like to express my opinion on rules 75a, 75b and 75c. We have every reason to say that every day, matters were presented in this house that led the minority to believe that it was its duty to object strongly.
If this government, blinded by its majority, would care to open its eyes, there would be
[Mr. Woolliams.l
no ground for discussions such as the one we are having today. What proves me right, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill C-202, even though it is far from perfect, was passed thanks to our support.
After all, what we want as Canadian members of parliament is to express the voice of the people who cannot be heard at a moment when we are threatened with a dictatorial regime. Once again, I say there are circumstances when the opposition, called the minority, must make its views known vigorously because public opinion must know the dictatorial rule which is imposed upon the house.
I am not setting forth a new doctrine, Mr. Speaker. It goes back to the time of Charles I. History books are full of such references. The house leader had, at that time, introduced what was called the great remonstrance which was debated during a whole night. On another occasion, in 1771, the majority of the house did not want to allow the debates of the house to be published. Edmund Burke fought against this and succeeded in wrecking the majority's plan. He himself declared: posterity will bless the penetrating insight we showed on that day.
Since the Prime Minister is now travelling across Canada stating that we must have one Canada, one nation, and since, together, we have celebrated the 102nd anniversary of Canada last week, allow me, Mr. Speaker and hon. colleagues, to point out how in ' 1867, when Parliament was organized, following Confederation, rules were established for this house.
A special committee was then appointed to draft such rules. The committee's report was tabled in the house for further study as is stated in Hansard of December 27, 1867.
Dictatorial measures were also applied in 1885, 1896, 1908 and 1911, in order to deprive the opposition of all freedom of action. All governments who took such a step regretted it bitterly.
That is the reason why, today, I hold out to the Liberal members who condemn the dictatorial manner in which they are led, the olive-branch to replace the golden chains offered them by the Prime Minister.
I say to my good friends the Liberal members: If you should accept such measures, if you should approve rules 75a, 75b and 75c, you will regret it bitterly, as did the Borden
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
government in 1913 and the St-Laurent government in 1956.
When I refer to the dictatorial manner in which parliament is led by a Prime Minister who, today, is asking the house leader the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to pilot an indefensible bill, I base myself on a recent newspaper article which points out that such dictatorship is not only felt by Canadians but that it is also noticed by people beyond our borders.
And I have in hand a newspaper of last May which reproduced an article from the representative in Washington, Mr. John Rarick, who stated that the threat of a Canada governed by Mr. Trudeau is, and I quote:
-but a segment erf a world scale conspiracy against free men-
And he went on saying:
The "Canadian Castro"
While calling Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau a "Canadian Castro" Mr. John R. Rarick stated that Canada has "jeopardized its position" within the free world and-
He said also that there was no hope right now that freedom could continue to exist in this country.
Such a statement was made by someone who does not live in Canada and who is studying the Canadian situation.
If dictatorial rules are imposed on us, preventing the opposition to warn public opinion and tell the people that harmful bills are being prepared, we could then also read the statements of certain of our newspapermen.
I have in hand a statement of Mr. Claude Ryan published in a newspaper of October 30, 1968, four months after the coming into power of the Liberals. It indicates what was thought about the new government. This is what it said and I quote:
Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau had the extraordinary chance of being elected leader of his party, then brought back to power without having to disclose to the Canadian people the true nature of his political ideas. He could utter for months the worse blunders in a climate of euphoria created by the appearance of the Messiah.
May I point out that it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is: "That this house do now adjourn."
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order No. 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) was made on May 29 shortly after it became apparent that yet another administrative fiasco was being chalked up in the Post Office Department, which of late has far out-distanced all other government departments in the number, range and variety of its bureaucratic snafus, and I do not exclude the Passport Office of the Department of External Affairs. Just when one begins to think that nothing more can go wrong in the Post Office Department and that the minister has finally come to the end of his semi-eternal process of creating task forces, another problem looms.
With costly fanfare, expensive publicity, and after many months of work by an expert team, the three digit zone system was to be unveiled for Metro Toronto on May 1. How expensive this great development was is seen in the answers to my order paper questions on July 2. One hundred and fifty thousand books were printed, and there was a reprint order of 200,000. The total cost of printing was $50,000, and the entire operation cost $130,681. How many small post offices could have been kept in operation for that amount of money? Advertising in all the media cost $72,785, and this was to be a job which when done was to stay done forever. In the green book which introduced this plan to the people in Toronto, and I may say there was a red book too, there was a foreword by the District Director of Postal Service which reads:
I am sure that you will be interested in knowing that the numbers have been set up in such a way as to eliminate the necessity of any changes over the next 30 years.
But the permanence became somewhat undermined and the precise became somewhat uncertain. The green book, with its May date, did not have a very long run as an outstanding best seller. In the Toronto Star of May 29, the people of Toronto read this:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The Post Office has put a freeze on its new threedigit postal zone policy.
11004	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The new policy was announced in a flurry of publicity in newspapers, on radio, billboards and handbills. It cost the Post Office $60,000 in Metro alone to tell you "Your Number is up."
The new system was supposed to have become effective May 1. But it isn't, and may never be. It seems somebody forgot to tell somebody else about a policy change.
And left holding the bag are hundreds of Metro firms who already have had new business forms printed to incorporate the change. All the Post Office can advise them to do is store the letterheads somewhere-maybe they'll be useful some day.
R. F. Horgan, acting director of information and public relations for the post office in Ottawa said yesterday that firms requiring new letterheads and stationery anyway should use the new three-digit forms. "But we certainly wouldn't advise them to destroy present stocks."
Then, in the Toronto Telegram of May 30 we read:
Local post office officials are telling confused callers they can use either of two sets of zone numbers, whichever they please. "Use the old one, it's easier," one official told the Telegram today.
As recorded at page 10742 of Hansard for July 2 I asked:
Is it possible that the 3 digit zone system now in force in these cities-
These are three large cities, including Toronto.
-will be dropped as a result of the review of zoning systems suggested by the Minister of Communications on May 29?
The answer was:
Yes, but not probable. It is expected that, if a national postal code is adopted-
And so on.
But, what do we do in the next two or three years? Are our numbers up or down, frozen or evaporated? Perhaps Vancouver is the scene of the most complete compounding of the confusion. The Province of May 23 provides some insight along these lines:
The post office department apparently is going to amend postal zone changes that were to become effective in the Lower Mainland on June 1.
The further change-possibly to a full, five-number zip code system-was hinted Thursday when local postal officials said the original change to three-number ones was being "deferred or postponed."
A telegraphed message from Ottawa suggested the change had been "deferred or postponed" and that "an explanation was on the way."
The explanation was expected to arrive today. "We're in the dark on this," the Vancouver spokesman said.
The official went on to say:
The new system was described as one that would speed sorting and delivery of mail.

