1969-07-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as both Your Honour and the house know, there have been certain discussions regarding possible avenues of approach to the debate on the rules amendments. In order to enable discussions to continue and perhaps arrive at a solution, I rise to suggest that the house might now make an crder that upon completion of the oral question period today the sitting be suspended until 5 p.m. later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in response to queries from members I am pleased to report on our continuing campaign to help students find summer jobs.
From previous statements I have made, members will be aware of our efforts and special programs in this area. These include the setting up last fall of a special departmental task force, a $259,000 publicity campaign at local, regional and national levels, the hir-ng of some 450 special student counsellors at manpower headquarters and centres across Canada, and a program to increase by 10 per cent the number of students employed this summer by the federal government.
My department has also been very active in enlisting the co-operation of other governments and agencies with interests in the stu-ient employment problem. We have had meetings with representatives of the Associa-;ion of Universities and Colleges of Canada,
University Career Planning Association, various university summer employment committees and other federal departments. We have also maintained a close relationship with various provincial governments in order to achieve maximum results and to prevent duplication of effort and expenditure.
We have reason to believe our efforts are paying off. For example, between May and June of this year some 155,000 persons were added to the Canadian labour force. This net figure resulted from additions of 155,000 in the 14-19 age group and of 38,000 in the 19-25 age group. There were offsetting declines totalling 38,000 in other age groups. Meanwhile, employment growth between May and June in the under 25 age group was 154,000. While no one can claim all of these 154,000 persons are students entering the labour force temporarily during the summer months, it can be safely assumed that the vast majority are students.
In this connection it is interesting to note that last year between March and July some 600,000 persons under 25 joined the labour force; by September almost 500,000 in the same group had left the labour force, presumably to return to school or university.
At our manpower centres some 90,000 postsecondary students had registered by the end of May; this number could be a bit exaggerated as some students may have registered both at on-campus manpower centres and at local centres.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Precise statistics on confirmed employment are not available at this time-students frequently do not report back to their C.M.C. counsellors when they have obtained jobs- but there are some encouraging trends. For example, a random sample survey carried out by my department in mid-June among students at Ottawa's Canada Manpower Student Employment Centre indicates that 86 per cent of those canvassed had already obtained jobs at that point; another 4 per cent were no longer interested in finding work, leaving a total of 10 per cent still looking for employment. We plan to carry out the same type of survey later this month in three Canada Manpower Centres in each of our five regions,

Wheat Export Prices


Mr. Lang:: I said that Canada's share of the world wheat market went up this year. I do not have the exact figures in front of me. My recollection is that last year the share was 17 per cent and this year it is 19 per cent.


Mr. Burlon:: Could the minister indicate what income support measures the government has under consideration at the present time.


Otto Emil Lang: I think it is well known to hon. members that the government is looking at this question from all angles. There is no proposal that has not been before the government. Before any announcement is made in this regard, a decision by the government will be made in the ordinary way.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a question which is supplementary to my first question. I should like to ask the minister whether he considers that the 22 million bushels through Churchill is an increase.


Otto Emil Lang: It is a dramatic increase over the zero which had been booked during the regular time for booking this year.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: No, no. On a point of order-
July 21, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize we are not on the question period and we are not in committee of the whole. I wonder whether hon. members want to pursue the question period at the present time. However, if hon. members have further questions and the minister wishes to reply his time has not yet expired.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and with due deference to you, it certainly is not from zero to 22 million.


Mr. Nysirom:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the government is still considering a two-price system for wheat or whether at this time it has completely rejected the idea. I would ask the minister to be specific in his answer.


Otto Emil Lang: My answer will be very specific. My previous answer applies completely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the minister and the subsequent questions and answers, I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. Pursuant to section 13 of Standing Order 26, I declare the motion carried.
The house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. later today.
At 12.25 a.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
July 21. 1969


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: On a point of order or personal privilege, I do not know which is correct. Your Honour can correct me. The hon. member is putting words in the mouth of someone.


An hon. Member:: What about making up your mind if it is order or privilege?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I asked the Speaker about that. It is up to Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member to make his point. I would appreciate the co-operation of hon. members. I realize it is getting late but it will not help the situation if hon. members do not allow the hon. member to state his point, after which I will determine if there is a point of order.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I want to say to the hon. minister that I hope he is sincere. However, when he talks as he has been about interest rates today, and what they mean to the wheat farmers, he certainly cannot be sincere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the hon. member, I am now in a position to make a ruling. I think that is not a point of order.
While I have the floor I would like to suggest to hon. members that although it is late and the debate may continue for a while yet, the general rules of decorum continue to be in existence. We have never permitted hon. members to bring drinking cups into the House of Commons. I do not think we should begin this procedure, even if it is late. I invite hon. members not to bring in coffee cups. I am not sure whether these cups contain coffee or what they may contain, but I think it is not appropriate to have them in the house.


Otto Emil Lang: Just a final few words, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to refer, in addition to those measures which are being taken in this area, to several others which have long-term importance. I refer to the creation this year of the Canada Grains Council which is designed to be a body which will help in great measure, both in research and markets. It will supply information to farmers about markets, and the difficult choices they will have to make willingly with regard to the products they ought to grow at any given time.
29180-'724|
Wheat Export Prices
I want to refer to the importance of the market system which the Wheat Board is introducing, that is the block system, through which they expect great improvements in the moving of grain from the farm to the market. Early experiments with the block system have been very successful. It is being expanded into many other places in the prairies. The consultants' estimates had indicated initially that by a simple rearrangement of the manner of putting shipping orders and the request for cars into the proper places, the same equipment at home, en route and at the elevators could handle up to 50 per cent more grain with no additional change whatever.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)
These are the important things which are being done that in no way take away from the seriousness of the current situation which the Prime Minister so well recognized and described when on the prairies. I think hon. members opposite might once in a while notice these accomplishments while they proceed with their harangues.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lethbridge rises for the purpose of asking a question of the minister if the minister will allow it.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Has the government considered shipment through the port of Churchill and all the ramifications of that decision?


Otto Emil Lang: I am very happy to be able to tell the hon. member that the Canadian Wheat Board arranged for sales of wheat through Churchill. Approximately 22 million bushels, at present reckoning, will go through that port at this time. I might say this reflects great credit on the management of the Wheat Board, because the placing of sales of wheat through that port came at a time when, because of marketing conditions, Canada was making no sales. That was before the lowering of prices in March. Despite that fact, the Wheat Board has managed to place this large quantity through Churchill.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit another question? He stated that Canadian penetration of world markets had increased significantly this year. Would the minister give the house some figures in respect of that increase.

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
producers and farmers of the world. The government has made extraordinary efforts in an attempt to keep in full operation the terms of the International Grains Arrangement. However, the fact that prices are not in line with the arrangement has tragic consequences for the farmers and wheat producers of the world, not only for those in Canada. It will remain the intention or the government to work as hard as possible to restore the I.G.A. to full operation
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
The problem facing the prairie wheat producers and farmers is a serious one indeed. It is a problem which this government recognized and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his recent visit to the prairies saw at first hand. The Prime Minister's trip to the prairie provinces was particularly arranged so that he could meet face to face small groups of farmers, chosen in fairly random fashion across the provinces, and talk to them for a few hours in a small room in detail about the problem. This, after all, is a true way of communicating and is far superior to the one followed by politicians in the past, who have seen only crowds and communicated only by making speeches to the people, without hearing what the people have to say. The Prime Minister of Canada is not a politician of that sort. He went to hear the views of the people, to learn of their problems and to reason with them about those problems. He did that in a remarkable fashion on his recent trip.


An hon. Member:: The minister may be the only one to think that.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite have recited the difficulty. Being new to this place, I am given to understand that they consider their conduct politically proper. They refuse to recognize that hard action may be necessary to tackle this problem or to give credit for action the government has taken with regard to the grains arrangement. I know my colleagues, and other hon. members on this side, have spoken at length about the tremendous advantages accuring to farmers as a result of our cash advance program. Hon. members opposite tend to downgrade this program, as though interest free advances at a time when interest rates are high are insignificant and as though potential advances of several hundreds of millions of dollars at this time, too, are insignificant. Hon. members

opposite also have heard described government programs which will enable the Wheat Board to sell Canadian wheat. It can be said that thanks in large part to the leadership of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) no restrictions whatever have been placed on the flexibility the Canadian Wheat Board enjoys in seeking sales for credit. The facility which has been made available is indeed remarkable.
Hon. members opposite have asked for solutions.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Would the minister permit a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Later, if the hon. member does not mind. Hon. members seem to have forgotten that Canada's share of the world wheat market has actually gone up this year as compared with last year and that it is the reduction in total commercial demand in the world market which has had a drastic affect upon sales. They failed to put two and two together to realize that the large cash advances mean that the government has undertaken a program of buying wheat on the farmer's farm.
It ought to be obvious to hon. gentlemen opposite that it is not lack of sales alone, by any means, that is the problem. Prices in relation to costs of production must also be considered. Hon. members opposite from time to time have said that farm costs have gone up, largely as a result of the protection afforded to many people in our society. That protection has caused the farmers financial difficulty. Although they have referred to this fact, some hon. members have not referred to other steps in the right direction the government has taken towards long term sales and reducing farm production costs. For instance, we have such programs as the accelerated introduction of the Kennedy Round reduction of tariffs.
Here, I might also refer to plans to balance the budget and specialized depreciation items which were introduced to take some of the inflationary heat out of the economy. I also refer hon. members to the prices and incomes commission, which is designed to be one step along that road we must travel in bringing some control over those who abuse t heir power to set prices and incomes at levels which are not fair having regard to the position of the economy and true economic indicators.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
July 21, 1969

these agents are not primarily moved by patriotism or a feeling of sympathy for the Canadian wheat producer. They make deals for profit, not patriotism.
The Wheat Board is not empowered to approach governments, yet more than half our potential customers are represented by government purchasing agencies. We need a modernized board that can go anywhere, approach anyone and make deals without the endless business of consultation and waiting for government policy to be determined. We need more modernized and flexible regulations in order to meet the demands of potential customers. There is no future in Canada sitting on mounds of top grade wheat if customers want lower or mixed grades. There is no future in setting up bodies, such as the Grains Council, if we hear nothing from them from their inception. What has happened to the Grains Council? Industry needs action, not advice. We need one simple, dynamic body that can get things going. We have spent too long in consultation, study and advice. We now need swift, positive action.
I would not be surprised if the government announced shortly the formation of another task force to study the situation. Canadians have been task forced into a stupor. Let us have a "do it" force and get our wheat moving. Let us inject cash into the agricultural community so we may once again enjoy a balanced economy in western Canada. I do not wish to belabour the gravity of this development, because it must be apparent to everyone. I simply repeat what I said at the outset: we must sell our wheat to whoever we can, at the best price we can obtain, and make up from federal resources difference between that and the guaranteed minimum. This is in no sense a handout; it is simply sensible, economic assistance to a very important segment of our national economy.
The sluggish wheat market is already showing signs of affecting eastern industry and businessmen, taxpayers and consumers all across the country. It is only common sense that the federal government should step in and do something now. Despite what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) says, there is no way in which he can convince me that all is well on the prairies. The business community and the farm community are suffering. Repossessions and foreclosures are numerous. The minister today dealt with payments to the Farm Credit Corporation. I suggest to him that the arrears of the corporation are no greater than they have been at
Wheat Export Prices
any time in the past. The minister knows that payments to the Farm Credit Corporation have priority as far as the farmer is concerned. Accounts receivable by merchants, that is, fuel, fertilizer accounts and so on, are the ones not being paid.
This is a typical example of the many letters that I have received, written by a farmer from Lloydminster, Alberta. He writes:
As a farmer living in your voting area I thought you might be interested in the following bit of information.
I just hauled out my fifth bushel of quota today. I now have a cultivated acreage of 465 acres. 465 X 1.17=$543.05.
My municipal taxes (now due) amount to $662.93 which leaves me a quota of approximately 3| bushels on which to live and operate my farm. How long are we going to last?
The Edmonton Journal, a proponent of Liberal philosophy, in an editorial dated Saturday, July 19, headed "Crisis in wheat demands action" states in part:
Many suggestions have been made for meeting this "truly desperate situation" which must be met quickly or the West as a whole, not only the farmers, will suffer. Perhaps the best and simplest shortterm solution would be a form of acreage payments, with a reasonable maximum. And so-called "rich" farmers are entitled to participate as well as poorer ones.
With such a plan in operation, the government and its agencies, farmers' organizations and others, including individual farmers, should lose no time in putting Canadian agriculture on a much sounder, long-term basis than it is at present.
I could cite many more examples but I do not intend to take up any more time of the house. May I close by saying that action must be taken to meet immediate problems. After we solve some of our short term problems, we must modernize the agricultural industry and streamline our grain marketing machinery. Only by radical and swift action will we be able to salvage a once great industry that in the past has accounted to one in every eight of our export dollars and one in every ten of our tax dollars.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take very long because I realize that many people here, particularly the staff, have had a long day.
I think it is a change for an opposition motion to deal with a real problem. The motion recites the difficulties arising from wheat prices in the world today. The maintenance of world prices and of the prices set under the International Grains Arrangement is of fundamental importance to the wheat

