1969-07-10

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inJorm the house that a message has been received from the Senate requesting this house to unite with the Senate in the appointment of a special joint committee to consider the government's proposals for tax reform and also to select members of this house to act on the special joint committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the house would like to know the steps Canada is taking as a result of recent developments in Nigeria.
I have instructed our High Commissioner in Lagos to tell the federal military government that Canada is prepared to supply the neutral inspectors both sides are ready to accept as a precondition for the resumption of relief flights into the secessionist territory. We are prepared to supply these inspectors for service either inside or outside Nigeria. We have urged the Nigerian government to give careful consideration to the acceptance of outside inspection sites.
We are told that if these flights are not resumed there will be countless deaths from starvation. Urgent action is required and Canada is ready to act urgently. Contingency planning is now under way so that we can move immediately if agreement is reached.
All interested parties are now looking to daylight flights as the best way of getting the food to those who need it. Canada has advocated this course for many months. There appears now to be agreement that a way must be found to get these flights going.
Relief flights in this civil war situation should be readily recognizable as relief flights and it should be clear that the aircraft are carrying only relief goods. If these things are done, both sides should be able to agree on the necessary details.
There is no problem identifying relief flights in the daylight hours. Our proposal to the Nigerian government further suggests that this could be reinforced by filing flight plans of agreed daylight flights with the interested authorities before take-off.
We are encouraged by the fact that the principle of inspection by neutral as well as Nigerian inspectors has been accepted by the authorities on both sides. We and others are continuing efforts to see whether agreement can be reached in this matter.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I must point out however that the success of our efforts, and those of others, to get the relief goods moving again regularly and in large quantity in!o the secessionist area still depends on the parties to the conflict. Unless they co-operate, a great human tragedy may take place. This we will do all we can to avoid.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I think one must resist the temptation to say to the government, "We told you so." This issue has been before parliament since last September and perhaps the words of this folk song are apt. They go something like this:
If I could have the world the way I want it, I would set these children free.
Some think that some of us here are becoming emotional about this issue. I do not apologize one whit for our emotions. Although the countdown tonight begins for what promises to be the most spectacular achievement so far of science and technology, the landing of man on the moon, it seems that man has not yet found a way to feed his brother's children. Actually, through the medium of joint Churchaid, Canairelief and the International Committee of the Red Cross, man has found a way, but his efforts have been frustrated by narrow concepts of national interest and thwarted by policies of non-intervention

July 10, 1969
External Aid to Biafra not now acceptable to civilized men. A delib- United Kingdom and I direct them to this erate policy of famine stopped those efforts; government. "We should now devote all our the world now finds unacceptable such poli- diplomatic power, all the influence that cies. We do not approve any longer of policies remains and all the effort of the government of non-intervention.	to secure the effective relief in terms of food
We can do some things to help and I think we all welcome the positive steps the minister has outlined. Canada could also take other steps, such as providing a ship which could be used as a neutral site for discussions between Nigeria and Biafra. I notice that in his statement the minister referred to Biafra as the secessionist area. Calling it Biafra is better, I think, since we are all used to the name. We could also press more vigorously for the establishment of an agency of the United Nations which could provide formal relief to areas afflicted by civil as well as international strife. We are lucky now to live in a world in which people are increasingly willing to cross boundaries,-boundaries which are artificial, anyway,-and see that aid is given to people on the other sides of those boundaries.
The heading of the most powerful editorial on this subject I have so far read, contained in the London Times of June 28, 1969, is, "A policy of famine". The editorial says in part:
It is the principle of dissociation of sensibility_
outi sight out of mind-which permits the most evil things to be done by quite ordinary men.
I think a good many ordinary men of the world ought to be accused of this "dissociation". Arms supplied so cynically by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, France, have only served to make a terrible situation worse. I hope that in making this announcement the Canadian government is at last showing evidence of willingness to pursue a policy of supplying food and medicines to a distressed area now cut off by a government that feels starvation is an acceptable part of war.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I warmly welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We understand that delicate negotiations are presently going on in an effort to obtain consent for daylight flights, which are essential if this matter is to be solved. In the face of what is an immense and grim human tragedy it would be wrong for us to speak in any but non-partisan tones.
I too would like to quote from the editorial in the London Times of June 28 to which the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) has already referred. This is the tone of the spirit we should all have. These words were directed to the government of the 
for Biafra at all costs and at once.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has indicated Canada's willingness to provide neutral inspectors. I think this is an important suggestion. I believe it was made to the minister by Canairelief, which has played such an important part in the relief of starvation in Biafra. I agree with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that Canada should offer to take the initiative in providing a neutral locality for the parties to negotiate face to face, which might relieve the atmosphere of suspicion which the long distance negotiations have produced.
The arrangement as to conditions for daylight flights can only be made if the parties are brought face to face in the presence of some party which is neutral and friendly to both sides. There are two other matters which must be considered. I hope in future this government will direct its assistance to aid, not only to the International Red Cross, which has done a terrific job, but also to the joint Churchaid of which Canairelief is a part. This has been the most successful and effective agency. It has been assisted by the United States government and I hope this government will do the same.
I hope too that this government will follow through on the invocation of the jurisdiction of the United Nations to deal collectively in the name of humanity with the humanitarian problems involved. I hope this government will express publicly, repeatedly and clearly its objection to the importation of arms from Europe or anywhere else by either of the warring factions.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to note that the government seems to be doing all it can to relieve this grim and tragic situation.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, while listening a while ago to the Secretary of State for External Affairs delivering to us a quite important message, it reminded me of another message which we must never forget: Peace on earth to men of good will!
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the facilities which Canada could
July 10, 1969

provide for the transport of food to Nigeria and Biafra and this is to the credit of all Canadians. I welcome the fact that the government is ready to provide the neutral inspectors needed in order to organize those relief flights.
Canada must do its best to help those who are suffering, because not only do we have food in abundance but we have surplusses, so we are told. Therefore, while helping those who are suffering, Canadians will be able, through their work, to make a greater contribution to peace in order to alleviate world suffering.
I really hope we shall find proper ways to organize those relief flights as soon as possible. Some were found during the war, for the transport of all kinds of weapons. So I hope that we, who are enjoying peace, will do all we can to help those unfortunate people who do not want war and who are the victims of war. This way, we shall contribute to the establishment of true peace in the world.

[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDIAN AFFAIRS ALLEGED FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO CONSULT NATIVE PEOPLE IN DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the failure of the government to have consulted the native Indian people in Canada in the development of its policy statement on Indian Affairs presented to this house on June 25, the almost universal rejection of this policy statement by Indian people, the growing discontent among Indian people over the manner in which the government has treated them both with respect to the policy statement and in general terms, the refusal of the government so far to indicate it is prepared to enshrine in the constitution those aboriginal and hereditary rights arising out of the treaties, and the similar rights relating to land, resources and the like in areas where no treaties exist, the general refusal of the government to enter into meaningful discussions with the native peoples of Canada over such
Indian Affairs
rights and inheritances, and the attendant possible turbulence and fury which may follow from the aforementioned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) gave the Chair the necessary notice pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26 and I have had an opportunity to study his proposal at length and in depth.
There is no doubt but that the question raised by the hon. member's proposed motion is one of importance; indeed it is one which I am sure is of deep and continuing interest to all hon. members of the house. However this is not the only consideration which the Chair has to take into account in making a ruling at this point. The Speaker has to determine whether under the terms of Standing Order 26 the house should be adjourned for the purpose of a debate on the subject matter dealt with in the hon. member's motion.
I have suggested before that Standing Order 26 requires a statement of the problem and that hon. members should not attempt to argue the case for or against the adjournment of the house. It is a bit difficult to determine in the hon. member's motion what is the statement of the matter requiring urgent consideration and what might be considered argument in support of his proposal for the adjournment of the house.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has based his motion on what he terms, and I quote from his statement to the house
-the failure of the government to have consulted the native Indian people of Canada in the development of Its policy statement on Indian affairs presented to this house on June 25.
This statement is accompanied by a number of additional statements which might well be interpreted as debate or argument. In any event my understanding or interpretation of the hon. member's motion is that he calls into question the failure or alleged failure of the government to hold consultations with the Indian people of Canada in the development of the policy announced on June 25 last. Essentially the hon. member's complaint deals with matters of record which are already some weeks old. I have serious doubts as to whether the debate today could correct a situation which occurred before June 25.
According to my interpretation of Standing Order 26 and my understanding of the motion proposed by the hon. member, it is not open to the Chair to agree to the adjournment of the house at this time under the provisions of that standing order.
July 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I intend to do this, anyway; but I give Your Honour notice of my desire to rewrite the motion in accordance with your prescription and present it again tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the next item of business is called I might add that notice of a proposed motion was received over the signature of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle). It is my understanding the proposed motion was not submitted for the consideration of the Chair within the time limit prescribed by the rules. I wonder whether tomorrow or on some other occasion the hon. member might not consider the advisability of giving the necessary notice as required by the rule.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to ask the unanimous consent of the house to hear the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is always in order-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is always in order for the hon. member to seek the unanimous consent of the house. However, there is at least one nay coming from the house.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development what action he proposes to take in light of the decision of the Indian Association of Alberta to instruct the Indian people in that province not to talk to federal officials and if necessary forcibly to exclude federal officials from Indian lands until there is time to consider the new policy statement made by the minister and to consider it in depth.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take any particular decision, and in that sense, I have 
already announced that policy. I also stated that I intended to meet with the provincial premiers and the leaders of the various Indian associations, and if they wish to talk with me, I will be glad to oblige. However, if they are not prepared to do so at this time, and that is their privilege, we intend to enter in the next few months into numerous consultations with the Indians, and we do not intend to change that policy of consultation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the special unit which was created within the department to discuss the minister's statement with the Indian people now in the field and, if so, will the minister recall it or instruct it to take into consideration the view of the Indian people that they need a fair chance to consider the implications of the minister's proposals before an attempt is made to involve them in discussions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the body concerned is not yet in operation to meet the various Indian bands in Canada. I think it is very wise, on the part of the Indians, to take a few months to consider that policy and I am sure that after it has been studied for a while, they will see that in the best interest of all Canadians, their own interest included, there is no discriminatory legislation in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the attempted motion by the hon. member for Skeena under Standing Order 26, perhaps he might be allowed a supplementary question at this point.


Frank Howard: It is very kind of you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the translation system did not clearly reflect what the minister said, but I understood him to say in response to the first question of the Leader of the Opposition that the government had no intention of changing its policy. Would the minister clarify that first?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said the government did not intend to change the policy of consulting the Indians.
July 10, 1969


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question in a supplemental way. Would the right hon. gentleman be prepared to make a statement on behalf of the government indicating that the government is prepared to set out in the constitution those guarantees necessarily related to hereditary and aboriginal rights of the native Indian people, which appear to be a prerequisite to any meaningful consultation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the statement issued by the minister some weeks ago, I seem to recall, had the approval of all parties in the house. If there were comments they were just to the effect that we had not done quickly enough what for many years hon. members had asked us to do. It is also true to say that the minister had the authority of the government, and on the question of aboriginal rights the government stands by the statement.



FUNDS TO PERMIT STUDIES BY NATIVE PEOPLE-MEETING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has reached any decision in respect of making any grants of funds to the appropriate national committee of the Indian peoples to enable it to conduct the studies they consider necessary to determine their position, and to get the necessary professional advice to put them in a position where they can form appropriate opinions about this proposal or others they may suggest as an alternative?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was clearly indicated in the Indian policy statement that as soon as the ombudsman is appointed, he will be empowered by the government to provide the committee on Indian rights and treaties with the necessary funds to undertake its own research.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand from what the minister has said that he is refusing to make any grants to assist the Indian people in order that they may determine their stance or attitude in respect of their total position vis-a-vis the federal government and the country?

Inquiries of the Ministry the two organizations. I was just speaking about the committee appointed by the Indians themselves1 in April to study Indian rights and treaties. The funds to be provided to that committee will be granted through the ombudsman who is to be appointed for that purpose.
In regard to the financing of the Indian organizations, provincial as well as national. I hope to be able to announce a decision soon.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether official meetings have been held between officials of his department and those of the provincial governments concerned and, if so, will the report of those official meetings be published or made available in some way or other for the guidance of the members of this house?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have undertaken to visit the provinces. During those visits I meet with the premiers and the leaders of Indian associations who wish to see me and I explain to them our policy with regard to Indians. To date, I have visited two provinces, Ontario and Saskatchewan, and tomorrow I will be in Nova Scotia, I hope to be in British Columbia early next week.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question.
If I understand the remarks made by the minister, he is now conferring with provincial governments and Indian associations, and making policy statements. Do those policy statements include negotiations with the provincial governments and Indian associations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet reached the stage of negotiations on matters of policy. This trip is merely for educational purposes. In fact, I answer the questions put by the premiers and their ministers as well as by the Indian chiefs whom I meet.