DEBATES	July 8, 1969
All this from the man who was going to make the Post Office businesslike and efficient. If this is efficiency, Mr. Speaker, give me some good old fashioned sloppiness. Doubtless the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) will tell us that all is well; that the numbers game is good for us; that the unofficial intercity guessing contest will give us some of the kick of a national lottery. The minister is expert at giving assurances and reassurances. I recall how confident he was when he said that the new rates would not injure publications and how pleased the carriers were with the new arrangements following the institution of the five day delivery. I need not talk about the debunking of the pre-conclusions. It would be amusing, even ludicrous, it would be a modern Gilbert and Sullivan. But it is also serious. It cannot be doing much to speed the nation's mail if the largest post offices in the country are in such a state of confusion and so much time and energy is wasted in such feckless planning.
Is it any wonder that our post office is becoming a source of derision? We read this in the Dominion Travellers Association magazine under the caption "Who trusts the mail anymore?":
Uganda, or whatever they call the place now, has a better postal system than Canada has. Afghanistan has a better system. Even the United States-once the unhappy owner of the world's worst postal system-has a better one than Canada has now.
They do a better job in Bechuanaland, using runners with forked sticks, than they do in Winnipeg using a computer and hundreds of poorly paid civil servants. The Pony Express defied Indians to deliver mail faster between San Francisco and Houston-