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
increased taxes? The farmer is being faced every day with cuts in revenues and, correspondingly, with an increase in production costs, living costs and taxes as well as an increase in the cost of doing his business.
Certainly, there can be no other path but to meet competition. If we are to stay in business in a competitive market, there is no other way. However, the corollary to this is, of course, that the producer cannot be permitted to suffer because of conditions over which he has no control and because he has voluntarily given up his selling initiative to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. I say that the government has to go out and sell the wheat at the best price it can get in the world markets, but at the same time let the government pay a support price to the farmer which will ensure that he benefits from the full $1.95* a bushel that still stands as the agreed world minimum price. The Canadian wheat producer did exactly what the government urged him to do. He planted all the wheat he could. He was asked to become more efficient, to expand and to produce enough wheat to feed a starving and hungry world. He trusted the government promises to sell what he produced.
Now that the government has difficulty in selling wheat, something that it has by law a monopoly to do, it seeks to throw the whole burden into the laps of the producers. The recent U.S. action has precipitated an immediate problem, but it is just another problem within a much larger context.
We, in Canada, must get into step with the rest of the world. We have been left behind by our competitors. So far as I am concerned I believe that one cannot merchandise goods, whether it is grain, soap or vacuum cleaners' if one develops a negative attitude, and that is exactly what is happening here. While grain deals were being made, the government stood idly by losing sale after sale. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, a very amiable fellow, stayed in his place this afternoon seeking the advice of the Almighty. One could almost feel sorry for him, but may I say, with all due respect, that I am now convinced more than ever that the job of marketing our grain is beyond this man's capacity. I think he would do much better as a minister of culture, or perhaps as a goodwill ambassador for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in some of the hostile areas, such as the ones which the Prime Minister visited in western Canada. All that we heard from the minister today was a bandying of words to 
defend his government for its positive inaction rather than laying down a formula for positive action. What we want is positive action to alleviate the immediate crisis and some long-term solutions for the future. One almost gets the impression that the government dislikes the fact that this debate is taking place. They attempt constantly to try to justify their position, blaming the opposition for misrepresentation and accusing us of being publicity seekers, even making suggestions about a stupid filibuster. When the Standing Committee on Agriculture went out west, it made a comprehensive study and proposed some solutions. When the Prime Minister went out west, the feelings of the western farmers were appropriately expressed. What more do they want?
Numerous recommendations have been submitted to this government. Solutions were offered by the government's own members, such as by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) and by other members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Why were these solutions rejected? There have been many others and many briefs from the farm organizations throughout the country and from the Federation of Agriculture, as well as suggestions from members on both, sides of the house. The answer we continually receive is that the policy is under review. This house, the people of the country in general and farmers in particular are entitled to know what the government intends to do to solve the problems of our once great agricultural industry.
[DOT] (12 midnight)
Our immediate problem, and the reason for this debate, is that we must sell our wheat and the return to the producer must be fair and equitable. If in order to do this we must modernize our whole system of marketing and distribution, let us start now. What has happened to the activities of the Grains Council? This was to be the great revolutionary mechanism for streamlining all our grain handling operations, producing, distributing and selling.	'
I suggest that as a start the nation's wheat selling apparatus should be thoroughly overhauled. The government has the obligation to undertake this task. I believe that in this day and age-the lunar age-the Wheat Board should be rejuvenated and its aims and objectives reviewed and upgraded. While it has the exclusive right to sell grain, it has sublet this right and responsibility to officially designated agents. It must be remembered that
July 21, 1969



people on this side of the house, particularly those who belong to this party, have offered solutions today. Let me be as brief as possible. On the short term basis, we need an immediate influx of cash into the western economy, something in the nature of $100 million or $200 million. We had a budget brought down in the house not long ago with a projected surplus of $250 million. At that time I, and many of my colleagues, asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) whether they might consider diverting some of this projected surplus into an emergency plan for western agriculture. We did not get an answer. They just said the government had done enough. We must inject some cash into the western economy immediately, otherwise we will be confronted with many more serious economic problems in the very near future.
Members of our party have suggested many ways of solving this problem. One possibility is the adoption of a deficiency payment of 20 cents per bushel up to about 5,000 bushels, or a payment of some sort bringing the price up to $2 per bushel to the extent of 500, 600 or 700 acres, or perhaps a combination of these on a short-range plan to help the western economy. We must realize that we need many long-range programs. We cannot solve this situation with only short-range planning. We have to sell grain and get it to the people who need it. We must start working toward long-range credit plans and a more comprehensive trade system. We must give the farmer a better guaranteed price for grain. We should have a two-price system in respect of wheat. This has been suggested by many organizations.
Farm income has dropped by some $430 million in 1968-69. This is why something has to be done now. As a final suggestion, I should like to recommend something which I think is unanimous in the minds of almost every western farmer. The Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) should resign immediately from his post as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I respect the intelligence and the integrity of this minister, but his record thus far, and from all indications he has given to us for the future, point to the fact that he is not the man for this type of job. His resignation immediately as the man in charge of the Wheat Board represents the very least the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could do for the western economy. Many other things must be done, but it is time the government got its head out of orbit and came down to earth.
Wheat Export Prices


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, despite the lateness of the hour I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I shall not attempt to unduly aggravate the good spirit and mood of this house by being too lengthy in my contribution. It is because we are dealing with a matter of utmost urgency, which has progressively become a crisis, that I have been prompted to enter this debate.
After all, one might have expected that following numerous reviews, task force reviews, submissions made by numerous people, the thorough study and investigation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when it travelled out west, and the importuning of the many western members of parliament, along with the great trip of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) even at this late date we would have some firm policy statement by this government aimed at relieving the crisis caused by a critical shortage of cash and deteriorating prices in our farm economy.
The government should have acted long before now and made such emergency consideration of this long standing problem unnecessary. We have been in session for something like ten months, but we have had no positive or realistic approach brought forward to alleviate this urgent matter, despite the fact that we have had a continual dialogue with members involved in the farm community. Leaders of the opposition parties have been helpful in offering suggestions and solutions, nevertheless the government has failed to act. After all, the wheat problem we now face is not new. It has been with us since the bungling and the grossly inept actions of a previous Liberal government, which left the Canadian wheat producer defenseless in the world market place, when they agreed to go along with the general cereals arrangement instead of the old International Wheat Agreement, thus opening the door to almost one full year of a free world grain market.
This latest crisis, grave as it is, is only one more chapter in a long and dismal story. We all know that despite the pious submissions uttered by the amiable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) on his return from Washington, Americans are realists and will trim their prices to meet market conditions. Where does the recent U.S. cut of 12 cents per bushel leave us? Sitting selfrighteously on our mountains of unsold wheat. Where does this leave the producer in this climate of economic uncertainty, of rampant inflation, of high interest charges, of

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
not do something soon, more and more farmers are going to become more and more militant.
I now come to the second question. Is the government aware of the type of situation that exists in the west today? Many farmers feel they are not aware of this. I will quote from a press release issued on July 1 by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool:
More and more western farmers are saying that the federal government does not understand the seriousness of the agricultural income situation, says E. K. Turner, president, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
Individual farmers and their organizations, from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool through to the Canadian Federal of Agriculture, have documented their case accurately, have made reasonable requests, but so far, Ottawa has not taken positive action.
This type of reaction is found in almost every part of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I maintain that the government is aware of the situation which exists in the west at this time. If they are not aware, they should be.
I wish to go over some of the representations which have been made. Nearly every day in this house the opposition has questioned the government in an endeavour to get them to do something and to inform them of what is happening in western Canada. The government of Saskatchewan had made a request that the federal government implement the two-price system for wheat. Other provincial governments have submitted briefs, have met with the minister and have met with the Prime Minister. Farm organizations have come to Ottawa time and time again. The National Farmers Union has submitted a brief, and the Federation of Agriculture has submitted a brief. Still, very little is done. Even more important, a committee of this house comprised of members of all political parties, including the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride), made a tour of the west. They spoke to the farmers, attended meetings, and then came back and made a report. During their tour of the west they met with some 18,000 farmers on two different days. In summation, the committee concludes that the situation out there needs some drastic remedy if many farmers are to be saved.
Finally, there is another point I should like to make. Two or three cabinet ministers are from the west. One is from Saskatoon and I do not think he could help but be aware of this situation. There is another from Winnipeg. But apparently the Prime Minister did not believe any of these sources, so he went west himself to find out. He was presented
[Mr. Nystrom.I
with briefs. He met with some of the premiers, the Union farm leaders and the farmers themselves. I should like to read part of an article which appeared in the Regina Leader Post of July 16. It reads as follows:
The farmers were obviously intent on getting some action. One farmer, who was in charge of a group of tractors, said the demonstration will continue and, if necessary, farmers will take more drastic action.
"We can't afford to see some of the best farmers in Saskatchewan going bankrupt," he said.
If the farmers were not "badly off" they could not be here, he said.
He knew of one farmer who has 70,000 bushels of grain on his farm and had to borrow money to carry on his operation.
But he said the sale of grain is not enough.
What is needed is a graduated minimum price as well as grain sales, he said.
A farmer from Tantallon said farmers have a choice of either protesting in hopes of accomplishing their goals or going bankrupt.
He said he knows of farmers who have 40,000 to 50,000 bushels of grain in storage and "yet will likely have to fold up."
At least 96 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan are facing serious financial difficulties, he said.
Tractors converged on Regina from No. 1 highway, No. 11 highway and No. 6 highway-from all directions.
Most of them carried signs with slogans such as "Trudeau is a bum steer," "My grain headache is killing me"-
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
I think these are just some examples of how serious things are getting in western Canada. I think these demonstrations are a warning signal for the government that if something is not done immediately things are going to be much more serious. Many farmers will seek more drastic alternatives in an attempt to make their rights known to this government. After all, it is their very livelihood and the future not only of themselves but their children that is involved. These people will naturally become very insistent in search of alternatives to make their situation known.
Let me finally come to what must be done. First and foremost, all of us realize that the farmer alone must not bear the cost of an international price war. If something happens which causes the price of grain to fall drastically, the farmer alone must not bear the full brunt. The Canadian public as a whole should share in any loss which occurs, if there is to be one.
There are many long and short term solutions which have to be investigated. Many
July 21, 1969

problem of the farmer is felt by many other industries across Canada. I continue quoting: It is ironic that in a world where millions daily suffer the pangs of hunger and thousands daily die of malnutrition, the abundance of Canadian agriculture should prove to be an embarrassment to the nation and before the world.
That statement summarizes pretty well our present situation and narrows our focus to the point of the problem confronting us. Really, there is no farm problem, because markets could be found. There are hungry people all over the world and we should be trying to feed them. Therefore, what we are discussing is basically a national policy. We are considering this government's policy towards the international grain market, as well as towards agriculture in our country as a whole.
There are three basic questions we must ask ourselves. First, what is the situation in western Canada today? Second, is the government aware of the situation on the prairies? Third, what are the solutions? During the next few minutes I hope to mention a number of things which may help. I hope my suggestions will enlighten hon. members about the current situation in western Canada. The situation, and I mean this sincerely, is very, very grim. As a matter of fact, in many prairie areas today it is disastrous. Tens of thousands of prairie farmers are facing bankruptcy. Many have already gone bankrupt; many others are being forced to leave the land and go to the cities. One could go on talking about the many problems these people will face once they get to the cities. Many of these people have no skills and will become the new urban unemployed and the urban poor.
One can see readily that many farmers are broke. I met many such farmers when I was in Saskatchewan a few days ago, for the week end. When farmers go to banks for loans or loan extensions, they discover interest rates have gone up, and this situation has led to a vicious circle. Many farmers cannot afford machinery. Many are having their machinery repossessed. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) was telling me about some farmers he met at a week-end picnic; many of them did not know where they would get money to meet their next payment on farm machinery. The effects of their plight radiate out in circles. Not only is the farmer of western Canada being affected by the situation, the small businessman also is suffering-although our teachers are not suffering quite so much. The suppliers of farm machinery and owners of small businesses in small towns such as Yorkton, Melville,
Wheat Export Prices
Kamsack and Kenora are suffering. They are suffering because there is not any money around. We need more money in the western economy, otherwise there is going to be a national disaster in the very near future. On June 10 of this year, 55 per cent of the delivery points in Saskatchewan were on a three-bushel quota or less. A year ago, in 1968, not one was on a three-bushel quota or less. Also, in comparison, on June 10 of this year there were no points in the west that were on the six-bushel quota. A year ago some 35 per cent of the delivery points were on the six-bushel quota. I think this is another illustration of the situation as it exists.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)
In addition to this, the farmer is caught in the cost-price squeeze. The cost to produce a bushel of wheat has gone up and the farmer's income has gone down, in many cases drastically. We are appealing to the government to save an industry. Many members have talked about subsidies today. Western farmers get angry when members talk about subsidies. They say, why does the federal government subsidize General Motors and the Ford Motor Company to the tune of $80 million a year? Why are Time Magazine and Reader's Digest receiving subsidies? Why are gold mines receiving subsidies when farmers are not even getting an even break in our society? Farmers are not going to put up with this kind of nonsense any longer.
We saw what happened out west last week. I say this is only the beginning unless the government institutions make some radical changes at this time. Farmers are organizing in order to protect themselves. Almost every other sector of our economy is organized today, whether it is labour or business.
I wish to quote from page 2 of the farm union brief I was quoting a few moments ago:
It is the goal of the National Farmers Union to organize farmers from sea to sea in Canada into an organization of farmers and for farmers. We believe we must face the realities of the times, that farm problems are primarily national and international in nature, and that the problems which farmers face across Canada must be rationalized by farmers at the national level in an organization that can, in fact, be an important forum in participatory democracy.
I endorse the actions of the western farmers and I encourage them to get together and organize. It is very sad that all too often governments only react to what is happening in the community. A government will only go as far as it is forced. If the government does