REQUEST FOR PRIOR SETTLEMENT OF TITLE AND TREATY RIGHTS-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY PENDING POSSIBLE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, a related or a new question, whichever you like, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
[Translation]	Development. In view of the fact that the


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker. I think that difficulties which have arisen in respect of the the hon. Leader of the Opposition is confusing statement of June 25 appear to relate to the
July 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry fears of the Indians about their lands, and similar rights which will go down the drain once the policy of getting rid of the discriminatory laws is implemented through provincial action, can the minister state to this house and thereby assure the Indians of Canada that the problems in respect of their title to land, as well as related treaty and other rights will be settled before they are handed over to the provinces?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Indian lands, we have stated that we intended to submit a legislation in this regard, and, as for the observance of the treaties, the government has repeatedly stated that it would respect them.
In order to clarify the situation and help the government and the Indians to understand the exact nature of the treaties, we intend to appoint a commissioner who, together with the Indians, will study the nature and the scope of the treaties that were signed with the native peoples of our country.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well, as do all other hon. members, about the intended appointment of a commissioner to study the laws, treaties and so on. May I ask the minister that, in order to make sure the consultations with the Indians are on a proper basis and that there is no fear on their behalf in respect of the consultations, he will give the Indians the assurance that nothing will be done to remove federal responsibility until such time as the issue of their rights under treaty is definitely disposed of?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question is not to take away anything from the Indians. We wish to assure them that they are to become full citizens not only at the national but also at the provincial level, and the idea is not at all to deprive them of any services they may enjoy at the present time.
For instance some provincial governments provide them with various services in the fields of education and welfare and we only wish that the process be speeded up in future.


David Lewis: I have a further short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the commissioner's investigation is likely to be very lengthy and that it might even result in some approach to the court or courts, 
is the minister in a position to assure the Indians that until that issue is settled the federal parliament and the federal government will remain the authority responsible for their welfare?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, let me make this quite clear. The Indian Act is a federal law and it will not be amended until the government has passed a new legislation to protect the rights of Indians to their lands.
We told the Indians that we intend to respect their treaties. It is obvious that by giving them such an assurance, we do not intend to hand over their lands to the provincial governments or to disregard the treaties. Furthermore, Indians will be reassured and ready to take the place which belongs to them in Canadian society, as provincial citizens.



CONSIDERATION OF NEW LEGISLATION BY COMMITTEE

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the legislation respecting Indian lands is a federal statute, could the minister indicate when he thinks his new legislative proposal in that regard will be introduced in the House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we announced our intention to submit this policy to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As soon as the house reconvenes in the fall, I hope to be able to refer it to the committee.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Justice. In view of the orderly and quiet celebration by the Doukhobor sect in Verigin, Saskatchewan, of the 70th anniversary of the sect's arrival in Canada, will the minister inform the house why there was an excessive number of R.C.M.P. officers present?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that question should be considered at the time of adjournment.
July 10, 1969	COMMONS



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State and preface it by saying it has nothing to do with asking for an amendment to the act establishing the Company of Young Canadians. In light of the elections now in progress to establish a permanent council of the Company of Young Canadians, will the minister say whether anything is being done to alter the original intention or structure of the Company of Young Canadians before the permanent council has been elected and has met, and in particular will he report to the house upon the status of the program department of the company?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the statement the hon. member is asking for at this time should normally be made on motions. Perhaps the hon. member might invite the minister to make such a statement on motions.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to make a statement at an early opportunity before these elections have been completed. If necessary, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the house for the minister to make a statement at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the unanimous agreement of the house to return to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me there are slight objections to the hon. member's proposition.


Mr. Baldwin:: We will remember this: No dialogue.



INFORMATION ON I.G.A. WASHINGTON DISCUSSIONS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any information concerning the discussions on
Inquiries of the Ministry the international grains arrangement now taking place in Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The two ministers concerned are down there representing the interests of the grain producers. I have no report as yet.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that there will be a full statement on motions immediately upon the return of the two ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister advise the house whether it is the policy of the government to arrange with the provinces to amend the British North America Act by deleting therefrom section 91, subsection 24, so that all legislation affecting Indians in Canada will henceforth come within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures rather than of parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no; it is in no way our intention. If the hon. member wants to ask for supplementary explanations, perhaps he could address them to the minister who speaks for the government on Indian affairs.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Now, shall we start again?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: That's a lot better. Has the minister's department completed setting up the machinery necessary to require importers to pass along to consumers in their entirety the tariff reductions which were introduced in the budget of June 3? If so, how effective has
11062	COMMONS DEBATES	July 10, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
this move proved to be in achieving this	CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT
desirable end?	CORPORATION


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I outlined the position of the department in a speech I made in the house some two weeks ago.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have read the minister's speech word for word and there is not in it one word dealing with the matter about which I have asked. As I have said before, there is not in that speech one word answering my question. The minister has said he is setting up this machinery. I ask him a straightforward question: Has that machinery been set up? Would he honour his obligation as a minister in this house and answer the question yes or no?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I said I would consider the matter, Mr. Speaker, and this situation was dealt with carefully in the speech I made.


George Harris Hees: Has the minister's department completed setting up that machinery or is it in the process of setting it up; and if so, when does he expect it will be set up? This matter is not dealt with in the minister's speech.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have completed my consideration of the matter, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister insists on making statements which have no basis whatsoever in fact, and is deceiving the house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



FISHERIES


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the alarming d.d.t. levels found in fish in Lake Michigan, will the minister state if this condition exists in fish taken from Canadian waters?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I made some inquiries through our departmental officials about d.d.t. levels in fish caught in the Great Lakes.
I am told that the samples tested are well below the level of five parts per million, accepted by the United States Food and Drug Directorate. In practically all instances the residue has been less than two parts per million, and on the average less than one part per million.



RESIGNATION OF MR. DOUGLAS FULLERTON, CHAIRMAN

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I ask whether Mr. Douglas Fullerton indicated to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, either in writing or verbally, the reason for resigning from his position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he expressed his reasons in writing. I have had no verbal communication with the gentleman for a long, long while. The reason he gave in the letter tendering his official resignation was that he was resigning for personal reasons.


Robert Muir: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would be so kind as to table the letter of resignation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will check whether this is the practice, Mr. Speaker, and if it is usual I will do so. But I remember that the letter stated quite clearly that it was for personal reasons. If the house doubts my word, hon. members can always check with Mr. Fullerton. There was no pressure of any kind by the government on Mr. Fullerton to resign. We received a letter to that effect.


Robert Muir: have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the right hon. gentleman how soon he expects to fill this most important position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to defer to the minister responsible for this agency to answer that question.


Robert Muir: Then
may I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: As soon as we find someone as competent and effective as Mr. Fullerton, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Referring to this question, yesterday I asked the minister
July 10, 1969

responsible to assure us that the discrimination against the Cape Breton miners would cease. I would point to Hansard to verify that the minister accepts the statement that discrimination has been practised. I ask the Prime Minister whether when choosing a replacement for Mr. Fullerton he will assure that whoever takes over as chairman of the Devco board will stop the discrimination carried on against Cape Breton miners, as indicated by the minister yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the answer I got from the minister yesterday. I would call the attention of the Prime Minister, and his just society, to answers given to me by the minister. In answering my question about discrimination, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said:
Mr. Speaker, there is no discrimination at all in respect of these plans.
A further question brought this answer from the minister:
These are isolated cases.
This is a definite indication that the minister recognizes there is discrimination against the Cape Breton miners, and I would ask the Prime Minister and his just society to do something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a representation, and he has to assume that it will be taken into consideration.



ALLEGED INEFFECTIVENESS OF PRESCRIPTION PRODUCT

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Given the similarity of drug production in Canada and the United States, could the minister indicate to the house whether his department is investigating the results of the study released yesterday, prepared for the United States Food and Drug Directorate, which showed that large numbers of prescription drugs were ineffective; and if so, would he make a statement on motions regarding what action his department will be taking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will agree that his question is acceptable 29180-6995
Inquiries of the Ministry only in the sense that he is asking whether the minister will make a statement on motions. To that extent the question is in order.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall be glad to consider making a statement.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: My
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to inform the house whether in view of the increasingly serious nature of the telephone strike in British Columbia any action by the Minister of Labour is anticipated in the next 24 hours to assist both sides to reach an agreement?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: There has been no official request for federal intervention, but I can assure both parties in this dispute that if such a request is forthcoming we are ready to render assistance at any time. The house may not be surprised to learn that the Minister of Labour, who is in the west on official business at the present time, may be in informal contact with either or both of the parties.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Lewis: I have a question to address to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of a statement the minister made in this house on March 25 in which he said his department was considering a government program this summer to assist students, not merely to obtain jobs but also to obtain jobs which would have a socially meaningful content. I should like to ask the minister whether such a program has been initiated and, if so, how many students are now involved in it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As I recollect, I was referring to a long term consideration presently under way with respect to a possible program of this nature in a future year. It is not proposed to introduce a program of this kind during the present year, but it is one of the alternatives now under consideration.
July 10. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Would the minister undertake to make a statement in this house on the programs which the department does have with respect to student employment this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will undertake to make a progress report which will be available to the house, either by tabling it or by making it orally.


David Orlikow: When the minister makes that statement will he give 1his house the best information the department has on the extent of employment among university and high school students?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to outline the situation which is facing the country in respect of this matter.



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, could his parliamentary secretary tell us whether the cheques for the adjustment of subsidies to the producers of manufactured milk for the 1968-69 dairy year have been sent, and if so, when?
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a further question. Has the subsidy for April and May been paid and if so, when were the cheques mailed?


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the cheques will be issued from July 15 to the end of July, but since there are over 256,000 milk producers, some delays might occur. Starting July 15, we will start forwarding cheques to farmers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The parliamentary secretary answered insofar as the subsidies for April and May are concerned, but in connection with the adjustment for the 1968-69 dairy year, many producers have complained, that is at least what they told me, that they had not received anything as yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Cole:: Mr. Speaker, I answer again in the same fashion. Some have not received any cheques, because their production was equal

to the average production of the year. As to those who are entitled to subsidies, they will begin receiving them as of July 15.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. In the light of the disclosure by the Bank of Canada that the chartered banks are rapidly reducing their lending, and that loans were off by $20 million in one week alone, does the government intend to impose this tight money situation on all the regions of Canada equally, regardless of the economic conditions which face them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the Minister of Finance has commented on this aspect and indicated what he hopes the banks will do. He will be in the house tomorrow if the hon. member wishes to ask him a question.



ADDITION TO FUTURE DELIVERIES OF SHORTFALL IN QUOTAS

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt. Will those grain producers who undoubtedly will not be able to deliver their 5-bushel quotas by July 31 be permitted to add their shortfall to the 1969-70 deliveries?


Hon. Oiio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been in constant touch with the Wheat Board and with the railways in connection with deliveries of grain in order that quotas may be equalized, and the latest report is that the Wheat Board is still hopeful that the objective of equalizing delivery quotas at five bushels will be attained. The board has indicated that the railways are cooperating-and the minister himself was given their assurance-to do whatever is physically possible.



PEACE RIVER AREA-BOX CAR SHORTAGE

Gerald William Baldwin: Would
the minister make enquiries of the railroad companies and the Wheat Board to see what
July 10, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	11065
Inquiries of the Ministry
can be done to improve the position of farm- ter of Supply and Services. With respect to the ers in the Peace River area who have five or second part of the question, my officials met six million bushels of feed grain to sell, for this morning in a preliminary meeting with which there is a market in Canada but for officials of the Letter Carriers Union and which no box cars seem likely to be provided meetings will continue. One is already sched-at the present time?	uled for next week.


Otto Emil Lang: The indication I gave that the Wheat Board is hopeful of equalizing quotas applies to the Peace River district as well as to other parts of the country.



WHEAT-EFFECT ON SALES OF STRIKE OF VANCOUVER LONGSHOREMEN

Albert B. Douglas: Is the
threat of a longshoremen's strike at Vancouver having a detrimental effect on wheat sales via the west coast?