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


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am frequently fascinated by the flowery phrases of the FalstafT of the Conservative court, a court that I might remind hon. members of the house is now in exile. If the calibre of his criticism remains at the present level, the court is likely to remain in exile. While the hon. member's criticism of the Post Office may indeed merit the term "flowery", it is certainly not factual.
I do not think the hon. member or anyone else can prove the statement that the post office departments in the United States, Uganda or Afghanistan are better than that of Canada. The confusion that exists about the
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
decision that we made exists only in his own mind. We decided some years ago to start zoning Canadian cities according to two or three digits. Early this year, as part of an over-all review of the operations of the Post Office, we came to the decision that we should examine the possibility of a national coding system into which we could integrate all sections of the country.
The purpose of a national coding system is to enable the Post Office to take full advantage of mechanized and automated sorting machines-not the kind of manual process that was such a boon to the patronage of the Conservative government. Its advantage, also, is to examine the feasibility of the present three-character postal zoning systems being continued as part of a national coding system and to determine whether from a practical operating standpoint such a national coding system can identify sections or units within a city. It is a system which allows us to go directly to an automated system of letter carrier walks and recommend detailed plans for the implementation of such a system.
Perhaps we are looking one or two years into the future, but there comes a time when you make a decision to provide, if it is at all feasible, an ideal system; therefore, you halt temporarily city by city, ad hoc measures. This is exactly what we have done. Anyone can use the existing two-digit or three-digit system. No one has to store any letterheads or any mail, and business is quite aware of this. There is no loss to them in this system.


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



AGRICULTURE-POSSIBILITY OF AID TO WESTERN FARMERS FOLLOWING MEETING BETWEEN PREMIER AND PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 I directed a supplementary question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asking him, because of his responsibility for establishing priorities in the government, whether in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) had announced a budgetary surplus of $250 million, the government would divert some of this surplus into an emergency program to alleviate the economic crisis confronting western agriculture. I asked this question, first because agriculture was barely mentioned in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, and second there was a $250 million projected surplus in the budget.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In view of a number of circumstances in agriculture in western Canada, I was suggesting in my question to the Prime Minister that we should divert some of this surplus into some sort of emergency plan. I realize there are many other areas into which some of this surplus could be diverted. However, the farmers of western Canada are frustrated by the attitude of the government. I came back from western Canada just yesterday, and a number of them were talking about the government giving subsidies and making concessions to many business corporations, automobile manufacturers, mining and Time magazine.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I should like to suggest that some kind of emergency plan in western Canada is of absolute necessity right now. I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) would agree with me on this since he also has been in the province quite recently. I think that right now the farmer has very little cash. He is met with escalating expenses and high interest rates, and this goes on and on. It is not only the farmer who is being hit in this way. This affects also the businessmen in larger and smaller communities in Western Canada. So I think that if nothing is done, there will be some real poverty in western Canada. There is already poverty in many of the farming areas there. I think it also makes economic sense to put some cash into the western economy. I know that the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other organizations have suggested this to the government not once but many times.
There are many solutions. I am not saying that this is the only solution. We all know that many long range plans and activities have to be carried out in this area. I should like to suggest to the government that they spend $60 to $80 million on some emergency plan. In the past few months our party has been talking about something like this. I believe they have suggested a number of times that we pay farmers 20 cents a bushel as a deficiency payment on grain. If the government does not do something like this, there will not only be real poverty among the farming population of western Canada but many of these people will move into the cities and will join the ranks of the urban poor and unemployed. I think there will also be many more severe consequences. There will be much unrest which is already shaping up among the farmers. They are talking in terms
11006	COMMONS DEBATES	July 8, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which have never been used before. I should like to appeal to the minister at this time to consider this suggestion seriously because I think this problem will escalate if something is not done immediately.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: As the hon. member pointed out, this question was asked on June 4. It came not only from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) but the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) also participated by way of supplementary questions.
I do not wish to indicate that the number of programs the government has initiated, and indeed the other actions that have been extended and expanded but not initiated during this past year, do in fact add up to a complete solution of the problem of grain marketing and the restriction of the cash flow that comes from that problem.
If the hon. member will look at page 10,264 of Hansard of June 17 he will find listed there a number of measures. As I said, none of them is a complete solution, but there are a number of measures which do in fact cost the treasury substantial sums of money that go a long way toward alleviating the situation.
The hon. member spoke about the matter of a transfer of some $60 million to $70 million from the treasury into the wheat economy. If he added up what has been paid by the treasury into the wheat economy by way of the temporary Grain Reserves Act plus the interest that is paid on cash advances, plus a number of other items all of which are listed on the pages I mentioned, he would find that it comes to $60 million or $70 million or indeed more.
Furthermore, since that time another announcement was made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who reports to the house for the Canadian Wheat Board. He indicated that the cash advances which were doubled last November by parliament will be fully reinstated in the new crop year in about three weeks, regardless of whether or not the advances for the past crop year have been fully paid.
These are the series of measures that have been brought in, and they are substantial. In addition to that, as has already been announced very frequently, there will be a meeting in Washington of the ministers of the major exporting nations to the international wheat market to see if a basis cannot be

found for re-establishing some stability in the international market. The hon. member knows that Canada has taken the lead in seeking to make the International Grains Arrangement work for and on behalf of producers of grain in this country and in the rest of the world, but we do not have complete control beyond our borders.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has expired.