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices
producing the world's finest wheat at low cost, now be told he must hold the bag? The government should take over the surplus wheat and pay the farmer the price he would have received if the government's incompetence had not allowed the price to drop. The farmer should be paid, say, $1.65 a bushel and the wheat should be stored in government granaries. In a year, two years or three years, when wheat is once again in worldwide demand, the government could sell it and get its money back. The government is acting as though it is up to the farmer to sell his wheat. It is not, it is up to the government. The farmer has grown the wheat, now let the government do its part.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing one of the most crucial problems that confront the Canadian economy today. My remarks will be brief because the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride) seems to indicate that he wishes to participate.
In discussing this subject we are talking about the livelihood, not of just a few hundred or a few thousand people, but literally tens of thousands of people in western Canada. The International Grains Arrangement breakdown is not going to help them but will increase the danger that each and every one of them is facing. Yesterday was one of the most important days in the history of mankind. Mankind finally realized a dream that has existed for centuries. Man perfected his technology and skill, reached out and landed on the moon. We hope that within the next couple of days a successful return to earth will be achieved. I think all of us would want to congratulate those involved in this mission, but I hope that this great achievement in technology, science, cybernation and so on can be translated into the commencement of a new chapter in moral and social improvement the world over.
I have often said, both in this chamber and outside, that it is something of a contradiction that we are able to land a man on the moon but yet we are unable to sell grain. It is even more ironic that although we cannot sell our grain, half the people in the world are either starving or suffering from malnutrition. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) talked of this earlier this evening. This situation creates a certain unrest and alienation in the world today. When people are hungry

they are not happy, and this leads to restlessness and rebellion. It opens the door to war, revolution and so on. We, in Canada possess one of the best means of promoting friendship-food, bushels of grain. Yet we are sitting here tonight when this country has a surplus of about one billion bushels of grain and yet people go hungry.
This is not the result of the inefficiency of the farmers. In a recent by-election campaign in Saskatchewan I talked to dozens of farmers, and one of them who lived outside the town of Foam Lake had a 1968 Pontiac parked in his driveway without any licence plates. When I asked him why the car was not licensed, he said that he did not have the money, though he had 17,000 bushels of unsold grain in his bins. This is one illustration of the situation of some of those who live in the west and gives those who have not visited the west some idea of conditions there.
The leader of my party mentioned the fact that a year or so ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country told the farmers: "You grow the grain and we'll sell it". During his recent trip out west he said that the government could not sell any more grain so our farmers should not grow it. That statement came from the Prime Minister, who, not long before, had talked about hypocrisy. If that attitude is not one of sheer hypocrisy I do not know one that is. That suggestion, coming from the leader of the nation, the Prime Minister, was one of sheer hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is supposed to be an example to us all.
The farmers are efficient and are growing grain. May I read a few sentences from a statement made by a representative of the farmers' union to the government at Ottawa on May 5 of this year. The statement concerned grain policy and reads in part:
Grain farmers on the prairies face a serious income crisis in 1969. Inadequate levels of efficiency and productivity cannot be described as a cause for the income problem which currently faces the wheat grower.
In the five-year crop period 1958-59 to 1962-63, the average wheat production of prairie farmers was 1,965 bushels. In the five-year crop period 1963-64 to 1967-68, this average had increased to 3,322 bushels. This represents an increase of 69% in the average of the past five years over the average of the previous five years-
Those words indicate the sort of person who lives in western Canada today. Our farmers have fundamental problems. It is not their fault these problems have arisen. The
July 21, 1969

Thompson) mentioned it. He took the reference right out of my mouth. Read about the seven lean years and the seven fat years. That is the cycle in which we find ourselves. Joseph's solution was to store the wheat in the fat years and sell it in the lean years, just in case hon. gentlemen opposite do not know about it. Nothing has changed. The situation now is the same in its essentials as was the biblical situation 4,000 years ago. The only difference now is that the government is asking the farmer to bear the storage costs, the handling costs and all the other costs resulting from the government's stupidity and mismanagement.
Let us look at how this came about. When this government came into power wheat markets were flourishing and taxes were 30 per cent below what they are now. Our national income was up while prices were down. I am referring to 1963. The Liberals came to power on a phony issue which no one ever bothers to discuss now, namely the Bomarc issue. It is as dead as last year's wheat sales. They proceeded by mismanagement and neglect to destroy the huge wheat markets we had built up from 1961 on. Last summer they sat with their hands folded for months during the interim period after the International Wheat Agreement ram out. They trotted over to Europe and let the Canadian farmers be sold down the river, while prices dropped. They were afraid to stand up to the United States when that country, along with France, shot holes in the International Grains Arrangement which has now been totally repudiated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has no more understanding of wheat than he has of trade or indus-ry. I am sorry that the minister is not here because I hate to say things like this about the fine gentleman.


Mr. Dinsdale:: This is the truth.


Mr. Paproski:: The government refused to step in during the month-long grain handlers strike last year. They refused to step in while shipping piled up in Vancouver harbour because box cars were not available to transport wheat. They did nothing while our markets went down the drain. Now, the Prime Minister goes to western Canada and puts on a performance that can only be described in waltz time, perhaps "Voices of Spring", or "Tales from the Vienna Woods". Here we have the Prime Minister of a government which lost the Russian wheat contract and the Chinese wheat contract and sat 29180-723J
Wheat Export Prices
helplessly while our customers went elsewhere because of uncertain delivery. Then, the Prime Minister has the gall to say to the most efficient producers in the world: You are not economical. Western Canada should rise in its wrath and give its answers to the government; I am confident it will do so. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the wheat issue is not a local nor a regional issue, as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) knows; it is a national issue of first importance.


Mr. Boulanger:: To you it is a political issue.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This nation cannot afford to lose the massive injection of income we have received through wheat sales. The economy will suffer a heavy blow because of the loss of half a billion dollars in international wheat sales, or even half that amount, which is the expectation for the coming year.
The impact of the government's failure to sell our wheat will show up almost immediately in the economy of western and eastern Canada. Not only is the western farmer a major producer; he is also a major consumer. The effect will be seen in reduced sales of new automobiles manufactured in eastern Canada, reduced sales of farm machinery also manufactured in eastern Canada, reduced sales of appliances, clothing and a host of other consumer goods on which the economy of the country is balanced. An economy already on the razor's edge and suffering from overtaxation, overpricing, over inventories and unjustifiable interest rates cannot easily sustain the shock of a major blow at this time.
The tragedy is that in the face of a national calamity the Prime Minister has no solution beyond the negative, bureaucratic formula of overproduction and uneconomic operation. Surely, we have gone beyond the stage in our economic capabilities to react to a situation such as this by burning production or plowing it under. The Prime Minister's text books must be 35 years out of date.
It is up to the government to produce a solution that will get the farmer off the hook, move the wheat and restore confidence in the Canadian economy. If they cannot do that, they should resign and we will do it for them.
The farmers' union proposed the solution that the government take over our surplus wheat. What is wrong with that? The government's answer is to let the farmer take it over. Why should the farmer, the producer, who has fulfilled his part of the contract by

July 21, 1SS9
Wheat Export Prices
industry. The explanation was this was good for employment and good for the economy as a whole.
By the same token a cash injection into a sorely tried prairie economy at this particular moment would have the same beneficial effect. Toronto is 13. Montreal, which is supposed to be operating under financial straits and has had to resort to lotteries and such like as well as having had the cancellation of the $125 million Expo deficit, is 20 on the list. This is not too bad when you compare it with the general picture. The city of the hon. member for Calgary South, Calgary, was 16. That for the most part I think is due not to the wheat economy but the oil economy. Lethbridge is 56 and Red Deer is 60. I present these figures to indicate that in addition to the immediate crisis as outlined in the statement from the Federation of Agriculture, there has been a relative position of financial inequity because of the problem outlined by the minister of supply with regard to location of industry head offices and all the other disparities which affect the western economy in broad terms.
This is the immediate crisis. Obviously, the many supporters of the government do not appreciate it. The Minister of Agriculture does not realize the significance of it. According to press statements, the Prime Minister is now aware that there is a major crisis because certainly it was brought home to him in a very vociferous manner which indicated the degree of the farmers' frustration. We take the opportunity of this debate today and this evening to urge upon the government some action to relieve the hard pressed prairie farmers.
Before I conclude, perhaps I might be allowed to mention a more immediate and urgent problem. That is the assurance from the government as we come to the end of the current crop year that every delivery point in western Canada will be assured of at least a five-bushel delivery quota. One of the protests I heard last week, as well as the letters which come across my desk copies of which were sent to the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and so on, are to the effect that there is still a shortage of box cars. Many points are still on a three-bushel quota without any hope of any delivery of the three-bushel quota. We need immediate emergency action to at least assure this minimum delivery to all points across western Canada.
Finally, because my time is limited, let me say in respect of the Prime Minister sallying

forth into the west last week on a voyage of discovery to see what the prairie problem was all about, that he was really motivated by political events in the province of Manitoba. I do not think there was a more direct indication of a political protest than that which exists on the prairies. This message came through very loud and clear to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house. They are aware of the political facts of life, and some of them might be whistling in the graveyard, if we may judge from the speeches made today, but the events in Manitoba above all else should convey a message to the politician that these people demand action from the government at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, having come from a metropolis such as Edmonton, which is the Klondike city of western Canada and strongly in support of the underdog, I find the government treatment of the wheat situation a rank scandal. In his trip to western Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) revealed the mind of a bureaucrat, bound by regimentation, quoting regulations, and reiterating old policies as though these things were the answers. Wheat farmers cannot eat policies. He parroted the economists' argument that if wheat is not selling, if farmers are short of cash, it must be because they are running uneconomical farms. How is it that farms now described as uneconomical were making money a few years ago when this government first came into office?
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister's argument is simply to put the blame on the Canadian wheat farmer for the government's failure to sell wheat. It is a straight case of buck passing, one of the most blatant ever seen in Canadian politics. The Prime Minister's brand of suave, philosophical soft-soap no longer washes with people desperately in need of a clear, effective policy from the government. By that I do not mean words. I mean action and cash guarantees.
As soon as the word "cash" is mentioned, the little coterie around the Prime Minister start yelling "subsidy". Subsidy is not necessarily a bad word. Ask the auto-makers. It is too bad that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is not here at present. I ask those in search of the solution to the wheat problem to read the Bible. My friend, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. July 21, 1269



Bureau dated April 18, 1969, which concluded with these very strong words:
At the risk of being repetitious, we feel we cannot overemphasize the seriousness of the immediate situation of some Manitoba farmers. We appeal to you for some means of short term assistance such as a transfer payment which will allow these people to literally survive until effective readjustment programs can be implemented.
The Prime Minister went west last week to discover this fact, although it had before him and members of the government for several months. To put it in specific terms, I think one of the best presentations that came across my desk, and I am sure the desks of other hon. members, was from the Canadian Federation of Agricultural. It is dated May 28. I wish to read to hon. members, who still apparently think what we are dealing with is related to an international agricultural crisis and not an emergency that has been described by several members in the debate as putting the grain producers of western Canada in a hopeless and impossible financial situation.
The situation was described last May 28 by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as follows:
The income position of many prairie grain farmers is clearly disastrous. Deliveries of wheat to prairie country elevators are running (April 23) 84 million bushels less than the previous year to the same time. The previous year's deliveries ('67-'68) were in turn down 158 million bushels from 1986-'67. It is clear that the two-year drop in annual deliveries ('66-'67 to '68-'69) will reach from 250-300 million bushels at least which at $1.60 per bushel represents from 400 to 500 million dollars. Farmers cannot live with this kind of decline in their returns.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
Here is the situation, presented in the proverbial nutshell, so that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) and others who have spoken in an apologetic vein this evening on behalf of the government, must realize there is a real financial emergency in western Canada. The government has known about this for the past four or five months. As I say, I was shocked when the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) tried to present the myth that there are wealthy farmers who take trips to the south and drive Cadillacs, and all the other nonsense we hear from hon. members in this house, in an effort to avoid facing the economic reality that was so clearly presented last May in the excellent brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This not only affects western Canada. Wheat is one of Canada's basic export commodities. If we are down $500 million in
Wheat Export Prices
financial returns because of the disastrous decline in wheat exports, this will have a significant impact on the Canadian economy from one end of Canada to the other. It will have an effect on the manufacture of machinery, automobiles and all the other articles which largely one way or the other affect manufacturing industries in central Canada.
It was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when he was the minister of finance in 1964 when the boom was really under way in Canada, who made a statement to the effect that one of the main ingredients in the buoyancy of the Canadian economy was the strong position of prairie grain exports on the international market. If it was true that this was one of the reasons for the national buoyancy then, the converse is precisely true that the position of prairie grain exports now could have a disastrous effect on the total Canadian economy. We must get emergency cash into the hands of the farmers together with some long term program to deal with the disastrous effect of the lack of dollars. Farm income requires immediate emergency action on the part of the government of Canada. The western Canadian economy suffers from other disabilities in addition to the immediate crisis. The proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), the minister in charge of supplies, is to decentralize the Mint and establish it somewhere on the prairies. This is hardly adequate consideration.
Let me try to destroy the myth perpetuated by the hon. member for Calgary South as a spokesman for the west. His viewpoint is incomprehensible. Let us look at the figures in the green book brought down by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) recently which covers the fiscal year 1966-67. This is from the records of the Department of National Revenue itself. Of the 89 cities listed in order of income tax paid, Winnipeg, the capital of the province of Manitoba, was 53 on the list. Brandon, my own city, was 79 on the list. Portage Laprairie, in the heart of the rich plains, the great grain producing part of Manitoba, was 89 on the list of the 89 cities so far as income and taxes paid were concerned. Here is a real measure of the actual state of the economy. It does not indicate there are too many prairie folk taking holidays in the south or driving gold plated Cadillacs. I could give the picture for the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatoon is 38, Regina is 46, Prince Albert is 49 and Moose Jaw is 65. Oakville and Oshawa are near the top, and they had the benefit of an $80 million injection into the automobile
11444

July 21, 1969
Wheat Export Prices The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order,
please.

Order, please. In my view, the hon. member's remarks have nothing to do with the Standing Orders.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Does the hon. member feel better now?


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should not say things like that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's remarks have nothing to do with the Standing Orders.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the frustration of the hon. member who raised a point of order a moment ago in not being able to participate in the debate. Ordinarily I would gladly forego my opportunity to speak, if he could be given the floor. The hour is getting late and, as the hon. member who raised the point of order said, not as many attend here as attended earlier in the day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Liberal members are staying only because they have been told to.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am speaking at slightly after eleven o'clock this evening, Mr. Speaker, because this is the only opportunity we shall have to speak on the matter which is most important, not only for the prairie grain farmers but, for the entire economy of Canada.