Otto Emil Lang: I have no report on any such effect as yet. I think it would not have such an effect at the moment, but I will be glad to look into this question further.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I had a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In his absence perhaps I can direct it to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister consult his colleague the Solicitor General, and perhaps Your Honour, with a view to making arrangements to supply a protective service of the R.C.M.P. to members of the Press Gallery?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister, after his Sherlockian search, has obtained a copy of the reports of April 30 and May 15 by Chief Adjudicator Martin, will he take steps to have these documents tabled in this house and will he also give consideration to making a statement on motions concerning the plans he has in mind to improve the department's role in the consultative process?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimaster General and Minister of Communications):: The tabling of the documents is not my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, but that of my colleague, the Minis-


Some hon. Members:: A supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, and this is the point at which I deliver my sermon, I feel very sincerely and deeply for hon. members who from the very start of the question period have been rising in an attempt to ask questions. When there are a number of supplementary questions, it becomes difficult for other hon. members to join the fray. The hon. member for Peace River has a supplementary question and perhaps we will allow him to ask it-


Gerald William Baldwin: I will forgo it, Mr. Speaker. When I ask the President of the Privy Council about the business of the house I shall be able to introduce it as a related question.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. In view of the adverse reaction on the part of municipal and port authorities of St. John's to the directive prohibiting the licensing of foreign trawlers on weekends and statutory holidays, will the minister pay regard to the importance of this matter and reconsider the order?
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and
Foresiry): We are reconsidering the order in the sense that we may be granting licences for a longer period of time. I want to assure the hon. member that every consideration is being given to applications made during normal working hours. We are, however, thinking of extending the term of the permit itself.



HALIBUT TREATY-SEIZURE BY U.S. OF CANADIAN VESSEL &quot;SHIRLEY ROSE&quot;

Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the Canadian halibut vessel Shirley Rose been seized illegally by the United States coast guard off west coast waters, and could the minister advise the house whether this international incident is an indication that the U.S. authorities are
July 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry no longer honouring the North Pacific Halibut Treaty?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of the U.S. authorities seizing Canadian vessels. Indeed the United States fish and wildlife authorities have reaffirmed that Canadians can fish in U.S. waters, just as Americans can fish in Canadian waters. The U.S. coast guard captain in question today reported that he did not order this vessel to leave the United States 12-mile zone, and this conflicts with the story given by the captain of the Shirley Rose that that was indeed the case.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Thomas S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; he will be relieved to know that it relates to an area of his responsibilities different from that about which he was questioned earlier. I should like to ask whether the department is any closer to establishing the first national park on the Pacific coast of Canada than it was when I asked him about this subject on an earlier occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Would the hon. gentleman inquire of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whether it is their policy to ignore the current debate in this chamber?



AGRICULTURE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put my question yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, I saw fit to wait until today. However, because of his absence and of the importance of the question, since it follows from the motion I moved yesterday for the adjournment of the house, I shall then put it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the net income of dairy producers was 8.7 per cent lower than that of the least prosperous year since 1961, and in view of the urgency of the situation, is the Prime Minister ready to tell us whether he intends to recommend to the Canadian Dairy Commission, through the Minister of Agriculture, to review that policy for the benefit of Canadian and Quebec dairy producers?


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, since that question should have been put to the Minister of Agriculture, with your leave, I shall take it as notice. Then the hon. member for Lotbiniere would know that the Minister of Agriculture has a parliamentary secretary.
Before referring this question to the minister, may I ask the hon. mmeber for Lotbiniere where he obtained his statistics pertaining to the percentage he has just quoted?


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, although time is running out I did have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Lotbiniere is rising on a point of order.


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


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have been happy to direct my question to the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Agriculture but I did not know there was one, since this is the first time that we hear him speak on behalf of the minister.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. In view of the urgent and very serious situation that is now existing in the province of Ontario as a result of the backlog of civil and divorce cases, I wonder whether the minister is in a position to advise the house when he expects to appoint additional Supreme Court justices to handle the backlog.

July 10, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	11067
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: What about Blair?	CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell the hon. member that there are no vacancies at the moment. Any request for new apointments must come from the Attorney General of Ontario. Then of course in the judges bill that appears on the order paper once a year, parliament provides for the salaries and expenses of these judges. But until I receive a request from the Attorney General of Ontario I cannot satisfy the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Communications in his capacity as Postmaster General. In view of the advice that appeared in a Toronto paper a few days ago to the effect that people should mail their Christmas cards now if they want them delivered on time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -
may I ask the minister whether he will confirm this advice, or is there a danger that by the time Christmas comes we might not have home delivery any more?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TROTTING RACES-REFUSAL TO LICENSE LADY DRIVERS

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he ask the minister to investigate whether or not Rule 17, section 1, of the Canadian Trotting Association rules and regulations, 1969, is contrary to the Bill of Rights, in that it declares the association's refusal to license lady drivers for extended meets who have not previously held such a licence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NEWSPRINT-INVESTIGATION INTO PRICING POLICIES

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the intended investigation by the United States department of justice into the United States paper industry and the notification that was sent to United States branches of Canadian firms, and also in view of the fact that the investigation may have been set off by a statement by the Canadian companies in connection with an intended newsprint price increase in early 1970, is it the intention of the minister to conduct an investigation into the pricing policies and conduct of these Canadian companies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member's question refers to the investigation that was launched before the grand jury of New York into the paper industry. We were advised some time ago on a confidential basis, pursuant to the Fulton-Rogers agreement, that this action was being taken. We have been advised that it does not involve any Canadian companies except one, Kamloops Pulp and Paper, which was served with a subpoena in error.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The Minister may take it as notice and give a full reply at a later date. Can the minister state whether the government is following a policy of increasing immigration, and what means are being employed to encourage people to come here in greater numbers?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will agree that what he is inviting the minister to do is to make a statement on motions. Perhaps the minister might like to make a brief reply.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider some method of getting the information to the hon. member.
July 10, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



WASHINGTON DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING QUOTA ON CANADIAN EMIGRATION

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question has to do, not with immigration but with emigration. In the recent talks in Washington last week with the minister's counterparts, was any formal protest made by the Canadian government to the United States government over the quota system imposed by the United States authorities last July which, in effect, through a quota on immigrants from the western hemisphere, militates also against prospective Canadian emigres to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we had a long discussion with the United States authorities and the two governments are establishing a committee to examine the best means of improving the situation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period expired some minutes ago. I did allow the hon. member a supplementary, and I tried previously to allow as many members as possible to participate in the question period. This is why I did not permit supplementaries that might have been allowed in other circumstances. Under the circumstances I would think that supplementaries might be asked again tomorrow. I will again attempt tomorrow to give priority to hon. members who did not have the opportunity of being recognized today.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I invite the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to outline in some detail the business of the house for the rest of this month and next month. Could he also give some indication of whether the government is to give some effect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), which was that the report of the chief adjudicator, Mr. Martin, be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the house.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the government's intention to proceed with government order No. 99. How long that is to be proceeded with will depend of course on how long the hon. member and his colleagues, to use the words of the Globe and Mail, maintain the filibuster they have begun. As for the suggestion of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), we have concluded that it will not be particularly helpful to make that reference at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has said that the government intends to proceed with item 99 on the order paper, does that mean that it is calling the government motion and that it will not proceed with the motion that is in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) ?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. For once the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is right. Item No. 99 was stood and we shall be proceeding with item No. 100.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, July 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the early part of my remarks yesterday that many of us feel available evidence points to the fact that the government has deliberately set out on a course of downgrading parliament and wishes to institute in this country what in effect will be a presidential system of government similar to that of France or the United States. I will support my contention by giving examples in a positive and not in the negative way as is the usual course followed in discussions like this.
One indication that the government seeks to downgrade parliament is to be seen in the enormous increase in the number of assistant secretaries in the Privy Council office and on
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
the Prime Minister's staff. Apparently they are usurping to a considerable degree the functions of the ministers who are responsible for the administration of the various government departments. This is one of the positive indications pointing to the truth of my contention. In the next few moments I shall deal with some of the more negative aspects of this trend.
There is ample evidence to show that in the year the government has been in office it has embarked on a policy of replacing the parliament of this country by what in effect is tantamount to a form of presidential government. All these innovations intended to downgrade parliament have been introduced as being beneficial and in the interest of updating parliament. These new ideas have been introduced in almost soporific terms, and it is clear that proposed rule 75c is one more nail in the coffin of parliament. Viewed in relation to all the other actions of the government to which I have alluded, it becomes clear that with respect to proposed rule 75c we cannot accept the assurances of the minister or the government.
As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said a few moments ago, the Globe and Mail, one of this country's leading newspapers, has alluded to the fact that a filibuster is going on. That newspaper does not trust the motives of the government or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Many of us here do not trust the government or the house leader, especially in view of what has taken place during the last year. Let me give some examples, Mr. Speaker.
First, let us consider the committee system. When the new committee system was set up it was said that it was a great step forward. Members of parliament were going to become specialists in fields they were interested in- agriculture, defence, transport, foreign affairs, health and welfare, and so on. All sorts of latitude was to be given to committees in calling evidence and witnesses. The committees were to be non-partisan and independent; they were to take over certain functions of the house with respect to the study of estimates and consideration of bills. It all sounded very fine and some of us thought the millenium had arrived.
Let us look at what happened, Mr. Speaker. First let us consider what happened with respect to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, it being probably one of the most notorious of our committees at the present time. I need not repeat to hon.
Procedure and Organization members what took place in that committee last fall except to allude to the fact that there are allegations before the house and before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to the effect that the government house leader tampered and meddled with that committee's report by leaving out recommendations made by the majority of that committee. There have been other developments which led to the replacement of the committee chairman by another member of the government party. Only recently it appears that someone on the government side has been playing checkers with the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. It seems that some government supporters who apparently did not agree with their colleagues were replaced, apparently without their consent and without being given notice.
Some hon. members may think I am making this up. Only this morning, in a meeting of that committee, one of the government's parliamentary secretaries brought up this matter himself. That is how serious it has become. It will be remembered that at great expense to the public purse that committee, with its staff of translators and others, was sent to the Atlantic provinces for several weeks to study the quite unique transport problems of that part of Canada. I can safely say, Mr. Speaker, that all members of that committee worked hard for long hours. They heard dozens and dozens of long briefs on the subject of transportation difficulties in the Atlantic provinces. The trip had one beneficial effect. It provided a very useful education to those members who went on the trip, albeit a very expensive education from the standpoint of the Canadian taxpayers. That trip certainly accomplished nothing else. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Because, having sent the committee to the maritimes to hear representations on matters like the Prince Edward Island causeway, a subject of considerable discussion over the years, and other matters, the government went merrily ahead before the committee had even returned to Ottawa with a decision in this area. In fact, it did so before the committee members had even time to write their report.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Another example is the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am not a member of that committee but I have discussed this matter with my colleagues the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and other members of that committee. Appar-
11070
July 10, 1969

Procedure and Organization ently the members of that committee travelled all over Canada, making appearances, asking questions and studying important agricultural matters. Again, the members of the committee derived great educational benefits from their travels at the expense of the taxpayers. Apparently the chairman of the committee, a government supporter of course, presented a report which had little relation to anything the members of the committee hadj been doing.
Then there is the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which is studying the question of tobacco and the alleged evil effects of smoking, as well as other interesting matters. Now that the minister has made known his determination to dispense with the tobacco industry, perhaps he might apply his attention to other industries whose activites may have an effect on health. Although committee members were studying the subject of tobacco and smoking, the Minister of National Health and Welfare disregarded the opinions of members of that committee and announced what the government intended to do.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is a thoroughly good example. The government said it wanted to review foreign policy, what Canada's role should be with regard to the United Nations, peace-keeping, and other fields. The 30 members of that committee, with a staff of translators and others, were sent to Cyprus, Germany, Sweden-to find out what the neutrals are doing-Switzerland, Britain and France. You name it-we went there. The committee spent long hours on the road. It spent a long time in drawing up a report and-you have guessed it, Mr. Speaker-the government did not pay the slightest attention to that report. Of course, just because a lot of hard work has gone into the preparation of a report does not mean that the government is obliged to pay attention to it. Nevertheless, after all the talk about participatory democracy and how individual members were going to work and contribute so much toward participatory democracy, this apparently is the result at the end of the first year of the government's term of office. I do not think these actions show that the government is particularly good or particularly convincing, but they certainly show that we cannot put great weight on what government supporters say.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The committees were to be non-partisan. They were to study matters carefully and