NATIONAL REVENUE-INGERSOLL, ONT-STEPS TO RESTORE CUSTOMS SERVICES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I wish to bring to the attention of the house and of the minister a gross example of administrative incompetence in his department, and express the hope that the hon. gentleman will be able to do something to rectify this.
I am in no way blaming the minister or even his deputy minister for what has taken place. I suggest that officials further down the line have supplied the minister and his senior officials with inaccurate information in that they have misled the minister with regard to the subject I am about to raise. I suggest they are the same officials who caused the administrative mess at Port Dover, Ontario, where the customs officer was removed to the inconvenience of visiting Americans who were then set upon by the R.C.M.P. and fined for not clearing their boats that weekend, although no arrangements had been made to enable them to do so.
In this case a decision was made to close the customs port at Ingersoll, Ontario for reasons of economy. I have no quarrel with that motivation. I received a letter from the minister last January marked private and confidential, so I was not able to discuss the matter with other parties concerned, indicating that the local interests had been consulted in advance of the decision. In fact, none of the important local interests involved were informed that the customs port would be closed, until 12 days before the event and this caused great inconvenience and confusion. The mayor of Ingersoll called a meeting attended by representatives of the industries concerned, and the responsible official of the Department of National Revenue from London, Ontario was in attendance. I attended the meeting myself. I regret to say that the behaviour of the customs official was not only high handed but exceedingly discourteous to the mayor of Ingersoll and to myself. There is
July 8, 1969	COMMONS
certainly no politics involved here as the mayor is a senior official of the Liberal party.
It turned out that none of the local industries had been consulted by the department before the decision was made, or before a recommendation was sent to the minister. The customs official did agree that he would try to work out an effective service for the industries concerned. But nothing has been worked out to date, and the only person sent to consult with representatives of the industries was an official junior to the one who made the decision-and one can well imagine the situation this would create.
I received a letter from the minister's office dated July 3, a copy of a letter which had been sent to the mayor, indicating that everybody was happy and that all the industries were satisfied. Today, I discussed the matter with the heads of the companies concerned and I found that no one is happy at all. They are all extremely dissatisfied.
The industries concerned are all industries which require large amounts of material from the United States. They include the Ingersoll Machine Company and its related company, the Morrow Company, the Chemical Lime division of "STELCO" Chicago Vitreous, North American Cyanamid, Moto-Mower Limited and Standard Brands.
The removal of the customs port has caused the greatest possible inconvenience. Let me say that Ingersoll Machine alone has to bring in 175,000 lbs. a week of forgings and castings for use in the automobile industry, particularly in the making of gears. If normal customs duty were paid it would amount to nearly $12,000 a week; it is not the fault of the local industry that the government entered into an automobile pact with the United States with the result that duties are not collected. As a result of the closing of the port, 90 tons a week now have to be shipped to Woodstock and sent back 20 miles with all the extra cost which this involves. I do not have the time to give further examples, though I have pages of them before me. I have given the minister
DEBATES	H007
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion an account of the administrative incompetence of certain officials who act without proper consultation and, much worse, misinform senior officials of the department and the minister. This cannot help but cause embarrassment.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I shall be glad to provide the minister with any additional information he may require; he will understand I do not have sufficient time to do so at the moment under the limit imposed. I hope the minister will take a firm stand in this matter and do something to clean up the mess.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member this evening are quite different from the question he asked in the house the other day, which was whether it was the government's intention to reopen the customs port of Ingersoll, Ontario. It is the feeling of the department that equivalent and equally satisfactory service could be provided more economically from the nearby port of Woodstock, which is ten miles distant. I know it is always very hard when a customs port is closed but this department, like every other department, has been asked to cut its expenditures, if possible without hurting anybody.
As far as the disruption of major industries is concerned, I will have my officials look into this matter, with a view to giving advice and assistance to the industries affected, if the hon. member will provide me with the names of the companies in question. I see he is ready to give me some more information.
I will take note of other remarks made by the hon. member. I am surprised at the serious accusation he made in connection with officials in the area, but I will certainly look into the matter and write a report to the hon. member later on.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
11009

Wednesday, July 9, 1969