Mr. Gibson:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I appreciate the applause coming from that agricultural expert, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson). He has been most vociferous in this debate and I hope he will make some formal comments before we finish.
I was in the west last week in response to a growing chorus of protest that has come to me from farmers in my constituency. Last week the Prime Minister was also in western Canada. I am sure that the strength of the protest greeting him made manifest to the 
Prime Minister-especially when representatives of prairie grain producers confronted him-that we are faced with a fundamental, critical, economic problem in Canada even though it is obvious, after listening to comments from the other side of the house, that hon. members over there are not yet convinced that the situation requires immediate and urgent action. I was amazed, as the Winnipeg Free Press so aptly put it last Saturday that in taking this pilgrimage to the west the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was going on a voyage of exploration and discovery to find out what makes things tick in western Canada. It was shocking to realize that after having been in office for one year, the Prime Minister for the first time was going west to discover what western Canada is all about.
It seems I have been under the wrong impression. I had thought that the Prime Minister's lack of information and resultant lack of action in dealing with the situation had been due to the fact that the regional advisers had taken the place of the elected representatives in his own party from the western part of Canada. After listening to some hon. members from the other side of this house, particularly the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) who comes from a western province, I have come to the conclusion that the fault is not with the representatives in the regional desks, but with the failure of some western M.P.'s sitting on the government side of the house to correctly interpret the situation to the government.
The hon. member in a carefully prepared and well read speech obviously was acting as an apologist, trying to explain away this critical economic problem. I heard other members, not in formal speeches, commenting that the situation arises from an uncontrollable world situation, world economic agriculture problems and world surplus. That seems to be the excuse for failure of the government to act on a matter that has been brought in dramatic terms repeatedly before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the balance of the cabinet.
I have a stack of formal briefs on my desk, some of which date back to last April. I quote from a brief presented by the Manitoba Farm
July 21, 19G9

familiar with the general pattern I will not elaborate on it. However, I should like to refer to a statement made by a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), as well as to some statements made by Mr. Winters when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce. The general attitude at that time was to tell the farmers of western Canada: "You grow the wheat and we'll sell it".
This indicates to me that neither minister knew what he was talking about. Neither had any idea where he was going in terms of agricultural and trade policy. What they said was simply an item of political propaganda.
The farmers of western Canada are getting fed up with this sort of cavalier attitude on the part of the government and its ministers and they are demanding straightforward answers to straightforward questions. They want action taken by the government. During the past two or three years we have witnessed a series of developments which have steadily eroded the economic position and welfare of western Canadian farmers and placed many western Canadian farmers on the verge of bankruptcy.
The government has asked us what our proposals are and what we suggest the government should do. We have put forward all sorts of proposals. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) tried to make a little political hay when he said that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) had placed more proposals forward tonight in regard to this particular matter than had been put forward at any previous time in this house. The minister knows that that is not the case. He is aware that both within and without the house spokesmen of the farmers of western Canada have advocated a comprehensive program involving both short-term and long-term measures to deal with their problems.
Just one example of this was given at the meeting between officials of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Prime Minister in Regina last week. At that time several short term, immediate proposals were put before the Prime Minister. The first was that there be an immediate payment to the grain producers based on 1968-69 cultivated acreage of $2 per acre up to a maximum of $2,000. Secondly, that there be a guaranteed floor price for export wheat of not less than the present International Grains Arrangement minimum
Wheat Export Prices
of $1.95J basis No. 1 Northern at the Lake-head. The third was that sales of all wheat for domestic human consumption by the Canadian Wheat Board be at a price of $2.95-! per bushel. A number of other long-term proposals were also placed before the Prime Minister.
I do not see how the government can get around providing a guaranteed wheat price based on the International Grains Arrangement minima. After all, this was an agreement that was entered into with other nations of the world, not by the farmers of western Canada or by the Canadian Wheat Board, but by the nation of Canada. It is the Canadian nation that has the responsibility of living up to the agreement in terms of its consequences for western Canadian farmers.
With regard to the two-price system, farm organizations, my own political party and even friends of hon. members opposite have made certain representations. I am sure that even the premier of Saskatchewan advocated a certain course of action. I am sure that members across the way are familiar with this hon. gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Stratford Burton: Typical Liberal arrogance!
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, sir, I had hoped you would recognize me. I have been on my feet a couple of times trying to catch your eye.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What does the hon. member know about wheat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have already recognized the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, sir, while I would not question Your Honour's decision, I wish to point out that I have been here all day as an observer. I am not a farm expert, perhaps, but that does not prevent my noticing that only two socialists and one Creditiste member remain in the house. It was the socialists who insisted on this debate.

July 21, 1S69
Wheat Export Prices
borrow your way out of debt, that in fact this is simply an advance loan on money already owed the farmer for the production sitting in storage on his farm. He will have to pay it back as soon as he is able to make deliveries. Thus, I suggest, the government should look further afield to some sort of effective solution to the present situation.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), to his credit, put forward a number of proposals most of which were in line with those made by my colleagues and myself. But somehow he seemed to be a voice crying in the wilderness. He could not even work up any applause from the government benches while making his speech and placing his proposals before the government. To the credit of that hon. member, he was perfectly frank and honest when he answered a question from the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), and stated he had placed these proposals before the government but as yet had not received a favourable reply. What sort of response are these proposals receiving? This is an example of what is causing the frustration that people are now witnessing in western Canada.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
A while ago the Prime Minister made reference to psychological alienation in western Canada. I suggest to him that some cold, hard cash in the hands of the western Canadian farmers at the present time in the form of income assistance would go a long way toward relieving the psychological alienation that he had noted over the last few months, and which I have no doubt he observed more closely last week.
One thing I noted about the speeches of both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was that neither dealt with the substance of the motion introduced by my leader and seconded by myself. Neither dealt with the immediate situation that had brought about the motion, namely the reduction in wheat prices in the United States during the past few days. Neither minister indicated to the house what action the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian government is taking in this regard. Neither minister would even indicate what was the response of the Canadian Wheat Board. I should like to know whether they have lowered their prices today.
We on this side have heard reports through the media that wheat prices are being lowered, yet, as I say, the ministers would not

make a statement about what the Canadian Wheat Board had done in response to the United States announcement. It seems to me that if these ministers wanted to make a positive contribution to the debate, this is one matter on which they should have reported to the house.
In addition, neither minister dealt with the basic income situation in western Canada which is the consequence of a whole series of things that have happened over the past year, the latest development being one further example. Neither minister chose to deal with the income situation or to voice their own views about it, let alone indicate the attitude of the government. I do not expect them to have any policy proposals to offer tonight. After all, this would be an indication that they were bowing to and giving in to the opposition's demands. I suppose they have to stage these things in order to get the best possible advantage. But the farmers of western Canada are not going to put up with any more staging in regard to this particular matter; they demand action, and they demand it now.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), in commenting on some of the incidents that took place during the Prime Minister's tour last week, quite rightly pointed out that the root cause of some of the demonstrations was the refusal of the Prime Minister prior to his visit to meet representatives of two major farm organizations the Saskatchewan Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union. When people who have the right to speak on behalf of the farmers of Saskatchewan and western Canada cannot get to talk to the Prime Minister, I suggest the reaction we witnessed in Regina, Saskatoon and other points last week has to result.
Let me, along with others, make it quite clear that I do not condone some of the events that took place last week. But if in fact we are going to have some sort of participatory democracy about which we have heard so much from the Prime Minister and members of the government during the past year and a half we will have to have both a change of attitude and a change of heart. We will have to take a different approach to problems such as these.
The background to the present situation extends over a number of years. I am not going to take the time of the house to deal with it in any detail. Mention has been made of a number of developments over the past three years, and since hon. members are
July 21, 1969



Unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture is no longer in his seat. He was here for only a short time this evening, as was pointed out by another hon. member. If the minister is not prepared to consider acreage payments and other proposals put forward, what proposals has he for alleviating the situation that exists in western Canada? If he rejects this form of payment, surely he should come up with some other means of providing a cash injection into the western Canadian economy.
The two major farm organizations, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union made clear in their presentations to the government this spring that while they might favour one particular means of cash payment over another, in fact they thought the major problem was to provide a direct infusion of cash into the western Canadian agricultural economy. The government has apparently failed to take this into account or give it any serious or adequate consideration.
The Minister of Agriculture went on to point out the advantages and benefits accruing from the cash advance program. Of course, the cash advance program was approved by all of us in the house. It has made a contribution to the welfare of the agricultural community and has in fact given farmers an advance on the production which they are unable to market immediately because of problems with which we are all familiar. This is why the cash advance program was advocated some 15 or 16 years ago; it is why it was introduced some ten or eleven years ago. It has played a very useful role in the western Canadian economy. But surely, Mr. Speaker, the government must by now have received the message that something more than this program is required. It must by now realize it is not enough.
The Minister of Agriculture also referred to two steps taken during the past year with respect to the cash advance program. I do not blame him for attempting to take the credit for these steps. However, when the minister and the government overplay this measure and say it is the solution, it will provide great benefits, and trumpet the $250 million figure about and say this is what the government is doing for the farmers of western Canada, I suggest it is the type of statement which produces the kind of reaction and frustration which in fact resulted in some irrational actions during the past week which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could tell us more about. This type of proposal simply will not
Wheat Export Prices
deal with the problem that exists at the present time.
I am very glad that the Minister of Agriculture has again resumed his seat. I place this on the record because I commented on his absence just a few minutes ago. Other hon. members might have done the same when they were referring to certain absences earlier in the evening.
The final clincher of the Minister of Agriculture was when he said that as of May 1, 75 per cent of the farmers owing money to the Farm Credit Corporation made their regular payments, and only 25 per cent, I take it, were in arrears. Is the minister seriously suggesting that this is an indication that everything is all right, namely, because one quarter of the farmers owing money to the Farm Credit Corporation were in arrears as of May 1? I know farmers in western Canada who were able to scrape up some of their last pennies to make their payment on May 1, and they have no idea where the next payment will come from or how they will meet it.
The minister then referred to the remaining 25 per cent who were in arrears and suggested that one half of them were already in arrears. I would not attempt to suggest the motive of the minister in making that statement. However, the effect of his statement was to cast a slur on all western Canadian farmers. His statement that roughly 12J per cent, or one-eighth, of the farmers were already in arrears left the impression that those farmers were in effect a bad credit risk and were not meeting payments they should be able to meet. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to be flitting in and out of the house at the present time-


An hon. Member:: He is back again.


John Stratford Burton: The minister is again in his seat. I suggest to the minister that the fact 12i per cent, or whatever is the exact figure, of our farmers were in arrears prior to April 30 last, was due to the already serious financial trouble they were experiencing. The fact that one-eighth of our farmers were in arrears as of April 30 is, I suggest, one indicator of the seriousness of the situation that is developing. Farmers in western Canada can see that the picture is getting worse, and it will get even worse. I suggest this is one reason why they are not swallowing the statements of ministers who suggest that the cash advance program is such a great thing and will solve the present situation. The government knows very well that you cannot
Wheat Export Prices we not take the lead and try to show them that we have a responsibility which goes beyond the immediate economic situation of the day? The article continues:
Canada s fertile fields should not be permitted to lie fallow when the world needs their production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McBride:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Thompson:: I only have a few minutes left. The hon. member can ask his question afterwards.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am merely following the pattern of the Minister of Agriculture and of other speakers who have preceded me on the other side of the house. What we need is a long term agricultural policy in addition to short range and urgent help which must be given now. What kind of pressure and what kind of demonstration will move the Trudeau government to this kind of action?
The crisis is here now. Unless we do something in this regard so far as Canadian agricultural industry is concerned we will be into an economic crisis before too many months have passed, one that we cannot even visualise now. The Canadian economy cannot afford the consequences of further delay. While it may help farmers for the few months during the harvest period to get an advance on the grain that they are not able to sell, unless we bring in some policies such as the ones that have been suggested here not only from this side of the house but, for example, such as the very sound ones that have been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) we are going to destroy the basic industry of this country which is still agriculture. This industry is the strength and backbone not only of our economy at home but also of our whole foreign policy in our relations with the countries less fortunate than ours.


Murray Arndell McBride: Will the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member will need the unanimous consent of the house since the time allotted the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has expired.


John Stratford Burton: The need for this debate has arisen because of the lack 
July 21, 1969
of government action and policies to deal with the crisis that is facing western Canada at the present time.


Colin David Gibson: Nonsense.


John Stratford Burton: You do not know anything about it. This afternoon and this evening we heard two ministers of the government take part in this debate. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in his genial way took us around the world and dealt with the international grain picture. I think that most members are aware of some of the problems that exist. I cannot say that his review added to the knowledge of hon. members in this regard, but I have no objection to his pointing out some of the factors that exist in the international grain markets.
* (10:40 p.m.)
The minister went on to list a number of things he suggested had been done by the government and that the government was doing to deal with the present situation. He pointed, of course, to a number of policies which were in fact introduced prior to the coming to office of the Liberal administration. Then we had the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). It seemed to me that when the Minister of Agriculture was preparing his notes for this debate he must have written a marginal note in which he said: Case weak. Shout like hell. I say this because I was very disappointed in the contribution of the minister. He first of all suggested that the major problem is cash flow. All hon. members will recognize that there is a cash flow problem. But surely if the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers of this administration have not as yet recognized that there is a more basic economic problem facing the agricultural industry in western Canada, they are not exhibiting a very high degree of competence.
The minister went on to reject one of the proposals put forward by hon. members, namely, acreage payments. I recognize that there are pros and cons with respect to the administration of acreage payments. However, I suggest it is one way of providing a cash injection into the western Canadian economy that would bolster the general economic picture. Other proposals have been made. My colleague the hon. member for Saskaloon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) proposed a series of deficiency payments which could achieve the same end and possibly avoid some of the administrative problems referred to by the Minister of Agriculture. However, the minister did not deal with that proposal.