make independent recommendations. Some of us who have been here a while and know how government parties operate had some misgivings whether that would be done. Despite the fact there was a new leader and many new members, some of us felt that the old tendencies would linger on, and they did.
All committee chairmen except one are government appointees and the government has control of all the committees so far as membership is concerned. That certainly has always been the custom. Under the old parliamentary scheme that was quite proper, but we were going to have a new sort of committee system, openly copied from the United States, with committees having some independence. It has not worked out this way at all. While chairmen of committees are supposed to be analogous to Your Honour, I do not think all the chairmen have the experience and other attributes found in Your Honour.
Sometimes we have had difficulties in' getting the work done in committees. On some occasions government members have shown some independence, to their eternal credit. One instance was in the defence committee. There was a lot of arm-twisting in that committee but despite that a great number of government members maintained their independence, with the result that the committee report was ignored. When government members of the transport committee did not agree with their colleagues-I would hesitate to allude to this except that a senior member of the government raised the matter this morning-one would have thought a game of checkers was being played. They were removed from the committee and other members were substituted. One can hardly expect the committee system to operate satisfactorily in this way.
The government made pious pronouncements at the start of the year that the committees were going fo be independent and about all they were going to do. Then they treat them in this way. It is no wonder the people have very grave doubts about equally pious statements by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) as to the purpose of rule 75c.
I could spend the balance of my time giving other examples. I cannot help but lack confidence in the promises of the government. Take the roster system, for example. This is one more way to downgrade parliament. Without consulting anyone, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said it would make parliament more efficient. Certain ministers were to
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
appear only on certain days as they had work to do in their offices and questions were to be asked on the days they were present in the house. This had some logic to it. But what are the parliamentary secretaries for? They should be in the house when the ministers are not. On one occasion when someone wanted to ask a question of a parliamentary secretary, he was told that the parliamentary secretary was to be seen and not heard, just like a bad child. The whole purpose despite the reason given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), was to down-grade parliament and prevent questions being asked.
There are many other matters, one or two of which I have already alluded to. I try not to be repetitious. Having been a member of the house for quite some time, I have noticed various things over the years. In the last few years some ill feeling has been engendered in parliament as a whole. I think hon. members will agree this has certainly prevented the satisfactory working of parliament. You can have all the rules you want, but if people are not disposed to co-operate there Eire always means of evading the rules. No one knows of these attempts better than Your Honour.
There has to be a feeling of good will and mutual co-operation. Without that parliament simply cannot work. This parliament started off on the right foot., There were a number of new personalities in high places and 100-odd new members untainted by some of the activities and prejudices of the past. The picture looked pretty good. In some of the committees there were many new members from both sides of the house. Unquestionably they tried to get along and to be non-partisan. Their attempts have been frustrated by some of the leaders on the government side.
It is a great pity that the government house leader (Mr. Macdonald), no doubt at the behest of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is insisting on this rule being passed. Although the minister protests it is not very important, it is important enough to hold up the house for weeks in order to push it through. It is bad enough to attempt to cut off debate. I will not go into that because other members have discussed it on other occasions. But what is almost as bad is the fact that the atmosphere in the house is being soured by the activities of the government house leader (Mr. Macdonald). Once that is done, it cannot be undone. Once the atmosphere has been soured, members constantly eye each other with suspicion and no longer speak to each other in the corridors.
Procedure and Organization
We have had a good many difficulties in making the committee system work, but generally speaking there has been considerable co-operation in the house during the present session, perhaps better than in any other parliament since I have been here. Despite some difficulties in the committees, members try to work on a friendly basis. If the present atmosphere in the house is soured much more, I think it will be a very safe prediction that it will not be easy to conduct the business of the house in the future, and certainly it will be more difficult in committees.
I feel the whole plan of the government is to downgrade this institution and to replace it de facto with some form of presidential government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his two cohorts have indicated this is so. All the activities of the government in the present session of parliament have corroborated this evidence. I hope parliament will see fit to reject the attempt of the government house leader (Mr. Macdonald) to insist on forcing through rule 75c. As I have already said, such a rule would only be one more nail in the coffin of parliament, perhaps the last nail.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss an amendment to the recommendation contained in the report of the committee and, more specifically, to fight proposed rule 75c. We are ready to stay for the days and weeks that may be necessary to win this fight. Quite frankly, it is a matter of some regret to me that hon. members are compelled to stay here during a time when they could be doing something else. It is not quite as inconvenient for me and most of the ministers as it is for other members of the house. I have a home here, as have most of the ministers, but most of the other members do not. This situation is causing them not only a good deal of personal inconvenience but is preventing them from doing other things that urgently require their attention. I regret this, but we are dealing with a matter of the greatest importance and we must be prepared to fight just as long as is necessary.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Spokesmen for the government say that they need 75c in order to get through their legislative program. I say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that 75c, even if adopted, would not enable or assist the government in getting through its legislative program. The government can get through a substantial legislative program only with the co-operation of the
July 10, 1969

Procedure and Organization house based on an allocation of time in turn based on agreement among the parties in the house. If the opposition does not eo-operate, then whether 75c is in effect or not the government cannot hope to get through as much legislation in the next session as it did in this session.
It is a very simple thing for the opposition parties to use far more time than was taken this session on many measures that were before the house. I do not need to remind the house of how many opposition days, in the form of budget and other debates, the opposition parties gave up on the assumption that the government house leader (Mr. Macdonald) was acting in good faith and really intended to adjourn on June 26 or 27. We thought we were entitled to rely on his good faith, but I do not think any member of the house will ever do so again, at least on this side of the house.
I emphasize that it is only through co-operation of the parties in the house and allocation of time on that basis that the government can hope to get through a large legislative program. Proposed rule 75c would not enable the government to get through a large legislative program. It is nonsense for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) or the chairman of the appropriate committee to suggest that it would. I would even go so far as to say it is almost dishonest for any experienced parliamentarian to suggest that 75c would help the government to get through a heavier legislative program than is the case under the existing rules.
It is true that 75c would enable the government to bull through a particular measure, a particular project or a particular bill, but it would not enable the government to get through a substantial program. It would enable it to bull through a particular measure despite the need there might be for debate, despite the need there might be for the country to have adequate time to familiarize itself with the contents of a bill.
Seme suggestion has been made, though outside the house, that with modern means of communication there does not need to be as much time as previously for the country to become familiar with the contents of a bill before the house and to consider the measure. Sir, through you may I remind the house that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) introduced his taxation measure relating to estates, despite the fact that a number of us immediately directed attention on two occasions in the house to the significance of that measure it was really a matter of months,

certainly of weeks, before the country at large became aware of its significance, before the backbenchers on the government side became aware of its significance. It was only then that the country, the opposition and backbenchers on the government side persuaded the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to modify very substantially the proposal he was making to the house and therefore to the country. I mention this as an indication of the danger involved in 75c.
Proposed rule 75c will not do what the government suggests it would, even if this were desirable. It will not enable the government to bull through a large legislative program. It will simply enable the government to cut off debate on a particular measure when cutting off that debate would perhaps be the last thing that should happen.
The government now has the means for proposing closure to stop a protracted debate which it considers to have gone on for too long on a particular stage of a measure. It already has the ability and the right to impose closure. What the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is seeking is not power for the government to enact a bigger program but power to restrict the right of the opposition to examine particular projects. Rule 75c will do nothing to make the government more efficient. It will do a great deal to limit criticism when the government wishes to limit criticism and therefore limit freedom.
Rule 75c would not make parliament more efficient in handling the legislative program, but there is no doubt it would make closure more efficient with regard to particular measures. Closure as it now exists is noisy and messy. It is not the sort of thing that is done in Mount Royal today, at least not out in the open. Closure exists to choke off the right of the representatives of the people to express 1heir opinions, and it has been accepted because it is recognized that on certain rare occasions there ought to be this control of parliament. But it has been accepted with a caveat, with the knowledge that a government which adopts such a procedure must be prepared to pay the price for using it. It has always been the case so far that if a government wants to choke off parliament it runs the risk of getting some blood on its hands.
This is what the government wants to change. It wants to make its control of parliament less messy and more automatic. It wants to throttle parliament in a more genteel way. Sir, if members of this government were directors of Murder Incorporated they would
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
insist on a silencer, just as today they are insisting on a quiet kind of closure, but we will not let them get away with it.
From personal discussions I know that a good many backbenchers on the government side, particularly newer members, are impatient with debate in this chamber. I would like to make three comments about that. Some members on the other side take the attitude that the government was elected in a general election, that it was given power for four years, given the authority of the people of Canada to settle everything and to govern for a period of four years. In their view, therefore, the government goes ahead and governs, and debate in the House of Commons is irrelevant. In effect the members opposite who hold this view-it is not held by all of them but by some-wish to scrap the parliamentary system of responsible government. It is just as simple as that. They may mean well but they are a menace to a free society.
Second, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members opposite are bored with the debates that take place in the house, partly because they cannot take part in them and partly because they feel they have not been involved by the government in any meaningful role ini parliament. Therefore they are bored; therefore they are impatient with the time debate takes in the House of Commons.. Through you, sir, I want to tell them that parliament was not designed for their convenience, was not really designed to provide entertainment or interest for them. The purpose of parliament, of this house, is to expose the proposals of the government to examination and debate and, where necessary, to criticism, to provide time for the public to become informed and to react to proposals the government is putting forward to be enacted into law.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
To hon. members opposite who are impatient with debate in the house I say that proposed rule 75c will not accomplish what they want to be accomplished. Rule 75c will not in fact reduce the average length of debates in the house. It will enable the government to chop off some debates which it may be very important to have continued, but 75c will not enable the government to reduce the average length of debate. Indeed, if the government passes 75c and resorts to it the chances are this will provoke debate in the house on many occasions which would not otherwise be used for such debate. The only way the aim of increasing further the stand-
Procedure and Organization ard of debate in the house can be achieved, and the only way in which the effectiveness of the house can be further increased, is through co-operation and through the adoption of rules which carry the support of the house generally. Such rules were adopted last December.
I say with all sincerity that 75c will not accomplish the purposes of members opposite who are impatient with debate in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am afraid some hon. gentlemen opposite have been misled. Rule 75c should not be adopted, first, because it will not achieve the purposes some of the backbenchers have in mind. It will not achieve the purpose the President of the Privy Council says he has in mind of enabling the government to get through a bigger program. I do not think any experienced parliamentarian could really stand up in the house and say that the passage of 75c will in fact effectively enable the government to get through a bigger legislative program. All it will do will be to put the house on a collision course.
Hon. members opposite may have noticed an event which took place in the British House of Commons yesterday as a result of the application of the guillotine. I do not expect to be throwing things at the President of the Privy Council. I have too few things I would want to waste in that way. But this is the sort of thing which is provoked even in one of the most civilized parliaments in the world. Rule 75c will not do what the government is suggesting. It will simply cause a deterioration in the effectiveness of parliament.
Second, in any event the government has not shown the need really for getting more done. It has not shown the need for a drastic reform in this house of parliament in order to get any important program through the house. I would ask any hon. gentleman opposite what important program parliament has held up. One of the great problems' in this country today is that of constitutional reform. Has parliament held up the progress of constitutional reform? We all know that parliament has been kept out of the discussions on constitutional reform because of the narrowly partisan attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) toward the question. Discussion has been going on for over a year and a half. What is there to show for it? Now that it appears that the Prime Minister and the government are to be involved in an imminent failure with regard to their consultations in
11074	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization the constitutional area, there is some indication that parliament might be involved in a parliamentary committee on this subject. But what indication is there that parliament held up constitutional reform in this country? None, sir.
Another great problem is inflation. In what sense has parliament held up the fight, if you can call it a fight, of the government against inflation? I ask again, in what sense, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) took six months to set up a commission which was the only proposal the government had to fight inflation. In what sense has this parliament impeded in any way any measure the government had to attack inflation? None at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We might take another problem, that of the economic disparity which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others talk so much about. Has parliament held up the government's attack on economic disparity? It took the government a year to bring in its bill. How long did it take parliament to pass the bill when it was brought forward despite the vast powers the bill gave the minister? Parliament has not held up the government, sir.
Is parliament holding up the development of a sensible oil policy or a sensible agricultural policy? What about the attitude of the government toward Indian affairs? Has parliament held up the government? We were not even able to get a statement from the minister until two weeks ago and now we have no opportunity to debate it.
What about tax reform? I had not been long in the house in the fall of 1967 when the then Minister of Finance, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), solemnly assured the parliament of the day there would be a white paper on tax reform as near as possible to the beginning of 1968- January, 1968. Here we are in 1969. We were promised the white paper before parliament recessed. Now we are promised one some time during the summer. Has parliament held up tax reform?
What about the war against poverty? Well,
I do not need to ask any more questions. There is only one answer. Parliament has not held up these things. The truth is that the government has not known what to do in order to adopt valid and effective programs. The government has had no idea how to proceed. It obviously has been abysmally slow in making decisions.

DEBATES	July 10, 1969
Let us take the prices and incomes commission. I ask whether there is anything in the history of parliament to equal it. Imagine taking six months to appoint a commission like that. Imagine taking a year and a half to produce a white paper on tax reform. They talk about parliament being slow. The evidence is that the government is hopelessly inadequate in making decisions and placing them before the house.
Then we might consider the Woods report on veterans affairs. Where is the white paper in respect of that? Is parliament holding up veterans affairs? Not at all. These fellows opposite are just trying to blame parliament for their own inadequacies. They will not get away with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say that this government ought not to be given further authority. It is abusing the rule changes already made to expedite the business of parliament. Formerly the government or a minister would have had to come clean. A minister would have had to give an explanation to the house because if he did not his estimates would never pass. I do not suggest that we go back to those days but at least we did carry out the process of enabling the representatives of the people to get straightforward answers from the minister. We cannot do that any more. These gentlemen are hiding behind the new rules day after day and week after week.
When we try to find out from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), for example, the present status of discussions between the federal government and the provinces with regard to the entrenchment of his bill of rights, a matter which he insisted all along was of the greatest importance to the country, he refuses to make a statement to the house. When that poor devil, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), comes back from a meeting of the NATO ministers and makes a statement in the house, it is clearly a non-statement. He does not say a word. A year ago he would never have had his estimates passed by the house on the basis of that kind of statement. It is very clear that the ministers have taken advantage of the changes which have been made. Just to get his attention and so he will not feel I am overlooking him, I am sure there has never been a more bullheaded government leader in the house than the present one. This is not just a matter of my opinion.
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There are many independent observers in Canada who believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the coterie around him are deliberately trying to downgrade parliament. Here we have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) going out west and making a public statement about a legislative program relating to minimum wages; yet he had refused to give this information in the house. My colleague the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) asked time after time whether the government proposed to do anything about minimum wages. All we received were evasive answers or no answers at all. The Minister of Labour has shown his contempt for parliament by going out west and making an announcement on what the government proposes to do.
Rule 75c is the crowning glory of the first year of the just society. We must ask ourselves, is it not appropriate that this should be the year, and does it not really sum up brilliantly the style, the content and the record of this government in the first year of the just society? What could be more fitting than that this year should come to an end with those hon. gentlemen in the cabinet who have such a thirst for justice trying to get a firm grip on the throat of a minority parliamentary opposition? What could be more appropriate?
Behold the modem men who were going to make parliament and democracy mean something again, especially to the poor and the disadvantaged-literally millions of people in our Canadian society. Behold the politics of participation. Behold the government that excited the youth of Canada a year ago and has so disillusioned them since. Behold the just society-secretive, intolerant, vengeful, petulant, autocratic and childish.
The government probably feels it has to bring in 75c in the hope that it can blame parliament for its miserable record of accomplishment in its first year, so conspicuous for its under-achievement. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has blamed everybody else for the government's lack of action. He has blamed the provinces, he has hidden behind the constitution and he has whined about his treatment by the newspapers and the press. Indeed, Sir, the first session of Parliament with him as Prime Minister might well be described as being for him "the days of 'whine' and roses"-w-h-i-n-e.
What a dismal end to the first year of the just society-rule 75c! A year ago there were
Procedure and Organization high hopes and expectations throughout this country. Now for a whole year, on some of the most pressing economic, social, political and international issues in face of truly gripping human problems at home and throughout the world, the Prime Minister of Canada has played intellectual games. In answer to questions on urgent human problems, whether posed in this house or elsewhere, he likes to argue about how many angels can stand on the head of a constitutional pin. And the most depressing spectacle of all is that of ministers of the Crown trying to emulate him and in the process performing acrobatics with their intellects and contortions with their principles.
These are grown men, some of whom once had a little fire in their souls and some convictions in their heads and in their voices. Now they are all kept on an intellectual leash by their leader, led into the house three times a week and led out again three days a week.
I am sorry the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) is not here because he comes to mind as a once formidable debater and an experienced parliamentarian. He was one of the most important members of the Pearson government from 1963 to 1968. He has not made a speech in the house on a government measure since last Christmas. Even then he was put up to erect a verbal smokescreen behind which the government quickly withdrew rule 16a. There is a rumour in Nova Scotia that the minister fell down a mineshaft seven months ago and has not been heard from since.
What comes from all this submissiveness and where does it lead to? I commend for the study of all members opposite, in fact all members of the house but especially the backbenchers on the government side, the case of the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Blair). I do not think it is putting it too strongly to say that up until Tuesday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) was willing to use the hon. member and to see him destroyed as chairman of a committee and as a member of the house in order that the minister and the cabinet could get their own way. That is a fact. The minister cared nothing for the integrity, the reputation or even the pride of the chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Indeed, the handful of members opposite, some of whom waited on the President of the Privy Council, (Mr. Macdonald) perhaps in his office, on Tuesday morning should not think it was their entreaties that changed his mind. What changed his mind was that there was a motion coming from this side of the
July 10, 1969

Procedure and Organization house concerning the failure of the committee chairman to move concurrence in his report as he had been instructed to do. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) I am sure knew, or certainly should have anticipated, that such a motion was coming and that we would be prepared to discuss it for some time.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) withdrew the government order. Yes, he withdrew the government order standing in his name only because he wanted to keep 75c before the house, not because he cares one iota for the hon, member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) personally or as chairman of a committee, or for the committee system, for that matter. I ask any fair minded member opposite, especially those who saw the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) in his office on Tuesday morning, if the government is so casually willing to see one of its prominent backbenchers destroyed and to contribute positively to his destruction. Can anyone blame the members of the opposition for trying to hold on to the few prerogatives we have left in this house? Indeed, can anyone blame the opposition for being very wary of this government when hon. members on the backbenches opposite a few weeks ago had to send in their dear wives to plead with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for fairness and justice?
Rule 75c-what a grim and pathetic thing it is that this should be the triumphant climax to the first year of the just society. I do not for a moment believe that there are any new members,, not one of them, who ever thought that the just society would come to this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look who is coming out of the mineshaft.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not for a moment believe that hon. members who are fair and objective do not know perfectly well in their own hearts that the government has-


An hon. Member:: I think he is going to make another speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope so. That will be the first indication that the government is caving in. He will make a strong plea in favour of the government's position and then the government will yield.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tell your friends in the New Democratic party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hon. members who are fair and objective know perfectly well in their hearts that the government has not been pre-

vented by the opposition from bringing in the kind of creative and useful legislation that had been hoped for, and if any such legislation is ready we should be discussing it now.
Hon. members, especially the new members on the other side, know in their own hearts that it is not parliament that is destroying the reputation of the government and the governing party. Hon. members know from talking to their own constituents and their own friends who are not in politics how it happened that the just society, so-called, is becoming a term of derision, indeed a term of contempt.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: All they have to do is read the Gallup polls. That tells them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is our duty to fight. I point out to hon. members that the fight has already had considerable success because the retreat of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald)-I hope he will bring himself to listen to this because he may learn something-


Mr. Harkness:: That is not likely.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -was not just a procedural retreat. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) was forced to withdraw his motion; he was forced to change his method of proceeding. There was a procedural change in that sense. But the change that took place when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) yielded was not just a procedural change, because what we are now being asked to accept in the form of the adoption of the committee's report is substantially different from the proposal the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) put before the house.
Hon. members will remember that the committee's report contains three separate recommendations, 75a, 75b and 75c. Proposed Standing Order 75a provides for the allocation of time under a house order when there is unanimous consent among the representatives of all parties in the house. Proposed Standing Order 75b provides, in the motion we are now considering, for cases when there is agreement among the majority of the representatives of the parties. The chairman of the committee argued that this did not mean that the opposition parties, by agreeing, could compel an allocation of time. He argued, and probably properly, that there is no way of compelling a minister to come into the house and act on the agreement reached by the representatives of the opposition parties. That is probably a sound position.
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
However, it is necessary to consider 75b in relation to 75c. What is the effect? When can 75c be invoked by a minister of the crown? Proposed Standing Order 75c provides:
A minister of the Crown who from his place in the house at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings-
And so on. The minister can then move a motion. He has to state in the house that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b. Let us suppose there is a meeting and the representatives of the opposition parties all agree as to the time to be allocated to a certain proceeding and the President of the Privy Council does not agree; he does not accept it. He does not have to act on that agreement; he can come into the house and invoke 75c. Can he then come into the house and say there has been no agreement under the provisions of 75a or 75b? What is the opinion of the chairman of the committee on that one? Clearly he could do that under the motion presented by the President of the Privy Council, because that motion changed 75b and provided that there could be no agreement under 75b unless the representative of the government party was a party to the agreement. There is no doubt that had the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) been allowed to go ahead with his motion, he or a representative of the government could have invoked 75c, if adopted, every time the government did not agree with the opposition parties.
But can he do so under the report we are now being asked to adopt? It seems to me pretty clear that a representative of the government could not invoke 75c unless he is able to stand in his place and say there has been no agreement under 75a or 75b. In other words, he cannot invoke 75c with regard to the allocation of time on a particular measure if the representatives of the opposition parties are in agreement upon some other time allocation. I suggest that this is so. If my interpretation is right, the President of the Privy Council or anybody else speaking for the government in the house can make no use of 75c as long as the representatives of the opposition parties are in agreement among themselves as to how much time is to be allocated for a certain proposal before the house. If my interpretation is correct, the representatives of the opposition parties will control the allocation of time in the house as long as they are in agreement.
Procedure and Organization
I would suppose that as far as the rest of the life of this parliament is concerned, in view of the lessons the opposition parties have learned in dealing with the government the representatives of the opposition parties will have very little difficult reaching agreement among themselves in order to protect themselves against the government. It may very well be argued that 75c can be used. A minister could say that no agreement had been reached under 75a. I do not believe this is so, but the President of the Privy Council, the chairman of the committee or somebody else may argue it. If the argument is put forward, it will depend upon the ruling of the Speaker at the time. The Speaker will have to decide what 75c means as it is drafted. Does the government intend to push this rule through the house if, in fact, 75c can be invoked only when the opposition parties disagree within the meaning of 75b? Do backbenchers on the other side of the house understand that all the fighting now going on is to get a 75c that the government could use only in those cases when the representatives of the opposition parties could not agree among themselves? Whose tail is in the trap?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hello.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is the interpretation the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is making and he is taking that view, what is the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman's house leader?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker, if my friend would be patient.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is more than one tail in the trap.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister just came into the house and he can be patient for a few minutes. I shall not keep him too long.


Robert Muir: The
P.M. is allowing you to say something again, Allan, is he?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I assume from what has been said by hon. members opposite, and emphasized from time to time, that the government will not allow itself to be controlled by the opposition parties in regard to the allocation of time. Therefore, I assume the government
July 10, 1969

Procedure and Organization says that my interpretation is wrong. The most they can argue is that I am wrong and they are right. The most they can argue is that the Speaker would at some time in the future have to determine this question. We do not even know who the Speaker would be. I am not casting reflections on anybody, but we do not know who would be in the chair at the time the government put this up for decision. It is very clear, however, that the house should not be asked to consider ambiguous rules.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member acknowledges that there is ambiguity, then?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will argue that when the time comes. But I assume the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) will argue the other way. I assume he will argue that he can bypass 75b. I do not think members of this house should be asked to consider seriously a rule about which there will be serious argument as to what it means. I think it is an absurdity for the government to insist that we consider 75c in relation to 75b.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question? If he feels it is absurd to consider it in its ambiguous state, would he be agreeable to considering the motion in my name, in which the ambiguity is not present?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker, because the minister's motion was altogether improper. It involved trampling on the committee system, and he has withdrawn it in any event.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad to see the government is listening to me now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) should not mislead the house by saying that my motion was withdrawn. If he looks at page six of the order paper he will see that it still stands.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We should not be asked to consider adopting a rule which is ambiguous.
I do not think anyone on the other side will argue that it is clearly what they say it means. It is clearly ambiguous. Clearly, it ought not to be proceeded with. Clearly, it is an affront to the house, and clearly it should be withdrawn. I emphasize that I do not 
accept 75c even on my interpretation, even putting aside those who say they agree with what the house leader said about its meaning. It would not be satisfactory on that basis. It would not be satisfactory on the basis that it would only be used when the representatives of the opposition parties could not agree among themselves as to allocation of time.
I cannot accept 75c because in the first place the government has not shown that anything of this kind is necessary. The failure has been in its own policy and in the development of its own policy. It has not been a failure of parliament. Second, the adoption of 75c would not help the government to get through a larger legislative program; it would simply enable the government to cut off debate from time to time. So I cannot accept it on either of those two counts. Furthermore, I repeat that the government is not to be trusted with any more authority, as has been very clearly demonstrated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In addition, I do not think this house should consider 75c or anything like it in any form without a more adequate provision relating to the time during which bills are before the house for consideration. It is absurd, in its present form, that any bill could be passed in ten days, for example. There will be many occasions on which the public would not have any idea of the implications of a bill in this context.
Second, I do not think it would be proper to consider anything like 75c even if someone could satisfy me-it has not been done so far and I do not think it can be done-that it would enable the government to get through more business, and that it is parliament which is holding up legislation rather than the government. There would have to be, for example some structural safeguards with regard to 75b concerning the kind of meetings which would take place, the kind of effort to reach agreement among representatives of the opposition with regard to the allocation of time, and so on. There would have to be minutes kept. The group would have to be presided over by someone a good deal more conciliatory than the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who is probably the last man in Canada likely to achieve agreement.
Rule 75b should be strengthened at this stage. This is what we should be doing now. We should be strengthening 75b so that it relates to a more formalized structure, so that the meeting is presided over by somebody
July 10, 1969

with a more independent and conciliatory-point of view. And we should be sure that a real effort is made to achieve agreement. We do not want to take any chances on the President of the Privy Council calling some kind of meeting, saying that the leaders of the opposition parties cannot agree, and coming to the house immediately to announce that he cannot get agreement under 75b. What we should do is strengthen 75b and make it a useful instrument for the allocation of time in the house. Until we provide some safeguards there, we are not prepared to consider anything like 75c.
In other words, the house should send this report back. The house should accept the amendment of my hon. friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). The leader of the house has not only made a fool of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) but of all the backbenchers on the other side, according to my interpretation of what is being done. In any event, placing 75c before the house with all its ambiguity, while there is a lack of proper safeguards in 75b, amounts to wasting everybody's time, including the house leader's. He had better agree now to send the report back to the committee. Let him accept the amendment and let us get on with the business of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the concluding remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), particularly those in connection with the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I think the hon. gentleman unconsciously stumbled on the reason for the presentation of that motion. It was presented, of course, in order to clear up the ambiguity in 75b. If anybody wishes to compare the report presented by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) with the motion appearing in today's order paper, he will find there are two significant differences. The first is in rule 75b. I will read it as amended:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the house, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties, including that of the government, have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a private bill, he may propose a motion, without notice-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The significant change is "including that of the government". That would eliminate the