July 21, 1969

(Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). It was only a couple of months ago that the Minister of Agriculture reaffirmed his own belief in a two price system. I quote from a Canadian Press release dated May 1, 1969. It reads in part:
Agriculture minister H. A. Olson reaffirmed Thursday his belief in the principle of a two price system for wheat, but gave no indication that it would become government policy.
Why did he not have something to say about that tonight? Why did he have to wait for a backbencher from his own party who knows about farm problems to talk about alternatives other than the short range advance payments and increased debt solution which the Minister of Agriculture suggest? The article goes on to say:
As a Social Credit MP for Medicine Hat before joining the Liberals, Mr. Olson persistently called for a two price system.
We do not hear very much about that at present. When there is talk about a wheat crisis and when some members from across the aisle talk with not much evidence that they know very much about problems in agriculture, and when the farmers are told they should not grow so much grain, I wonder just how foolish the government can become in its reasoning. At least a third of the world's peoples, and that is more than a billion people, have gone to bed hungry tonight. Why cannot we do something drastic as far as the agricultural policy of this country is concerned. Why can we not back up what the Liberal party said in the last election, that is "Go ahead and sow your grain; we will sell it"? I remember it very well. Why can we not take what our farmers can produce in their efficiency and make it available to a hungry world?
We have heard some suggestions made here today. One which was made by a member to my left was ridiculed by the other side of the house. I do not think there was anything to ridicule about his suggestion. When there are people starving in the world and we have more grain than we know what to do with, there must be some way of making our surpluses available to those who do not have enough to satisfy their hunger. Why do the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not take the lead in convincing the government to say to the farmer, "We will buy your grain. We will help you provide storage for it; we will store it on your farm and we will see that this grain goes out to the people who need it all across
Wheat Export Prices
the world." It may require the adjustment of the whole system of international settlements to different criteria. It does not necessarily mean a complete give away. It may require us to accept credits from countries in their own monetary exchange rather than demanding dollars for what we sell.
In the long range program we will not be able to continue using crutches and putting out palliatives of more debts and advance payments without solving the basic problems that our farmers face. Why do we not build more elevators to store grain? It has already been mentioned that one does not have to go farther than the scriptures to see why grain might be stored. Perhaps we should put the extra crop away for a few years until a time when we might not have grain or make it available to other parts of the world who do not have it. This is what we should hear the government talking about. Some of our newspapers are becoming aware of these problems and offer solutions which might be a little different from the status quo which is being advocated by the government. I am referring to the Toronto Telegram of July 16 where the following was stated:
As long as there are people in many parts of the world who go to bed hungry each night, Canada, as one of the major food producing nations, should continue to raise cereal grains and other foods and distribute these free to the needy countries.
The government should pay reasonable support prices to the farmers for wheat and the other food essentials produced.
No industry can survive when they are being forced to operate at less than the cost of their operations. I say to some members across the floor who are making a lot of noise at present, in the words of the article:
Since the Trudeau government took office, it has been reassessing Canada's contribution to such military alliances as NATO, NORAD and to various police-keeping forces. The Prime Minister has indicated that cutbacks in these could result in the savings of millions which could be used to assist some of the developing nations.
What a glorious opportunity he has now to help these countries in a tangible way. They could use the wheat and other food we have in great surplus and we should get it to them.
We could make arrangements and settlements other than those we now make. We could take the lead in convincing the rest of the wheat producing world that they have an obligation in this as well. The government hopes that the United States might listen to their cries as we beg for mercy from them and from their policies as they relate to the International Grains Arrangement. Why do

Wheat Export Prices
have to agree with what the hon. member were related strictly to the immediate cash said in respect of such action, because cer- crisis. It is also an interesting fact that the tainly we cannot condone that type of manner Minister of Agriculture when he talks about among us, let alone to the man who holds the this problem today is talking in an altogether high office of Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), different language than the language he used Really, what we witnessed in Saskatchewan when he sat with me in another section of was an inept Prime Minister in confrontation this chamber. It would be very interesting to with an infuriated people.	put the speeches he made then and the
speeches he makes now alongside each other.
e (10:20 p.m.)
What bothers me is that the week before last when we were denied the right to have this debate before the Prime Minister left for the West, he called the debate on the fundamental rule changes a stupid filibuster. He called the question period, which is intended to prod the government and keep it on its toes, a waste of time. In view of this he should not expect anything but the kind of abuse he got when he goes out to meet a public which cannot find the answer to its problems. It is about time the Prime Minister understood this because he is goading Canadians facing these problems to action which might well be more serious than what we have witnessed. Unless there are solutions to their problems we may see something more drastic than we have seen in the past. There is an agricultural crisis in the country far greater than anyone has suggested from the other side of the house, except perhaps the last speaker, that hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas).


An hon. Member:: This is a crisis in the world.


Robert Norman Thompson: It may be a crisis in the world, but right now we are concerned with the Canadian farmer. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated this very well at its last meeting in Calgary a few days ago. Let me quote from a press release that came out of that meeting:
-Their review of the deteriorating grains market situation and of the income situation in the country has served only to add strength and urgency to already overwhelming evidence that immediate and very substantial action must be taken by the federal government. The disastrous income losses being suffered by western farmers and the western economy demand cash assistance now and very early initiation of action plans for the longer run. The seriousness of this situation cannot be overemphasized.
I am shocked tonight that the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Olson) is not even here for this debate. He was here long enough to make his own speech, but he was not even here at all this afternoon. This crisis is worthy of far more action than his remarks tonight which
He certainly speaks in support of policies which according to his earlier speeches were not acceptable then.


An hon. Member:: You also sound different.


Robert Norman Thompson: What I am saying tonight is what I have always said about this farm crisis and I will have to continue to say it until some different agricultural policy comes forth from the government. Let me quote from an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 18. This is not a newspaper which is known to criticize the government. The editorial reads:
The wheat farmer today is not in the situation of the Indian, the Metis or the fisherman. For these latter groups, poverty and low income are entrenched in their way of life: The challenge to society is to change that way of life.
The wheat farmer, on the other hand, is like a man hit by a tornado, a flash flood or other natural disaster. His fortunes have been spectacularly reversed overnight. He possesses a viable, highly developed business operation-and his problem is to keep it from going under in this crisis period.
Those are correct words, and that is why the right hon. Prime Minister is wrong when he tries to make a comparison for the benefit of those people down east who are facing trouble of an altogether different nature. The editorial continues by giving Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures in relation to the situation in respect of farms:
(D.B.S. figures give some indication of the impact of the trade slump to date: In the first quarter of this year, wheat farmers received $94.3 million for delivery of their wheat, plus another $27.1 million in clean-up payments, compared to $154.2 and $77.2 million a year earlier, and a total of $392.2 million in 1967).
No country can afford not to make a financial set-back of these proportions a top, emergency priority, however anxious its government is to balance the national accounts. The alternative which is no alternative at all, is to see an industry, or a goodly part of it, wiped out over night-and to create displacements that will endure long into the future.
I submit these comments and say to hon. members opposite who do not even have the politeness to listen to what is being said, that it is not only a short range problem that

Wheat Export Prices
a crop failure or a poor crop last year being permitted to make up for lost income in the coming year? I think this is a very fan-proposal which should be tried through 196970. If it proves successful I do not see why a continuous quota should not become a permanent system, as long as the grain surplus may continue.
Another possibility is the addition, with affidavits if necessary, of the number of bushels farmers may not have been able to deliver on the five bushel quota by July 31 because of the vagaries of boxcar distribution to their authorized deliveries in their 1969-70 quota books. There is also the suggestion that the Wheat Board inspect the grain on the farm, grade it, seal it and pay the initial payment on it with delivery to be made when space becomes available over and above the new crop year quotas. Solving this dilemma would cost the government very little, perhaps nothing at all, but it would go a long way toward demonstrating the good faith of the government and its understanding of farmers' needs and feelings. Lacking such a solution I fear that many farmers will have their gross incomes arbitrarily reduced by up to 50 per cent and as anyone remotely knowledgeable about grain farming will recognize even a five bushel quota is not sufficient to pay operating costs.
Again, I plead for the appointment of a transport controller to co-ordinate grain movement. An effective controller would have averted the various bottlenecks we experienced throughout the season and would have prevented the anxiety and difficulties that I know we are confronted with now and will be in the next ten days. Many of the suggestions I have just made would cost the taxpayers little or nothing; others could cost a considerable sum. The question has been raised as to how such expenditures can be justified. Let me offer these few suggestions.
First, the government has a responsibility with regard to the minimum prices under the I.G.A. which I referred to earlier. Second, for several years farmers have been encouraged by government and other food experts to expand production. They did so in good faith and are now left holding the bag. Third, our Liberal farm program in the 1968 election campaign included an undertaking to export 1.3 billion bushels of wheat in three years and we are far behind in progress toward that goal. Fourth, the same program included a proposal for farm income maintenance and now is an appropriate time to put the proposal into operation.
[Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia) .1
July 21, 1969
Fifth, other sectors of the economy have been able to organize, with government encouragement, to raise their prices, their profits, their professional fees and then-wages to keep their incomes in line with costs. Farmers have been unable to do this, at least partly because of inadequate marketing legislation. Sixth, other Canadians are receiving varying amounts of government assistance. Examples are dairy farmers, fishermen, people requiring low rental housing, the auto industry, mining industries, special assistance to the maritimes and so on. Seventh, wheat and Canada are almost synonymous and the wheat industry will continue to be of major importance to the national economy and deserves some temporary special assistance to keep it viable and from becoming bankrupt.
Time will not permit me mentioning other desirable programs but I urge immediate action on these suggestions, especially on the guarantee of the I.G.A. floor price and on some system of equalizing delivery opportunities.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit a question, I should like to ask him whether he has submitted these proposals to the government. If so, could he tell the house whether any member on the government side listened to him and what hope he has that any of his suggestions will be adopted.


Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia):: In answer to the question I should say I have submitted some
of these ideas to the government at various times and I am in the process of submitting them again. I have not had favourable answers yet but I am still hoping.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). I think he has made a far greater contribution to this debate than either the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) or the two of them together. I can assure him that if the government would listen to his views we could go home for the evening instead of being here through the night in an effort to support some of the things he has said. I regret very much, however, that the hon. member had to apologize for the action and the manners of some of the people last week in front of the Prime Minister. I certainly
July 21, 1969

will give sympathetic and favourable consideration to at least some of the representations made by the responsible people with whom he had serious discussions last week.
I do not propose to go through the whole catalogue of those proposals, but I would like to dwell on some which I regard as basic minimum requirements. In my opinion, the federal government can do no less than support the price of wheat at $1,954, the floor in the International Grains Arrangement, which runs for two more years. The support should be retroactive to include the past few months during which the Wheat Board has been selling below the minimum. This arrangement was drawn up by governments, signed and ratified by governments, and has now been broken by governments. It is nothing more than ordinary justice that the government should bear the cost of this price cutting, instead of the farmers who produced the wheat in good faith. Such a guarantee would obviate the necessity for reducing initial payments.
This was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It has the support of the prairie provincial governments and of all rural and urban organizations in the west. The government set the precedent for such action by supporting the price of wheat at that level for the 11 months prior to the commencement of the I.G.A. on July 1, 1968. There is even more justification for doing so now because the arrangement is a legal fact as well as a moral obligation.
e (10:10 p.m.)
There is some question about the cost. It could be expensive. Perhaps prices could drop as much as 25 cents below the mini-mums, although I fervently hope not, on possible sales of up to 500 million bushels. This could amount to $125 million a year, which is about equal to the annual subsidy to dairy producers and only a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies accruing to industry and industrial workers because of protective tariffs. I want to again suggest that the proposal for a two price system for wheat should not be discarded without a thorough investigation, as I still believe it is an eminently fair proposition. It is reported that the Prime Minister has turned down the idea. If this is so, I think we should be told how much investigation took place and all the reasons behind any decision that may have been made against it. Incidentally, the
Wheat Export Prices
agricultural committee favoured the two price system too.
Other action that should be taken includes some further incentive to reduce wheat acreage; that is, in addition to the very severe quota restrictions which have already resulted in a 12 per cent reduction in wheat acreage this year. I suggest a cash payment of at least $10 per acre to farmers who have voluntarily reduced their acreage this year and to all farmers who will do likewise next year. This would help the cash shortage position immediately and assist farmers to adjust their farm operations to alternate production. Grants or low interest loans to assist farmers to convert to livestock production or feeding should also be provided. There should be an exhaustive inquiry into the grain delivery quota system with a view to making it more equitable and to eliminating abuses which have developed. It seems obvious to me, notwithstanding the assurances of the Wheat Board, that thousands of farmers will only have space to deliver three or four bushels per acre instead of the promised five bushels. Farmers know they must have low quotas when grain sales are down, and they are realistic enough to accept this fact. But they will justifiably and understandably resent inequitable distribution of those marketing opportunities there are. These inequities that I foresee will arbitrarily, unpredictably and sharply affect ther incomes and their very ability to survive.
Farmers and all western people would applaud some plan which would allow all farmers to share equitably in the grain market. The most common suggestion is to have the crop year extended past July 31 for a limited number of days or weeks until space is made available at delivery points where it is needed. I understand, however, that this plays havoc with the tremendous bookkeeping operation of the Wheat Board.
My number one proposal would be to have a continuous quota. That is, instead of cutting off at three, four or five bushels on July 31 then starting back at one some time after August 1, why not continue on to nine or ten or twelve bushels or more next year, to whatever level sales will permit and of course top priority should at all times be given to maximizing our sales. This would allow the railroads and elevator companies ample time to equalize quotas. It will be said that this will allow people who did not have much wheat last year to deliver up to two years quota out of the new crop. Perhaps there would be a few but what is wrong with farmers who had
July 24, 1969

This is by an important personage-I shall give his name in a moment-saying that the opposition shares equally with the government the responsibility of making parliament work.
I ask: how can the opposition share equally with the government that responsibility if it is hog-tied by rules that the government insists on imposing on the house, and that under closure? I quote further from the document I have in my hand:
One of the tests of good and strong democracy is the acceptance without qualification of the role of the opposition as an indispensable element in its processes, with rights to be safeguarded and with responsibilities to be discharged.
That test has not been met, and democracy has been lost, when opposition has degenerated into faction or when authority has become tyranny.
That is a quotation from the right hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am glad to see a few Liberals applauding him.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) didn't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
role of the opposition is equal to that of the government. This is the same theory, the same philosophy that I read from Beau-chesne's. I submit that when, in the making of the rules of the house, the government says, "We will give you no part; we are deciding what the rules are to be", that is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. Let me quote one more authority: Notwithstanding these increasing demands, the time available to this house each week for the conduct of its business is not significantly greater than it was a century ago, nor have the traditional and proper roles of government and opposition changed.
They are still the same.
It is the government's function to propose legislative solutions. It is the opposition's task to question these solutions and attempt to improve them or propose alternatives.
Then this sentence, short, to the point, and I support every syllable of it:
Neither role can be subordinate to the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: submit that it is Your Honour's responsibility to see that this dictum is observed, that the role of neither side in this house is made subordinate to the other. That should be the

Procedure and Organization case in every aspect of our work, but when it comes to the fundamental matter of our rules, if ever that dictum applied, it applies there. We are not called upon to sit here in a subordinate position, to be told by the other side what our rules shall be. I continue this quotation:
It goes without saying that any proposal for procedural reform must assist both sides of this house to function more efficiently. Anything less would diminish the very institution which we seek to assist.
That is a clear statement of the equality of the two sides, an equality that is being violated. Never mind the details of rule 75c; I am not concerned about that at the moment, but I am concerned about a government proposal being brought in the way it has, being put through this house by a government majority, and under closure. This same authority went on to refer to certain discussions which had taken place, and he said:
Nor should they-
Referring to the discussions.
-be permitted to lead, either by agreement or in the absence of it, to procedural changes which will upset the delicate and essential balance between government and opposition so necessary to the proper functioning of parliament.
That is a quotation from the right hon. Piere Elliott Trudeau. See Hansard, September 16, 1968, pages 72 and 73.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is applauding himself.