Procedure and Organization ambiguity to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) properly drew attention. The reason for it is that there is a difference of opinion between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the members of the New Democratic party. For proof of that one need only go to Hansard for July 8, page 10965, and a question asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The question is:
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 including the representative of the government party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that is a nice little point on which one could spend time and not have time to deal with other matters.
Then after one or two interruptions the hon. member went on:
If I 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.
That was the hon. member's reply, and it is the reason the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) moved government order No. 99.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When he is discussing the wording of 75b, will he distinguish between the question whether 75b requires clarification for its own sake and what would happen when 75c is called? I quite agree with the view taken on the other side of the house that 75b does not need clarification for its own sake but, as I said the other day, the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) with regard to 75c is another matter.


John Mercer Reid: My response to the hon. member is that I tend to the view that 75b for its own sake does not require further clarification. I
Procedure and Organization also accept that if that is accepted in the first case it also applies equally well to the second case, which is the application to 75c.
My feeling is that there does have to be some clarification of the two rules taken together. I fully appreciate and support the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in that, before the order is adopted, there must be some clarification in respect of 75b, as well as 75c, to which an amendment has been moved. The problem would be to work out some appropriate method of dealing with the question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Then let us send the report back to the committee.


John Mercer Reid: I think we will have to have some form of motion moved during this debate to send the matter back to committee, with specific instructions to clear up this ambiguity.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then do it now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit a question? If I am prepared to alter my amendment to so provide, would the hon. member be prepared to second it?


John Mercer Reid: I do not think I could accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) because of its effect to 75c. But if the hon. member moved a motion to send 75b back to the committee for amendment, I would certainly support it.
I would go even further and say that I would be prepared to support an amendment to 75b that would recognize the position of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as an officer of this house, so that in implementing 75b any majority would have to have the support not only of the government party but also that of the official opposition.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
I should like to deal with one argument that has been raised in respect of the proposed rules 75a, 75b and 75c with regard to elapsed time. How much time would it to take to impose 75c during the course of the passage of a bill? We have had a number of estimates and I have made one of my own which is made up of a day to day schedule.
On day one you would have first reading of the bill. On day two you begin debate on second reading, with notice being given of 75c. On day three you would have the two-hour debate and the order approved. On day four you would have a one-day debate on second reading with referral to committee. On day five you would have the commencement 
DEBATES	July io, 1969
of the committee proceedings, plus the motion giving notice of 75c in the house. On day six you would have the two-hour debate under 75c; the committee could sit while this was going on. On day seven you would have a full day's sitting in committee, as provided for under Standing Order 75c. On day eight you would have the report of the committee to the House of Commons. On day nine you would have the delay in proceeding imposed by standing order 75, which is the provision of 48 hours' notice. On day ten you would have commencement of the report stage and the moving of Standing Order 75c. On day 11 you would have the two-hour debate under 75c. On day 12 you would have one full sitting day on the report stage. On day 13 you would have a full sitting day for third reading of the bill. That amounts to 13 days of sittings, which is two and a half weeks of sitting time.
In addition, when dealing with the question of elapsed tune we have also to consider that no matter how you slice it you still have two weekends intervening. This means the amount of elapsed time is increased from 13 days to a total of 17 days. I need hardly remind hon. gentlemen that it is on weekends that some of us make our political impact, particularly on the available electronic media such as television-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be so modest.


John Mercer Reid: -which greatly assist the dissemination of news and events for the edification of the voters. The major television public affairs programs are aired over the weekend.
I do not feel that the proposed 75c is the threat to democracy that it is: made out to be. May I indicate what the mother of parliaments has done in regard to implementing closure. I should like to read into the record their Standing Order 31 which deals with closure of debate, and also the business committee formed under standing order 43. Standing order 31 reads:
After a question has been proposed a member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put," and unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, "That the question be now put," shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.
2.,, When a question "That the question be now put" has been decided in the affirmative, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, a member may claim that any further question be put which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair, and
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
if the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, be not withheld, any question so claimed shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.
3.	When a clause or schedule is under consideration, a motion may be made that the question, that certain words of the clause or schedule defined in the motion stand part of the clause or schedule or "That the clause (or the clause as amended) stand part of the bill", or "That this schedule .(or, this schedule as amended) be the schedule to the bill", or "That the clause or schedule be added to the bill", be now put and if the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, be not withheld, the question on that motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.
4.	This order shall be put in force only when Mr. Speaker or, in committee, the Chairman of Ways and Means or Deputy Chairman is in the chair; except that,
(a)	during any proceedings on or in relation to the business of supply, and
(b)	during proceedings upon consideration of the report of a bill,
the order may be put in force when Mr. Deputy Speaker is in the chair.
Standing order 32 reads:
If a division be held upon a question for the closure of debate under Standing Order 31 (closure of debate) that question shall not be decided in .the affirmative unless it appears by the numbers declared from the Chair, that not less than one hundred members voted in the majority in support of the motion.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
That is the effective rule under which the British parliament operates as a matter of course.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that these rules precipitated a major row in the British House of Commons in which nearly 500 members mounted a clamour of insults over a decision by government leader, Fred Peart, to impose a guillotine on a controversial bill, and that in this row members hurled books and paper missiles at each other? The row was unlike anything the United Kingdom house has seen for a very long time. Is he aware of this?


John Mercer Reid: If the hon. member wishes to refer to the overseas edition of the Times he will find in there a full report of the debate. He will be interested to learn that the row broke out over the provisions of the United Kingdom redistribution of boundaries act. It seems that the Socialists were trying to gerrymander electoral boundaries and so prevent the Tories from winning the next election.


James Aloysius McGrath: But that is not a federal parliament.

Procedure and Organization Mr. Reid: I should like to continue by reading British standing order No. 43, some aspects of which, incidentally, have not been effective because they have not been generally accepted by the people directed to perform certain duties, namely the chairman's panel. I quote rule 43:
There shall be a committee, to be designated the Business Committee, consisting of the members of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker in respect of each bill to which subparagraph (b) of this order applies. The quorum of the committee shall be seven. The committee-
(a)	shall, in the case of any bill in respect of which an order has been made by the House, allotting a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House or on report, divide the bill into such parts as they may see fit and allot to each part so many days or portions of a day so allotted as they may consider appropriate;
(b)	may, if they think fit, do the like in respect of any bill to the consideration of which in committee of the whole House or on report a specified number of days or portions of days has been allotted by general agreement notified orally to the House by a Minister of the Crown; and
(c)	shall report their resolution (or resolutions) to the House, and on a motion being made for the consideration of such report, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and on consideration of the said report the question "That this House both agree with the committee in the said resolution (or resolutions)" shall be put forthwith and, if agreed to, shall have effect as if it were an order of the House.
Proceedings in pursuance of this subparagraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
I have quoted some of the rules under which the British parliament operates and I find it difficult to believe that these rules, much more onerous than proposed rule 75c, could be regarded by opposition members as being destructive of democracy. In any event, it appears that the opposition in the United Kingdom has performed under those closure rules to such good effect that it seems very likely the Tories will win the next election. And those rules are far more Draconian than proposed Standing Order 75c. The opposition's argument that democracy is going to collapse because of these new rules just does not make sense.
We must ask ourselves, who really is to run parliament?


An hon. Member:: Who is to be master?


John Mercer Reid: Precisely. Someone must be master. We can go a long way if there is co-operation and good feeling, and I expect that this will be the main way in which we
July 10, 1969

Procedure and Organization will proceed. But to judge from our experience over the last eight or nine years, we know that we do not necessarily proceed that way. We must therefore provide some means for the government, which is responsible to the people, to bring matters to a head. A decision has to be made and it seems to me that the residual responsibility for the conduct of business in the House of Commons must belong to the government party, that party which has been given responsibility for the conduct of the nation's business by the Canadian electorate. The residual responsibility must therefore rest with the governing party. An article in today's Globe and Mail by Mr. George Bain makes that clear. I wish to read one small part of his argument since it illustrates clearly the position in which we find ourselves:
It would be In any government's own interest to try to get agreement on a time allocation-why provoke howls of outrage needlessly?-but, if there is to be a time allocation procedure at all, the power to propose must rest somewhere to be used on those occasions when agreement proves impossible.
I suggest that the government, in its proposals, wishes to accept that responsibility. In cases when no compromise is possible, when honest consultation has failed, the government feels that it must use its majority. It has the power to use its majority, and that majority ought to be made use of by the government. For the opposition to say that responsibility for action in this field rests with it is a travesty of democracy. The opposition is not elected to govern. It is elected to oppose.


An hon. Member:: That is just what we are doing.


John Mercer Reid: It has a duty to point out what it considers weaknesses and shortcomings in the government's program. Once it has done that its responsibility is discharged. The government, on the other hand, has its responsibilities to discharge and it will stand or fall during the next election on how it has discharged those responsibilities.


Mr. Dinsdale:: The tyranny of the majority.


John Mercer Reid: The opposition seems to imply that the moment proposed rule 75c is incorporated in'o the Standing Orders of the house, the world will end. I do not think it will. This rule is merely a modification and extension of changes that were introduced last December. In any event, I suggest to hon. members of the opposition that the House of

Commons is not the only democratic institution in this country. Parliament includes the Senate, and in the past the Senate has applied a brake to the activities of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


John Mercer Reid: I thought my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would appreciate my remark.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. Would he mind reverting to the earlier part of his notes and explain in detail what he meant when he said that he would consider seriously sending this report back to the committee? His remarks were somewhat ambiguous and for the edification of the house perhaps he would not mind elaborating on what he meant.


John Mercer Reid: I am sorry if I was not clear. What I said was that under proposed rule 75b the Leader of the Official Opposition ought to be recognized. The two minority opposition parties should not be in a position of forcing their decisions on this house, along with the government, on the official opposition. The Leader of the Official Opposition, being a responsible officer of this house, should have an important role to play under this proposed rule. 1 point out that here I do not speak for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) or the government.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We are aware of that.


John Mercer Reid: That is the position I have taken, and I think it quite defensible.
It is important to remember that under the new rules bills will be before the house for a period of 13 days of elapsed time plus two weekends, or a total of 17 days, long enough for people to be made aware of the substance of bills. Although the House of Commons is the most important institution in our democratic system, it is not the be-all and end-all of democracy, being merely an institution which reflects in its make-up and membership the wishes of electors who have elected their members to parliament in order to carry out a certain program. The government has certain time at its disposal to carry out that program. It is when debates take far longer than they should, when they continue long past the day when a decision ought to have been taken, that the very institution of parliament is held in odium. The whole concept of democracy suffers then because people ask how we can govern them if we cannot govern
July 10, 1969	COMMONS
ourselves. I feel that this has been one of the factors in the public's disenchantment with parliament and the democratic process in general.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is important to realize that in years gone by it may have been necessary to take four, five or six months for an issue to percolate across the country. But the electronic media have changed this.
I, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), wish to give examples to indicate how radically our whole political system has been transformed by the growth and effectiveness of the electronic medium. Slightly over 90 per cent of the country is now covered by television. When the Pearson government was defeated in February, 1968, the battle over the defeat of the government respecting a money bill was fought not so much in this chamber but over the television air-waves and in the rotunda of this building. It was fought through interviews on television with the Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, and with leading spokesmen of the opposition. When we received the feedback and when the public had made their decision, opposition ceased and the government was sustained in power.
The second point I want to make is that government issues are not brought down to the floor of the House of Commons out of the blue. There usually is a long debate in the body politic before that issue arises in the form of a government motion or bill. It is important to realize this because we have opted for a system of consensus politics in Canada. There are very few issues that have not been vetted before the public first and that have not been the subject of debate in election campaigns prior to coming before parliament.
As an example of this, I wish to refer to the report of the Carter Commission on tax reform. This indicates some of the studies and the amount of public debate that have been carried on in cons-equence. First of all there was debate in the house and across the country which led to the appointment of the royal commission. Then there was debate on the terms of reference of that commission. Then there were the public hearings when submissions were made to that commission. Then followed the report of the commission and public debate on the report. Now there is to be a white paper. There will be public debate respecting the white paper. There will be public debate with regard to that white paper
Procedure and Organization when it is sent to committee. There will be committee hearings, a committee report, a government bill and finally it will begin its way through the House of Commons.
This will probably be one of the most important bills we will deal with in this House of Commons. The policies of the government will probably be acceptable to most of the Canadian population. We will concern ourselves in this House of Commons with the details and application of those policies. I suggest it is not necessary to take innumerable months of time to discuss this bill intelligently.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the hon. member permit a question? I wish to ask the hon. member on what grounds he speaks: with such confidence that the government proposals in the tax reform bill when it is introduced in parliament will be generally accepted by the Canadian people? How does the hon. member know that now?


John Mercer Reid: The only way I know that is because of how the Canadian political system operates. Very seldom do the extremists get into power, as I am sure the hon. member and the party of the other extreme realize. Normally items introduced by a government have a great deal of public support because political parties tend to aim for the middle of the political spectrum. That is where the majority is. You can be sure the government will introduce measures: which are generally acceptable. There are minor exceptions. We all admit that. Generally speaking, though on a matter of importance there can be absolutely no doubt that the government will do what it thinks the majority of the electors wants it to do.
Another example is the genesis of the national Broadcasting Act which followed almost that same pattern. You can look at the public debate which was initiated and to a large extent sponsored by the government-


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about 75c?


John Mercer Reid: That was vetted before. We had about six reports from the committee on procedure. There was a good debate on rule 16a last December. The matter has been raised before. I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that this is an item on which the public is fully informed. I suggest 75c will find general approval among the electors of Canada.
The last aspect I wish to deal with is the type of government we have in Canada which
July 10, 1969

Procedure and Organization can be described as not only democratic but responsible. The government is responsible tor its actions. In the United States they have a system of government in which there is no responsibility when something goes wrong. If there is runaway inflation do you blame the President, the House of Representatives, the Senate or the Judiciary? You can almost blame all three branches equally at times simply because they do not work in concert. When something goes wrong in the Canadian system, the people have a very good idea where they should point the finger namely, at the government in power.
If this is the way our system is to operate, the government must have the power to control the business of the House of Commons because it is responsible to the electors and to the House of Commons. All members of the governing party are members of the House of Commons and they ought to be considered equally with all other members. It is not a question of parties having individual or equal status, but of parties having certain support in the House of Commons and being permitted to go ahead and determine the conduct of business as they see fit according to that support given to each party by the Canadian people.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the hon. member permit a further question?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member in almost the same breath said that the government should control parliament and then said that the government is responsible to parliament. How does the hon. member reconcile those two statements?


An hon. Member:: Because he is a Liberal.


John Mercer Reid: The government does two things. The government carries on the administration of the country through the members of the Privy Council. The ministry has members in the house to support it. As long as the ministry has the support of the backbenchers in the party it remains in power if it is, of course, in a majority position. In a minority parliament it depends on the support of a majority of the house. If it loses that support, it goes out of power. I do not see any contradiction in what I said.
On the grounds of responsibility it is far better for the responsibility for the conduct of business of the House of Commons to rest with the government and not with the opposition parties or the minor parties. I think rule

75c is a reasonable compromise. I myself think that 75c is not sufficient because it does not go far enough. I would have preferred to see something more along the lines of the British system. I recognize this is an evolving system in Canada. We have not yet come to the state where we can discipline ourselves in order to deal with our workload. Therefore we must approach this over a period of time, taking it step by step.
Most of the reasons for opposition to 75c are not justifiable. 1 commend rules 75a, 75b and 75c to the house. I suspect that in three, four or five years after 75c is adopted we will be back looking for a much more effective system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of the reference the hon. member made to the nature of our system, will he answer this question? When the people of Canada go to the polls, do they elect a government or a parliament? Perhaps when he is answering that question he might also answer this one: Is the government responsible to parliament or does it go over the head of parliament to the people?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Mercer Reid: That is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to think I was elected to the House of Commons as an individual to represent my constituents. Coming from a rural riding this may perhaps be true, but I rather suspect that the majority of the members here were elected to this house because they belonged to a particular political party with a particular political program. Therefore my answer would be that the majority of the members owe their presence here to a political party with a program. There is another group here because of tradition or who, if you wish, have pocket boroughs, or who came here on individual merit.
I would say we now elect a government and an opposition. I do not think we come here as individuals. I think that once the democratic system or parliamentary system evolved into a mass democracy, and evoked a system in which parties were responsible to the electors, we came here as members of political parties. I suggest to the hon. member that this point is recognized for the first time in proposed Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c, and I think the greatest break with tradition is 75a in which we have said that the parties shall have the responsibility for determining the business of the house, and that the mavericks who exist in all parties, and the
July 10, 1969

independents who come here from time to time, shall no longer have a voice by refusing unanimous consent and enforcing their veto in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member try again to answer my second question? Is it not a fact that under our system the government is responsible to parliament?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, the government is responsible to parliament as long as it maintains the support of the House of Commons, which in practical terms in the House of Commons means the support of its own backbenchers if it be a majority, and the support of members in opposition if it be a minority. But as I said I do not think we were elected as individual members of parliament. The brutal fact is that we came here as members of political parties, and we shall live or die on the hustings as our parties perform.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) -Post Office Department-Vancouver-Dissatisfaction of letter carriers with five day delivery; the hon, member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Unemployment Insurance- government policy respecting modification of operation; the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner)-Water Resources-diversion of waters from Hudson and James Bays.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, and before the next member rises to his feet I wonder if we could have permission to revert to motions to attempt to pass the order again which has1 been so much desired by members of all parties serving on the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments?

Procedure and Organization Mr. Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this motion was proposed yesterday by the minister and we did not agree merely because we did not have time for consultation and had not been notified. There is no objection at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no objection here, either. This is another of those examples of what can be done by consultation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as to the question of non-notification I would point out that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) insisted that this order be moved yesterday, and again today. If there is general agreement perhaps the following could be made an order of the house: That the powers of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, appointed by order of the house on September 30, 1968, be extended by adding the following powers:
To consider and, from time to time, to report on the adequacy of existing statutory authority for the making and publication of statutory instruments and on the adequacy of existing procedures for the drafting, scrutiny, and operational review of such instruments, and to make recommendations with respect thereto.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it so ordered?
Some hen. Members: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, which in my opinion centres around rule 75c, I find it most easy to support the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the report be referred back to the Standing Committee on. Procedure and Organization. I believe all reasonable and intelligent members realize that if there is to be a reasonable attempt at co-operation in the house this report must be referred back to the committee, particularly since debate has centred around one portion of it. Having referred it back, surely reasonable men could reasonably
COMMONS DEBATES	July 10. 1969
Procedure and Organization
discuss the problem and bring about a solution that would avoid a long drawn-out debate.
It amazed me that the last speaker in this debate, the Liberal-Labour member for Keno-ra-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), spoke about the residual responsibility having been given to the governing party by the electorate. In fact it surprises me very much that he runs under the name Liberal-Labour. I am certain that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) at this particular time, and wherever he may be in his travels, must find small chills going up his spine when he hears of the Liberal-Labour member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) talking about residual rights.
Labour has well documented its case that it does not believe in the managerial prerogative. I suggest that what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) advocated in his speech was managerial prerogative to the worst degree possible, because proposed rule 75c is recognized as nothing but managerial prerogative. I suggest that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has made it very clear that he does not believe in the theory of residual right or authority but believes in the rights of individuals, whether in management or labour, to express themselves as they see fit. In fact he does not believe in such a thing as a managerial prerogative or labour prerogative and recognizes that there must be co-operation.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is now suggesting something that is heartily disliked by those people who possibly supported him because he ran under a partly labour banner. I hope that he will have an opportunity later this month, or next month, to speak on another amendment to the motion and clarify his position in this regard.
When speaking of proposed rule 75c I think we should at this time assess the responsibility of the person introducing this proposal. Somehow or other I find it difficult to think that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) introduced it, but I find it quite easy to suggest and think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) issued the running order to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and that he had no alternative but to follow those directions. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the items that are listed under this heading hon. members will be aware of the fact that the first four are in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Grli-kow), and that they are similar in the papers that they seek. My colleague has suggested, and I put it forward on his behalf, that the house might be willing to deal with all four in one motion or one debate. In other words, if there is to be debate we would accept the one hour and 40 minute limit to cover all of them, and if there is a vote we would accept the one vote to cover all four.
If hon. members will look at them they will see that we are not trying to pull a trick of any kind. It is a straightforward matter. It is a case of dealing with these four motions in a way that will make more time available for some of the other notices of motions for the production of papers that are on the order paper. This could be done by having the debate on the first one and when it is disposed of we could consider that the other three have been disposed of, or there could be unanimous consent to consider the four of them as one motion.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I can say that we have no objection to the four motions being discussed as one. We have no objection to the procedure outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Further, Mr. Speaker, if there is a vote, one vote will suffice and the time limit of one hour and 40 minutes will apply to the one debate on all four.


Yves Forest: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, before you call the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) I wonder whether we might have the unanimous consent of the house to call notice of motion No. 63. At the time the motion was made the agreement referred to

July 10, 1969
Study on Manpower
in the motion had not been finalized. It has now been finalized. If we had consent we could file the information requested by the hon. member and clear the motion from the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. gentleman is now offering to table the correspondence without any reservation, which was the intention of my original motion. If this is the case I shall be very happy to accept the order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, there was the question of finalizing the correspondence and obtaining the consent of the province. This has now been done. I think we could make the information available to the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I will accept the order, Mr. Speaker.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the four motions which were moved on February 12, 1969 arose out of questions which I asked with reference to the studies done by these companies for the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Question No. 1042 asked about a study done by Belanger, Ouellette and Associates Inc., for which the department agreed to pay $50,000. Question 1043 dealt with an arrangement made by the department with Operations Research Incorporated under which the department agreed to pay $165,000 for the study. Question No. 1044 dealt with an agreement made by the department with Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company under which the department agreed to pay that company $24,000. Question 1045 dealt with an agreement made with Operations Research Industries under which the department agreed to pay just over $98,000 for some research.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
could be agreed, Mr. Speaker, that order No. 63 be now passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We might first have the motion and it could be agreed to in the normal procedure.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba with respect to transferring part of the cost of Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act projects from Ottawa to the provincial governments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


David Orlikow: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study done for the Department of Manpower and Immigration by Belanger, Ouellette and Associates Inc., Montreal, Quebec.
These are just four small examples of a practice with which we are being faced more and more. I refer to the practice of government departments hiring outside consultants to do specific studies. I should like to make certain observations about these studies. This practice is continuing and accelerating at a time when the government, pleading poverty and the need for caution, has put a freeze or a semi-freeze on the hiring of public servants. The government has directed the public service not to increase its staff on the one hand and on the other hand has encouraged the public service to expand and increase expenditures to a very great extent through the hiring of private consultants.
In the summary of estimates for the year 1969-70 prepared by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or under his direction members can see that the amount of money allocated for professional services-I presume the hiring of consultants is included in this figure- is $396 million, an increase from $329 million last year, or an increase of $67 million. This is a rather sharp increase at a time when supposedly the government wants the public service to be cautious.
Not only is this increase of 20 per cent very-sharp but it also goes against every basic principle under which we are supposedly operating. When the government wants services or wants to purchase supplies or equipment the usual practice is for it to call for public tenders so that the people who are qualified to provide the equipment or anything else which the government wants can make a public tender indicating that they will do the job for such and such an amount.