Mr. McCleave:: He didn't know they were his own words.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope he will pay attention to what he said-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He is schizophrenic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -namely, that there is a delicate and essential balance between government and opposition which is necessary to the proper functioning of parliament. This ties in to a matter that is basic to our whole operation, namely, our rules. We are being put in a subordinate position. We are being denied operating under collective action. We are being denied the right to consent. This is being done on the basis of an external authority, namely, the government.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
I contend, therefore, that this whole way of doing things, bringing in rules in this way, is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, and that Your Honour should so find under Standing Order 51. Doing this takes the rules of debate out of the hands of members of parliament. It takes the rules of debate out of the rule book and puts them in the pocket of the government, in the pocket of the government house leader. It leaves all decision as to what time will be spent in debate to the caprice of the government. There is no more the matter of consent, no more the matter of collective action. This is being done in a manner which I submit is completely contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament.
I come back to what I said earlier because I think it needs to be emphasized. I have strong feelings about the details of 75c. With a few others I have been involved in seemingly endless discussion on these matters; in fact I said in a lighter vein to the President of the Privy Council in his office the other day that we started these discussions in his office last August and that we were getting pretty close to a full year of it.
I am concerned about the details of 75c, but that is not the issue. The issue is not the number of days to be spent at this or that stage of a bill. The issue is not the limitation of time for debate.
Indeed, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tries to make out that we want to talk endlessly and never want to reach a decision, he knows he is just saying that. He knows that our rules are full of time limitations, limitations on the length of time a member can speak and limitations on this and that debate, and he knows there has never been a debate in the House of Commons in which every member has taken part. He knows that in point of fact we do reach decisions, and that the number of debates we have had in this session that have been lengthy have not done parliament any damage, they have done it credit. The fact of the matter is that these details are not the issue before us now, not the major issue in this whole debate of two or three weeks and certainly not the issue in this point of order.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The issue before us now is: how do we make our rules? Do we make them by collective action, do we make them by consent, or are they made for us by government majority? Because this motion denies collectivity, denies consent, because it is an attempt to make the rules by action of the government

majority, I call on Your Honour to apprise the house under Standing Order 51 that this is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him at this time. I was not too sure whether the hon. member was going to speak on the point of order, which allows for 20 minutes under Standing Order 33, or whether he should have the usual 40 minutes. I would be inclined to think that he is entitled to 20 minutes, but I assume that in view of the fact that he is discussing such an important point of order hon. members will allow him to continue. It is on this assumption that he has been invited to continue and to complete his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Sir. My concluding remarks will be brief.
I know that there have been occasions when rules have been changed in other than the normal way. I know that in 1913 the closure rule itself, which has come back to haunt us again today, was put through not by having a committee with the Speaker as chairman but on a motion of the government. I know that under Mr. Pearson's government, after we had changed some rules by committee action, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), who was then house leader, piloted through the house a government motion regarding the change of certain rules. It has been done on some occasions, but most of the times rules have been changed, as Beau-chesne says, by a committee which assisted Mr. Speaker, with the Clerk of the House as clerk of that committee.
You may say, Sir, that because it has been done sometimes the way it is now being done, and because no Speaker interfered, you should not do so now. But I point out to you, Sir, that we are under a different regime. On all of these other occasions the Speaker who was in the chair was a member of the government party. Impartial though each of them may have tried to be, that was a fact.
You, Sir, to your credit and to the credit of parliament, are the first Speaker who does not belong to a political party. You are a Speaker who is completely independent, and in my view you have to give consideration to your responsibility to both sides of the house.
You have to look at what have been the rules and privileges of parliament with respect to our rules and our Standing Orders. I
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
submit, therefore, that in that light you should find that the attempt to change the rules in this way is contrary to all of our best traditions and contrary to the principles of collectivity and consent, and you should advise the house, before you put the question tonight, that the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is contrary to the provisions of Standing Order 51.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take some time to support the views put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I make no apology for taking a little time because I believe it is the most important question that we have had to face in this parliament since I first came here, and that we are likely to have to face for a very long time.
Standing Order 51 requires you, Mr. Speaker, to say whenever Your Honour is of the opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament. The rules and privileges of parliament consist not only of the written rules, not only of the decisions of the Speaker from time to time, but also of the customs and usages of parliament referred to explicitly in the rules of the British house of 1867 in so far as applicable, to our own customs and traditions.
In view of the fact that closure is being imposed I suggest that it is essential that Your Honour interpret even more generously-or to put it in another way, more cautiously-the rules and privileges of the house. I suggest that in view of the fact that closure is being imposed it is Your Honour's duty to ensure that the rules and privileges of this house are not trampled upon in the process.
Certainly it is the tradition here that changes in the rules are brought about on a broad basis of agreement in all quarters of the house. This is a tradition of long standing and, as has been pointed out, it is the only effective way in which changes in the rules can be made. The house can operate only if the rules have a broad basis of support, but in addition to the functional aspect of rule changes it is certainly equally true that the customs and usages of this house require a broad basis of support. This has been violated in the manner in which the government party is proceeding at this time.
The use of closure to force through rule changes, which are opposed by every member of the opposition, is of course an aggravation,
and the use of this method of forcing through rules that do not carry the approval of a single member of the opposition is so completely foreign to the traditions of this house as to constitute a breach of privilege. If the rules can be changed in these circumstances, and if closure can be resorted to in order to implement these rule changes, and can be used so as to alter fundamentally the very nature and role of the House of Commons, then we are in a very sorry state indeed in so far as democracy and freedom are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If Your Honour permits this motion to be put, particularly with the background of closure, then Your Honour will have established the precedent that the majority in this house can change the rules so as to permit, if it chooses, only the most nominal consideration of legislation by this house. Backed by closure the majority could put through changes in rules which would eliminate all stages of discussion except one, and, of course, at the same time require the house to vote prescribed amounts of money within a prescribed time.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not the true concept of parliament. Surely, it is not the true concept of the privileges and rights of this house. I suggest there is a striking parallel between the struggle we are facing now and the old struggle of the House of Commons to resist the dictates of Stuart Kings-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and the subsequent efforts of the Crown to control the House of Commons. It is true the government is not sending in armed forces to impose its will on the House of Commons. But clearly the government is telling the House of Commons what it must do. The purpose of this motion, enforced by closure, is obviously to reduce the powers and the privileges of the House of Commons in order that the government can in future so control the house as to ensure that it passes within a specified time all legislation listed by the government, and, of course, that it votes X number of dollars in a specified length of time.
I am not trying to involve you in the substance of this motion, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that if the motion is put, particularly by means of closure, it becomes a precedent so ugly, so full of foreboding for the
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization future of parliament as to be tantamount to an attempt to subvert and destroy parliament as we know it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If this motion can be put, sir, how far do we go before we become a chamber of deputies comparable to the kind of chamber established by General de Gaulle? How far are we from authoritarian institutions? If Your Honour puts this question tonight, supported by closure, then this house can step by step be stripped of every privilege and every authority which remains to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It might be said this could only be done upon the authority of a majority of members of this house. Mr. Speaker, the government, the external authority referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), controls the members who constitute the majority in this house much more effectively and much more firmly than George III was able to do with members of the British house, no matter how hard he tried.
It is true the methods are different. I am not casting any reflection on members who support the government opposite, and I say this quite earnestly, but I would point out that members of this house who support the government, as conditions have evolved, are not interested in preserving the powers or the privileges of the House of Commons. It has been said they have been silenced by the government. I do not make this charge today but I do say they are given very little by way of a role to play in the house by the government. What private members who support the government are seeking is not authority or privilege in this house, particularly. What they are seeking is a share in the power of government; they are seeking to take some part in the formulation of decisions by the government. This is what motivates them, principally; they are interested in sharing the power of government but they have not the slightest interest in trying to control the operations of the government or in exercising the powers and privileges of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So it really means nothing to say in these circumstances that the government has the support of a majority in the house, since the majority upon which it relies is, in the nature of things, not interested in 
preserving the powers and privileges of the House of Commons. Thus we have a government, with the help of its friends in the house, using a gag not simply to get a meas-use through the chamber but to reduce severely the privileges of the house by compelling the adoption of some new form of closure. I do not know whether this is a new aspect of big "L" Liberalism, or what it is. I think it is a new form of betrayal, a new form of treason on the part of the intellectuals opposite. Regardless of this, sir, I say to you, as you have been reminded already today, that it is your duty to protect the minorities in this house. I should like to make a reference to a description of a great Speaker in the British house, Speaker Onslow.
Onslows show of independence at the outset of his career as Speaker did not belie his subsequent conduct... The forms of proceedings, he held, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the action of ministers and they were in many instances a shelter and a protection to the minority against the attempts of power.
In view of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, I do not need to expand upon Your Honour's role as a protector of minorities, nor does Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is five o'clock and according to the standing order we would normally bring it to the attention of hon. members that we have to go on to private members' business. Hon. members may wish to allow the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to complete his presentation. Is that the wish of the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Baldwin:: In view of the nature and the seriousness of the point which is being argued, and since Your Honour should be apprised of all the arguments pro and con-* the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) obviously intends to participate-perhaps there would be willingness on the part of the house to dispense with private members' hour and continue until six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be our wish, too.


Mr. Lind:: I agree to dispense with private members' hour and to carry on with the business of the house now before us.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was simply reminding you, even though it might scarcely be necessary, of your duty to protect minorities in the house. This is the issue we are discussing today. The protection of minorities
July 24, 1969

involves the very preservation of responsible parliamentary government as we have known it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Once the Chair recognizes the right of a majority to change the rules of the house without the support or approval of a single member of the opposition, and to do so by the use of closure, then we are on the slippery slope which will enable any government to destroy parliament simply by changing the rules of this house, using a simple majority controlled by itself alone. Therefore I say that a motion like this, which is put forward to change the rules without having the support of a single member of the opposition, violates the privileges and rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is not a mere technical argument. We must consider it in the light of the authoritarian tendencies displayed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and some hon. members of the government. It was a very unpleasant experience for me to sit here and watch hon. members opposite when the government house leader announced that closure would be imposed. I do not intend to use words like "fascist" and "nazi"-they are not proper and I do not intend to use them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Watching the glee on the faces of hon. members opposite, and the obvious enjoyment they derived from the use of what I call arbitrary power, was an unsettling experience for me, and I am filled with foreboding about what may lie ahead for us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not accuse my hon. friends opposite of anything ugly, but I say it is apparent they are prepared to exercise their power to achieve any objective they wish to achieve. That has been demonstrated here. I ask, how far away are we from the kind of Gaullist government under which this house would have no real power, under which we would have government by television interview, with an election every four or six years? If this motion is put tonight, how far away will we be from that sort of government?
Procedure and Organization


An hon. Member:: There might even be no elections.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is one question we must consider earnestly. There is an additional reason for saying this motion ought not to be put and that it violates the privileges of the house. It is admitted on all sides that this is a bad rule. I believe there are few, even on the other side of the house-and this includes even the Prime Minister's most loyal followers-who will defend the proposed rule in its present form. The government house leader has even stated that changes to it are necessary and desirable. There is no question about that, Mr. Speaker. The great majority of hon. members opposite admit quite freely that the rule is unnecessarily harsh and unnecessarily restrictive.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) agreed that it should go back to the committee; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) moved a subamendment saying it should go back to the committee. In all corners of the house it is admitted to be an unsatisfactory rule, and it is attributed to hon. gentlemen opposite that they realize this. They realize it is unsatisfactory. Yet they are asking the house to adopt it on the basis that at some future time it can be made satisfactory. Mr. Speaker, for the government to ask this house to adopt a rule which it admits to be bad and in need of correction is an imposition on and violation of the privileges of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Thirdly, sir, the rule is ambiguous. I argue, and I think I am right, that as it reads rule 75c cannot be invoked if all opposition representatives agree under rule 75b. I have been told hon. members opposite dispute this, that they will argue, if the point should arise, that this is not so and that they will try to convince you that rule 75c can be used if the representative of the government is not party to an agreement under 75b.
Ordinarily Your Honour leaves it to the judgment of the house to determine whether any piece of legislation or matter coming before it is clear or ambiguous. Ordinarily you would leave the whole question to the house. But, Sir, now we are talking about the rules of the house; we are talking about the rules under which this house will operate, and I say it is a violation of the privileges of this house for the government to move the adoption of rules which are admitted to be
July 24, 1969
Procedure and Organization ambiguous and which it must leave to Your Honour's interpretation. It is a violation of the privileges of this house for the government to impose this question on the house, and more so particularly, because it is backed by closure.
Only you, Sir, can now stop this violation of the privileges of the House of Commons. You, Sir, as have been your predecessors through the centuries, are the guardian of the rights of the House of Commons. When you go to the Senate, Sir, there is a ceremony in which you re-enact the assertion of your authority and parliament's authority over the Crown. It is to you, sir, that we must look for protection.
We have discussed this motion and this proposed new rule. We have negotiated, but there has been no evidence that representatives of the government had any serious intention to reach a settlement. There was no discussion until debate had gone on for more than a week. There was no discussion until the government became convinced we meant business and that debate would be sustained. When the government house leader realized this, he began discussions. May I put it this way, Sir: when Caesar returned from the west word went out that all talk must stop.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is nothing more that we in the opposition can do to prevent this violation of parliament-unless we are prepared to so disrupt the business of parliament that it cannot proceed. And we do not intend to do that. I did not come to parliament to destroy it. I would like to be helpful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The rule which has been invoked is not often used. It is difficult to interpret and I regret, sir, that you have been placed in this difficult position. As a matter of fact if circumstances in the house had been different, I would have suggested that you might consider resigning as Speaker as a means of protesting against the exercise of arbitrary authority by this government. But I say to Your Honour that I believe your continuance as Speaker is essential to the continuation of this parliament. Your Honour enjoys the respect of every member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Your Honour's role has not been easy in recent days. It is not easy today, and it may not be easy in the coming sessions because this house has taken on an ugly complexion. There is no doubt that feelings are running deep and strong. The tragedy is that there was no need for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is only Your Honour who can save this parliament and make it constructive. It is the respect that we all have for Your Honour that will hold this parliament together. I am sorry to add to your responsibility today, but the responsibility is there.
The decision on this point is vital to the future of parliament. I believe it will determine future responsible parliamentary government in this country. I call upon Your Honour not only to declare that this motion contravenes the privileges of this house, not merely to call this to the attention of the house, but that under this rule, in Your Honour's capacity as Speaker, Your Honour should refuse to put this motion to the house because it violates the privileges of this house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to 40 minutes of pure tribute to the rules of parliament. It surprises me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) should exploit a point of order to secure the floor today, which they could not secure normally under the rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes,
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a rule in this house against the imputing of motives. That applies not only to the remark of the minister but to the laughter from the other side. I raised this point of order this afternoon out of genuine concern for the rules and procedures of this House of Commons and for no other reason.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. minister was not imputing motives.


Mr. Woolliams:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely if the minister is not imputing motives to the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) he is imputing that Your Honour is permitting something improper in this house. He is imputing something to Your Honour on which Your Honour cannot rule. That is what a Minister of the Crown is doing.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be difficult to recognize that we are still dealing with a point of order relating to Standing Order 51. I invite hon. members to remember that. I reminded the hon. minister a moment ago that he could not impute motives. I am sure he will give that indication to the Chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not been imputing motives. I have been stating a simple fact. I am stating that under the rules of this house the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Leader of the Opposition had no entitlement to the floor to take part in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some hon. Members:: Stupid, stupid!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister will recognize that it is the responsibility of the Chair to determine whether-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) sought and were given the floor for the purpose of raising a point of order. In my view much of what was said by those hon. members, was specifically to the point of order, and I would think the hope that the minister will also relate his remarks to the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the point of order, as it emerged from the tortuous language of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is that Your Honour should not permit the motion moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) to be put before this house. Your Honour was asked to take an unprecedented responsibility which no Speaker, in this or in the British house, has ever been asked to assume.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is saying today that the motion for concurrence in the report of the standing committee, having been moved already, should

Procedure and Organization not be further proceeded with. The hon. member is asking Your Honour, under a Standing Order, to assume that responsibility, and he is asking Your Honour to assume that responsibility in the name of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I just want to put this in context, Mr. Speaker. Today the member for Winnipeg North Centre is telling us that to proceed with this motion is a breach of parliamentary privilege. Last week he and the Leader of the Opposition told us if we did not proceed with it that it would be a breach of parliamentary privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government house leader put a motion on the order paper that might have had the effect of superceding the motion moved by the chairman of the committee. The member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Leader of the Opposition were in their places shouting that we must respect the committee system and that we must have this report from the committee.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition in his speech on the motion said that by moving concurrence in the motion parliament had scored a victory. Today the same gentleman is telling us that to proceed with the motion is unparliamentary.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No wonder the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition and of the member for Winnipeg North Centre is wearing thin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No wonder there is disillusionment and cynicism about parliament when two leading members will take a position such as they took last week, and reverse it this week.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No wonder the young people and the young members are fed up with double standards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No wonder they are fed up with double standards and double talk. This

Procedure and Organization motion today asks that we do not proceed with the motion they begged us last week to proceed with, in respect of which they said if we did not proceed with it it would be a breach of parliamentary principle. That is the issue. They do not read their former speeches. They are so busy with television and the press that they cannot remember what they said last week or the week before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let it be correctly known that the point raised by myself, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was not that this motion should be proceeded with but the other motion, the infamous motion put by the President of the Privy Council, should not be put. That was our position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should remind hon. members again that we are supposedly on a point of order. The point of order has reference to Standing Order 51, and I feel abandoned in that the hon. minister is not even referring to the Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that there is in my mind nothing but the highest respect for the Chair


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the point made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), Mr. Speaker, may I read from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which has reference to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and to this motion. The hon. member for Peace River just stated that they were fighting to oppose the motion of the President of the Privy Council. This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say as recorded at page 11075 of Hansard:
What changed his mind was that there was a motion coming from this side of the house concerning the failure of the committee chairman to move concurrence in his report as he had been instructed to do.


An hon. Member:: So what?

July 24, 1969


Gerald William Baldwin: The rule of anticipation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The plain conclusion is that the purpose of members opposite was to have the motion for concurrence moved-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -otherwise it would be unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the minister might be allowed to continue. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear what is being said at the present time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was
delighted that today for the first time the British House of Commons has been reinstated in the minds of members of the opposition. We have listened to this debate for many days and for the first time today was there a reference made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre to the British House of Commons. We have heard the Reichstag mentioned more often in this house in this debate than the British house. Why is that? Because no member of the opposition can make a respectable argument about the procedures that we are proposing if they take a moment to compare them with those of the British house. So they have swept that under the rug.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre followed his point of privilege by quoting Bourinot on the principles which laid the basis for English parliamentary law. He went on to argue that it was unparliamentary and unconstitutional for a government, acting as a government, to propose a motion to change the rules of parliament. As I understand it that was the basic constitutional argument. Well, of course, strictly speaking what is before us is not a' motion of the government. It is a motion from a standing committee, moved by the chairman, seeking concurrence in it. That is what is before the house, not a government motion. We could have had a government motion if hon. members had not opposed that idea. But the suggestion that it is unparliamentary, undemocratic and strikes at the basis of English parliamentary law for a government even to move a motion to change the rules drastically, is nothing but an invention from the mind of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we know that one of the great objectives of the new Labour government of Great Britain was to
July 24, 1969

make drastic changes in the rules of the British house. We know that Richard Crossman, who was former house leader, had as one of his objectives, when he became a member of the Wilson ministry, the drastic changing of the rules of the British house. Why are we getting points of order based on British parliamentary law? In December, 1967, Mr. Speaker, the Labour government of Britain, acting in the British parliament under English parliamentary law, brought in the timetable motion, the very heart of the proposals that are before the house now. They tightened up the guillotine that had been in operation for a long time, and which had been used by Harold MacMillan to put through one bill in all its stages in a single motion. It had also been used by Arthur Greenwood, the Lord Privy Seal, to put two bills, all three stages wrapped up in a single motion, through the house by guillotine in one day after a debate. That is the rule of the house.
But when the Labour party came in they decided a day's debate on the guillotine was too much and not necessary. They said that instead of having a full day's debate on the guillotine motion,-which in the case I cited covered two bills and all stages in one motion-"Let us make it two hours." They had their rules passed by a majority of the British House of Commons, not by consent and not by a consensus, but by a majority-a government majority which took its responsibility and put the changes into effect.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Look at the mess they are in now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Then it was apparent, and it is apparent today, that the government has to have its will. The opposition in Britain did not go crying to the Speaker to bail it out. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the impartial Speaker of the British house had very much more history to call on to safeguard independence, which is only commencing in this institution, but the British Speaker was not asked to say no, and he was not asked to take the responsibility of government.


An hon. Member:: Did they use closure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He was not asked to take on the responsibility of bailing out the frustrated and defeated opposition. The man who put forward the rules motion in Britain, and spoke to it, is no has been. He is still the
Procedure and Organization foreign minister in the British government, the Right Hon. Michael Stewart.


An hon. Member:: Let's come back to Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He was a friend and an intimate of our N.D.P. colleagues. When the Wilson government was elected-


An hon. Member:: You can have him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the gentlemen of the N.D.P. came in with their chests stuck out. They took more pleasure out of the election of Wilson than they did out of the election of Schreyer.
Is it unparliamentary to put this motion and you should not, Mr. Speaker, withdraw it? I say that on the basis of this motion you are in the same position as the Speaker of the British house, and there the motion was decided by the government, supported by a majority. They voted on the rules change proposed by the Right Hon. Michael Stewart and they debated it. That gentleman had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, one can not run a parliament without an ultimate sanction to prevent a minority preventing the majority from getting their way.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I should like to know, after the minister finishes making such a rousing speech, whether he would like to answer a question.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I asked the hon. member whether he was rising on a point of order, and if he is he should state what it is.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It was not a point of order, I rose to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rose in order to catch your eye and to ask for your indulgence in order to direct a question to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member of course can ask a question if the minister will entertain one, as I understand his time has not yet expired. Does the minister consent to the entertaining of a question from
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will entertain it, but I do not know whether I will answer it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sure he will not answer the question, but I should like to ask it. He made a rousing speech during which he referred to the Labour government in Britain which made rule changes in relation to one day and two hours. Did that government use closure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reference to closure both parties understood the inevitability of parliamentary progress in Britain. They fought and they had a vote. They did not have to apply closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Just to clarify that point, I do not know if there is any way in the British house to apply closure as it is applied in the Canadian house. I do not know if this is provided for there.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps the minister would entertain another question. Is it not a fact that the parties reached an agreement to fix the time they were to use in that debate through "the usual channels?"


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If they went through the usual channels why would they have a debate in the house? My hon. friend remembers that last December he put a similar motion which was decided on by a majority. The opposition in Britain would not accept the proposed rules and the motion went to a vote. That is what we ought to be doing now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You are avoiding the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) does not mind me reminding him that we are, in theory, supposed to be considering at the present time a point of order under Standing Order 51. I have the impression, which becomes stronger and stronger after listening to speech after speech, that the point of order has been lost in the shuffle.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Something has certainly been lost.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support both the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in their appeal to you under Standing Order 51. I want to congratulate the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) for making a 20 minute harangue without ever mentioning that point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whenever this government is in
trouble it brings the Minister of Manpower and Immigration out of mothballs to be its hatchet man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now the government can put him back in cotton wool until it is in trouble again, which will not be long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a matter of fact it is fortunate for the minister that the government gets into trouble periodically, because then the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) notices him, and that is something he has not been doing for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find it difficult to relate the hon. member's remarks to Standing Order 51.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I can understand your concern, but I would point out that the minister in his remarks, allegedly on the point of order, demonstrated the arrogance of this government. He began his speech by saying that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Leader of the Opposition had no right to speak. I took this to be not only a reflection on those two hon. members but, literally, in respect of you, Sir after all, you are still conducting the affairs of the house in spite of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if you need any direction on how to conduct the deliberations of this assembly you will be
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
able to get it from someone more competent than the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. This was demonstrated by his speech.
The second thing he did was to say that we have no right to be making an appeal to you, Sir, with reference to the impropriety of seeking a change in the rules of the house by closure, and a change in the rules of the house unilaterally. This government is not only changing the rules of the house by closure but the minister now gets up and tells us that although Standing Order 51 is there we cannot use it because he has decided we ought not use it. The government is not only changing the written rules, it is now changing the rules as the debate goes on.
The minister knows perfectly well that this hocus-pocus about the opposition calling for the report of the Committee on Procedure and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and Organization is the sheerest of nonsense. All the opposition groups opposed both the motion and the report. They opposed the report in the committee, they opposed it when it came to the house, and they are still opposing the report as is shown by the fact that the government has been forced to use closure.
We on this side of the house are not seeking to embarrass Your Honour or to place you in an invidious position. We recognize that the basic principle of parliament is that the Speaker does not offer any opinion on the substance of legislation or of a motion; that the Speaker is the arbiter of the house in dealing with matters of procedure. If this were a closure motion dealing with a bill or a resolution, as was the case with the Canadian flag, of course the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) would be quite right: we ought not to make an appeal to Your Honour under those circumstances.
We on this side of the house contend that changing the rules of the house is in a totally different category. We contend that the rules of the house are not the sole property of the government; that the rules of the house are the property of the entire House of Commons with Your Honour presiding.


An hon. Member:: We are the majority.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One hon. member on the other side
Procedure and Organization has said they belong to the majority. That is exactly what we are objecting to.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Those are the members with six months' experience.