Study on Manpower
Members need simply look at the answers to questions in the orders for returns filed for my colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) to see how in case after case the government has given the contract for such studies to some company without calling for a public tender.
I do not know what particular qualifications these companies and individuals have but I am suspicious enough and have been in politics long enough to be reasonably certain that none of these people are antagonistic to the Liberal party or to the Liberal government. As a citizen of Canada and as a member of parliament I resent these substantial amounts of money being paid to people partly at least because of political patronage. I say it is not only wrong but immoral for this to be done.
Let us look at how these things are done. Let us take, for example, the Post Office Department. The Post Office Department, to say the least, is in a mess. Never in my years of public service which now go back almost 25 years have I seen a report made by an impartial person so critical of a department as the three reports made by the adjudicator about the workings of the Post Office Department. Mr. Martin's reports are a real condemnation of the operation of the Post Office Department. The department is in a mess. Hon. members have been trying to tell the minister that since he undertook this job. What has happened since the minister has taken over the department? He has hired three or four consulting firms to prepare studies. Who lays out the terms of reference for these firms? Who tells them what to study and look at? The officials of the Post Office Department who permitted the department to get in the mess it is in. So it is those who have made the mess who instruct the consultants to undertake studies which will of course gloss over, because they know what ought not to be looked at, the mess which exists.
Then we have the final indignity. We are told repeatedly that these studies which are done for the government and which are paid for by the people of Canada who may or may not be Liberals-and more than 50 per cent of them did not vote Liberal in the last election-are private and confidential and belong to the minister and can only be tabled and made public if the minister so desires. It is my experience with Liberal ministers that they do not usually desire that these studies be made public, so they become essentially the private property of the government and 
July 10, 1969
the minister. I say that this is wrong in principle and that it involves a principle which the people of Canada increasingly will refuse to support.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Let me again direct the attention of this government and its ministers to the election which took place just a few days ago in the province of Manitoba. One of the important issues in that election was a large power development project on the Nelson river being financed jointly by the federal and provincial governments.
One of the problems which the hydroelectric system of Manitoba and the government faced involved the relocation of some 600 Indian and Metis people. It was proposed to move them from where they had been living quite well at South Indian Lake. The government of Manitoba and the hydro system commissioned a large number of studies into all aspects of what this move would mean in financial costs, social problems and so on. Despite all the requests by not only members of the legislature of all parties but by a university professor and other people concerned, the government of Manitoba refused completely to make public the studies that had been made.
The leader of the provincial New Democratic party will be the premier of Manitoba next week. He promised and has reiterated his promise since the election that all these studies will be made public so the people of Manitoba can know what were the findings and the recommendations, not the expurgated version which the former government of Manitoba tried to foist on them. That was a very important factor in the election campaign and in the election of our party as the government.
I suggest to the government of Canada that it get off its high horse and stop thinking it has some God-given right to be the government. It should stop thinking it will always be the government of Canada. There will come a time-I do not know whether it will be next week, three years from now or even eight years-when the Liberal party will no longer be the government. This happened in 1957. They will again be in the opposition and when that time comes I presume they will have the same desire as those of us now in the opposition to look at the documents which are prepared for the government in relation to problems such as those facing the people of Mani.oba. I suggest to the government that it
July 10, 1969

stop being so arrogant and start realizing that democracy, if it means anything, means that .all the people of Canada and all Members of Parliament have a right to be given as much information as possible.
I know there are some government documents that deal with personnel matters which cannot and ought not to be made public. I am not suggesting at this time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there are only 14 or 15 members present in the house. If that is the case there is no quorum and the house should be adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: According to the rules I will have to ask the Clerk to count the members in the house.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention that there are at least half a dozen members behind the curtains and they are all looking into the chamber.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the hon. member is mistaken.
Come in, gentlemen of the Progressive Conservative party.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago has now taken refuge behind the curtains.


Stanley Haidasz: There are six over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the rules.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who just put the question, is not even in the house. Under those circumstances, the request is not in order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like to point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who asked that the members be counted, is not even present. To my mind, this is against the rules.
I should also like to point out that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is the only Progressive Conservative member present in this house.
Study on Manpower


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
citation 60. You should read the rules.


Stanley Haidasz: Why don't you come in and read it for us?


Mr. Pilon:: You can stay out now; we don't need you at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I draw to the attention of the house citation 60 in Beauchesne's fourth edition which states in part:
Any member may direct the Speaker's attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present. The Speaker will proceed at once to count the house, and if there are not twenty members present, including himself, the clerk will take down the names, and the speaker will then adjourn the house without question first put until the usual hour on the next sitting day.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If you add up the number of hon. members present, you will see that we have a quorum.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I would like to point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who asked that the hon. members be counted, is not even in the house.


Prosper Boulanger: I ask that the hon. members be counted, Mr. Speaker. You will find that we have a quorum.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have just had a conversation with the Clerk Assistant who is busy taking the names down. Hon. members will be advised in a few moments of the names of those members who are present at this time. If there are more than 20 then the motion cannot be accepted.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: We don't need their names now. They can stay out.


Stanley Haidasz: Stay out and stick to your principles.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
On the count being made, 26 members were declared to be present.


Mr. Speaker:: The advice received from the Clerk Assistant is that the list taken of members present indicates 26 members in the House of Commons.

July 10. 1969
Study on Manpower


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For
the benefit of hon. members who seem to get a great deal of satisfaction out of the fact that I called attention to there not being a quorum and then went behind the curtain myself, I would refer to paragraph 60 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is to be found at page 48. We are now being told that we are going to play it according to the rules, and if hon. members will look at page 49 of Beauchesne they will find these words:
An honourable member need not remain in the house after giving notice that a quorum is not present.
Therefore, what I did was in accordance with the rules. The rule provides:
Any member may direct the Speaker's attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present. The Speaker will proceed at once to count the house-
I repeat, sir, "at once".
-and if there are not 20 members present, including himself, the Clerk will take down the names, and the Speaker will then adjourn the house without question first put until the usual hour on the next sitting day.
I submit that when the Clerk Assistant counted the names after I had drawn attention to the fact that there was not a quorum in the house, many of the members who are now here were not present at that time. What counts is the number of members present at the time the question is raised.


An hon. Member:: You were not present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was, and then I went out. I exercised my right under the rules. You want new rules around this place, and if you want to work to rules, that is what we shall do. The Chair waited five or seven minutes until more members came in, and then there was a list of 26 members. But when I raised the point of order there were, on a liberal count, 14 members in the house, perhaps even fewer than 14. I submit that the rule has not been complied with, namely, that there has to be a count at once. A count five minutes later does not meet the rule.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will have noticed that I was not in the house when he raised the point of order. The point having been raised, I was called back to the 
house, as the Speaker is in such circumstances, and when I returned to the chair I was advised by the Clerk Assistant that he did follow the instructions in the citation referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that there was some confusion when he made the count immediately because some hon. members were coming into the house and others were leaving.
The hon. member will realize that I was not here and I did not make the count. I have to go by the count which is given to me by the Clerk Assistant. The Clerk Assistant asures me that it was difficult, if not impossible, at that moment to determine exactly how many members were in the house. If I had been in the chair and it had been evident to me when the count was made that there were fewer than 20 members present, I would have had no hesitation in applying the rule contained in citation 60 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
I wonder whether I have any alternative but to accept the suggestion that a count was made and that this was followed by the usual taking down of names, which indicated there were more than 20 members present. I am placed in a difficult position; I have to accept the count which was taken by the table and about which I have been advised. I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would not agree that I have no alternative but to follow this suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
have no alternative, sir, but to accept the statement that was made to you by the Clerk Assistant when Your Honour reached the chair. That would be a report on the number of members then present. But I submit that we have the right to know-


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: You are still on western rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -what report the Clerk Assistant made to the Acting Speaker who was in the chair at the time this1 matter was raised. There is no doubt about this. We were behind the curtain; there wasn't a quorum before we went out, but when we went out the attendance dropped to about seven or eight. There was a total of only 14 members present when I raised the point.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am satisfied that when the Clerk Assistant
July 10, 1969

made the first count and reported to the Acting Speaker who was in the chair, he must have reported fewer than 20. What counts for the purpose of the rules is what happened then, not what happened later. I submit that stalling in this way is violating our traditions and the principles of citation 60. I submit that if we are to have the kind of rules this government wants, we had better comply with them to the letter.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should have quoted the paragraph in Beauchesne's fourth edition which precedes the one he read. That paragraph provides:
While the house is being counted the doors remain open and members can come in during the whole time occupied by the counting.
That is what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Yves Forest: While hon. members were running out, others were running in. I would ask hon. members to note that of the 26 members in the house at the time, one was a Conservative, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), one a Creditiste, and 24 were Liberals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to become involved in this matter, but I have no hesitation in saying that when I was in the house there were not 20 members present when the count was taken. As an observer I can say that there were not 20 members here-I do not make anything of it-including any who came in.


Stanley Haidasz: Name them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just say that, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: submit, Mr. Speaker, that there can be only one Speaker at a time, and when the Acting Speaker was in the chair and this point was raised there were not 20 members present. With the coming and going during the first count made by the Clerk Assistant, it did not produce 20 members. We were here; we saw what wasi going on. There were only 14, or 15 at most. Only when the second count was taken, ten minutes later, were there 26 members present. I submit that in terms of
Study on Manpower
the count made when the Acting Speaker was in the chair, which was reported to him by the Clerk Assistant, there could not have been 20 members present.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Georges-C. Lachance: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I note that under paragraph 3, which is not often used in such circumstances, the task of making the count of hon. members in order to see if there is a quorum does not rest with the clerk but with the Speaker himself.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have just learned something new.
I find it strange that responsible people like the members of parliament refuse to recognize an accomplished fact. I was here a while ago when the problem was raised. I was writing, but I was listening just the same to the proceedings of the house and I did see that there were fewer than 20 members in the house. Now, I feel that this will never occur again. I hope so at least, because if we do not comply with the rules that exist, why should we waste our time discussing sections 75a, 75b and 75c to try to improve conditions. The s landing orders exist, but they are not enforced.
Now, Mr. Speaker, members on both sides of the house are trying to interpret the standing orders but if I understand the circumstances, I admit that when Your Honour took the chair again there were more members in the house, but when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated to the Acting Speaker there was no quorum, of course it was so.


Prosper Boulanger: Because the members had gone out.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Of course, if they had not gone out, there would have been enough members in the house. That is precisely why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is objecting, because quite a few members are not in the house.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the point of order is justified.


An hon. Member:: How many Creditistes are there?
11092	COMMONS
Study on Manpower


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: There are 14 Creditistes and nearly 160 Liberals. I am the only one representing my party. Of course, the ratio happens to be quite good.


An hon. Member:: Quality matters more than quantity.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: You are right. That is why there are only 14 of us.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I should add to the consideration of this point of order a comment about the conduct of the Chair-the occupant was not yourself-during the time the original question relating to the quorum was raised and a count was taken. The submission has been made that it is the counting by the Clerk at that time which should apply. In substantiation of the conclusion to which the Clerk came at that time, we have the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who is highly regarded and highly respected as a man of great integrity. He was sitting in the house. He rose in his place a moment ago and said that by his count there were fewer than 20 members present. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who was also in his place at the time the Clerk took the count, also said there were fewer than 20 members in the house. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who was behind the curtain as it was his right to be, also counted, and I too counted. We both counted 14.
Hon. members can cast reflections on my count if they like, but certainly not on that of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The other party in the house was the Liberal party. Not one of them has said, nor can he say because it would not be true, that there were more than 20 members in the house at the time the Clerk made the count after the point of order had been raised in the first instance. It was only subsequent to that time that hon. gentlemen opposite were able to find enough of their members skulking around in the corridors to make up the 20 or so members whose names were taken down officially.
I submit that the only thing to which Your Honour can pay regard is the original count by the Clerk and the declarations by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for

DEBATES	July 10, 1999
Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), who have indicated what conclusion they reached, in the absence of any declarations to the contrary on behalf of the government.


Russell Clayton Honey: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) it might be of some assistance to Your Honour if I could ask him a question in line with his argument as to the point at which the count should have been taken. When he says "immediately", does he mean immediately before the N.D.P. members left or immediately after they left?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: The hon. member knows the rule as well as I do. If he does not, he should have paid attention when it was read. No matter how you try to distort it you cannot distort the fact that the Clerk made a count of members, and this is the count which the Chair should take into consideration. He reported the result of that count to The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard) when he was in the chair, and this is the count which should apply. I submit there is no alternative but to rely on the situation which existed immediately prior to Your Honour taking the chair. There can only be one Speaker in the chair at a time, of course, even though the situation may change. It is the situation which confronted the Acting Speaker when he occupied the chair and when the report was made to him which should count.


Mr. Speaker:: Friday, July 11, 1969