Mr. Comeau:: That interjection was the maiden speech of the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In any democratic, deliberative
assembly the minority, sent there by the people of the country, has only two kinds of protection. One is the protection provided by the rules of the house, rules that set forth clearly and succinctly a member's rights, prerogatives and privileges. That is the only thing that protects a minority against an arrogant majority drunk with power. That is the only protection a minority has against a majority that seeks to impose its will. If the majority can change the rules of the house unilaterally, the rights of the minority are automatically eroded.
In this instance there has been no consensus. In this instance the rule which is before the house was brought in, supported solely by the government members on the Committee on Procedure and Organization. In the House of Commons that report has been supported solely by government members, and it is now to be railroaded through, if the government has its way, entirely by the support of government members.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If a majority can at any time use its weight of numbers in the House of Commons to change the rules, how long will the rights of the minority in parliament continue to exist? If the government unilaterally can change the rules, as it is seeking to do now, what can it do next session and the session after that?
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said that all these fears were inventions from the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If the government can change the rules to limit debate to one day on any stage of a bill, is there anything to prevent it next session limiting the time to two hours, or limiting debate to one speaker for each party in the house? Is there any end to what can happen to the rights of private members and the rights of minorities in this house? I think we have a right to appeal to Your Honour, as we shall
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization eventually appeal to the conscience of the people of Canada-


Mr. Lessard (LaSalle):: Be careful. You know what happened once before.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that a democratic assembly cannot continue to function efficiently and effectively if at any time a government of its own volition can change the rules of the house, particularly if those rule changes reduce, erode and restrict the rights of members of opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I need hardly point out to Your Honour that the real tragedy of what is happening is that no one in any part of the house wants the rules the government is now trying to ram through the house. The government does not want them. The government itself recognizes that the rules are poorly drafted, that they are unsatisfactory. It is quite possible that if a proper interpretation is put on 75b, then 75c will prove to be completely inoperable.
The government is not satisfied with this report. The opposition parties are not satisfied with it. But here is a government that is going to do violence to the whole spirit of parliamentary procedure in order to get itself a series of rules that nobody really wants, and with which nobody will be satisfied. And this did not have to happen. Continued consultation would have worked out a rapprochement. The parties were coming closer and closer together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall not repeat the various statements that have been made by the house leaders. Concessions have been made by all the parties in the house, which brought them closer together. The government would have been wise to have used the methods that were used in days gone by to seek a solution. Instead the government proposes to muzzle parliament and to railroad through rule changes by closure, thus setting a precedent that can have disastrous consequences in the years ahead.
Cromwell walked into the parliament at Westminster with his soldiers and said, pointing to the mace, "Take away that bauble". This government is chipping it away bit by bit, but the consequences might eventually be
(Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).]
the same. I heard Aneurin Bevan once say that "in Germany democracy died by the headsman's axe; we must be careful that here it does not die of pernicious anaemia."
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the danger, not the sudden, cataclysmic destruction of our democratic rights in one fell swoop like burning the Reichstag, but step by step eroding, restricting and constricting the rights of members of parliament, until what we have come to know as a democratic parliament is completely changed and altered.
I said we had two sources of defence: The first is the rules of the house which are now under attack and the second is Your Honour, who is the custodian of the rights and privileges of members of parliament. I should like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the privilege over a good many years of sitting under many speakers, both in this parliament and in the provincial legislature, but I have never sat under a speaker whom I enjoyed more, for whom I had greater admiration, both for his fairness and for his skillfull handling of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Irrespective of the decision which Your Honour may make today, I can assure you that that respect and affection will continue to be held by us all. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the only final recourse we have, confronted by this unprecedented action, is to appeal to you under Standing Order 51, asking you to apprise the house that the matter before us is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament.
We would not ask this on any question of substance. We would not ask this if the government were using closure to pass a motion dealing with something else, or to force through legislation. But we are contending that when the matter before the house has to do with something as critical, as fundamental, and as essential as the democratic rights of this House of Commons, we have a right to appeal to you.
In the final analysis opposition parties have only two rights of appeal; one is to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian and custodian of the rights of all members irrespective of party,
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
and we make that appeal now. The other right of appeal is to the electorate, and we are prepared at any time to make that appeal and to ask the Canadian people what they think of this dictatorial action of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, and at the risk of being unfashionable in this debate I will address myself to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He said in his argument that the issue before us now is how we make our rules, by collective action, by consent or by governmental majority. I think that was the central point of his argument. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is an experienced member of the house. He has been here a long time, since 1942, I believe.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, not necessarily too long. Of course he has had a lot of experience with the rules in the past. He knows, and Mr. Speaker you even had the opportunity to point out to the house last December, that there has been in the past more than one way of amending the rules of the house. As he suggested, there has been the decision by a committee of which Mr. Speaker was chairman. Equally, there have been decisions in the past by committees in which Mr. Speaker did not participate, and on motions by the Minister of the Crown.
The hon. member appeared to make something of the fact that in recent years we have been studying and changing the rules of the house using a committee of which Mr. Speaker is not a member. It seems to me that one should consider that if this is a bad principle now, it must have been a bad principle back in 1967 in the last session of the last parliament when, with the support of the hon. member, a special committee was set up of which Mr. Speaker was not chairman.
It must have been wrong in 1968 when the hon. member supported the setting up of the special committee in the earlier part of this session, and indeed it must have been wrong when the hon. member, as well as all members of the house, gave consent to Standing Order 65 under which the present Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was set up.

Procedure and Organization
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not wrong on those occasions, and it is not wrong now. Parliament decided last December 20 that we should change our rules by this system.
There is one other point, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the hon. member is very experienced. He will recall that back in 1965 he was interested in and followed the deliberations of the house when it considered changes in the procedure at that time. The changes were to introduce provisional Standing Order 15a, the allocation of time rule. Was it introduced in a report by a committee of which Mr. Speaker, was chairman? No, it was introduced by the prime minister of the day with the support of my colleague and predecessor as president of the privy council.
The fact of the matter was that there are precedents both ways in this regard. If you look back to the 1965 debate you will see, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with his procedural agility appeared time and time again in the pages of Hansard, commenting on this and that, as to what was being done, and on the procedure being followed, but at no time then did he make any suggestion that because the government had introduced a motion to change the rules of the house to bring into effect the allocation of time procedure it was contrary to Standing Order 51.
I suggest that if it was not contrary to Standing Order 51 then, it is not contrary to Standing Order 51 now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we call it six o'clock and the house rises until eight o'clock, may I say that I have some doubts as to whether the debate should be continued under the provisions of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that is under the guise of Standing Order 51. I must say in all candour that I have the impression that if this debate is continued it will be at the expense of the Chair, and I have very serious reservations as to whether this should be allowed. I hope that hon. members will allow the Chair as to make a ruling on the point of order soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Make it now.


Mr. Speaker:: A moment ago I noticed that two or three hon. members wanted to rise. They are rising allegedly, but I am sure honestly, for the purpose of discussing the
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization point of order. However, at the same time, whether we like it or not, it is extremely difficult to limit contributions in this kind of debate to the strictly procedural aspects of the matter. It is perhaps natural for hon. members, without wanting to do so, to touch on the substance of the matter. This is what I am afraid of, and I really feel somewhat embarrassed by the thought that this debate might continue until one o'clock tonight always inviting the Chair to make a ruling ultimately at one o'clock. If it is the wish of hon. members I can make a ruling immediately, after which the debate will continue on the motion before the house.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
A few days ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was kind enough to say that he intended to raise this particular point of order and since then, as I try to do in every such circumstance, I have given serious thought to the points he has raised. I came to the chair armed with many books and precedents from this parliament, from the British parliament, and even from other parliaments. I have Beauchesne, Bourinot, May and the Standing Orders with me, as well as a long prepared opinion which I reached as a result of my studies in the quiet of the Speaker's chambers.
I wonder whether it is necessary to go over the details, the procedural details of the situation. I say, perhaps with a bit of sadness in my heart, that the debate we are having now is, as I said a moment ago, at the expense of the Chair, though no hon. member wants that, neither the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) nor any of the others who have taken part in the discussion. But in a situation such as this, which is so close to a partisan situation, I do not see how we could have a debate of this kind without the Speaker being in some way involved in partisan considerations.
What we have, according to my limited comprehension of such matters, is the report of a committee. Some hon. members have said, and no one doubts it, that the report is the report of the majority. At the same time, we do not have in our parliamentary system minority or majority reports; we have the report of a committee which is before the house for adoption or rejection.
What hon. members would like the Chair to do under the provisions of Standing Order 51

is to substitute his judgment for the judgment of certain hon. members. Can I do this in accordance with the traditions of Canada, of Britain and in all parliamentary systems where the Speaker is not the master of the house, in spite of what Standing Order 51 says? The Speaker is a servant of the house. Hon. members may want me to be the master of the house today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion.
It would make me a hero, I suppose, if I were to adopt the attitude that I could judge political situations such as this and substitute my judgment for that of certain hon. members, either a majority or, perhaps, sometimes a minority. But I do not believe that this is the role of a Speaker under our system. I am not prepared at this time to take this responsibility on my shoulders. I think it is my duty to rule on such matters in accordance with the rules, regulations and Standing Orders which hon. members themselves have turned over to the Speaker to administer.
I have a set of rules, and precedents by which I am guided. I recognize it is my duty to protect the privileges of hon. members and to protect minorities. I have always tried to do this, and I shall continue to do so. But I do not think that in the circumstances I can go so far in abandoning my responsibility as a servant of the house as to be its master and to give a ruling or judgment along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I am not saying I accept in any way the procedures which have been followed, though I do not think it is for me to express at this time an opinion in this regard. I would only say that after sincere thoughts on the matter in accordance with my way of looking at the situation I cannot accept the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre under the terms of Standing Order 51.
I hope hon. members will realise that this is not an easy decision for the Chair to reach.
I hope I shall never be placed in a position again in which I have to make this kind of decision. I count on hon. members on both sides to ensure that the Chair is not again placed in such a position.
It being five minutes past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS	the track. Rules governing this parliament are

not the prerogative of the government. They
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good will evident in the house at this moment. I have a few minutes left. Your Honour will recall that last Tuesday evening I mentioned that you might have an increasingly difficult time in controlling this house in future because of the breakdown in rapport and confidence between the two sides of the house which has been brought on by the government's closure action and because of the Prime Minister's negative attitude and disdain for the house. Little did I think that today, less than 48 hours later, I should see a minister of the Crown, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), actually call Your Honour's actions in question and thus challenge your office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: He not only questioned your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but he had the audacity to imply that Your Honour actually went beyond your authority in allowing the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member had been here at six o'clock he would recall my suggestion that this debate should be conducted in a way that will keep the Chair out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might keep that in mind.
are the responsibility of parliament itself. The rules of this House of Commons belong to this House of Commons and the government uses these rules to obtain the consent of the house for the legislation it wishes to introduce. If the rules are to be satisfactory, and be of general benefit, they must be arrived at as a result of consensus. We must all consent to them, especially if parliament is to remain the voice of the people and free.
By utilizing these rules the government is able to function and carry out its specific responsibilities. I only wish that the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite had this thought more clearly in focus. The house leader and others on the government side say that because their party forms the government, they must control the house. They say that they have the majority in this house. The government may have the majority of seats in this house but it does not represent the majority of electors in this country. It represents about 45 per cent of our people and those who sit on the opposition side collectively represent about 55 per cent. That shows why the rules of the house must be arrived at as a result of agreement in the house, because we must safeguard not only the minority but also the majority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not think that the majority of government supporters are behind this measure, Mr. Speaker. In today's Toronto Telegram I read that Ontario Liberals have protested against the government's closure. The article reads in part-


An hon. Member:: Rewrite your speech now.


Robert Norman Thompson: I respect your position, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, it was not a pleasant experience this afternoon for one who listened to the minister and realized what was taking place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: I emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned about what is taking place in parliament as the result of the government's unilateral and arbitrary decision to limit the length of debate at its own will. Again, I emphasize that parliament cannot be subservient to government, no matter what party forms the government. That is where hon. members opposite have gone off


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather from the negative response in the house that we shall be deprived of the pleasure of hearing the rest of the hon. member's speech.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt recall that it was agreed last Tuesday that I be given an extra few minutes to make up for the constant interruptions from the government side. I wonder if I might have those few minutes to enable me to finish my remarks?
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am now taking that into account and I am sure that all hon. members will agree to allow the hon. member an extra minute.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I quote a few sentences from the article to which I referred?
A mass demonstration was planned for today outside the Provincial Liberal headquarters- More than 3,000 pamphlets were being handed out to the public, protesting "the threats which now seem to be posed to parliamentary and participatory democracy-"
Rule 75c in its current form is extremist and we believe it does not reflect the views of any political party in Canada, including the Liberals.
I conclude by saying that this is indeed a dark day for parliament and participatory democracy.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: This debate, Mr. Speaker, is no longer concerned with the subject with which it commenced some two weeks ago. It has strayed considerably. At the outset of this debate, the issue before you, Mr. Speaker, was the desirability or otherwise of adopting a technique for the allocation of time to legislative debate. That, however, is no longer the issue. The issue has been changed by the opposition parties who allege that more is involved than mere procedural reform, that at stake in this debate is nothing less than the role of parliament itself.
The opposition parties contend, and they have repeated this contention again and again, inside the house and out, that the opposition possesses the right to debate, and by debating indefinitely delay passage of any legislative proposal for as long as the opposition desires;-


Mr. Monieith:: That is completely wrong.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that if this so-called "right" is impaired-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Again, that is completely wrong.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -parliament itself will be injured. Parliament will be destroyed. This is an important, if novel, contention, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the opposition's efforts to publicize it have been successful. I hope that all concerned Canadians are acquainted with 
such a theory. For what has been put forward, and claimed by the opposition as nonnegotiable principle, is a series of propositions for which no precedent exists elsewhere and for which no need has been shown here.
Parliamentary democracy, as defined so far in this debate by hon. members opposite, becomes something other than a system which gives to the majority party in the House of Commons the right to ask parliament for some decision upon the legislation the government deems necessary in order to carry out its mandate to the people.
Parliamentary democracy is not, according to this opposition definition, a system which permits the majority party to demand a vote on the proposals it seeks to incorporate into statute as solutions to the needs of the nation.
These views, Mr. Speaker, are, if nothing more, highly original, and if accepted by the government would revolutionize political theory. I should hesitate to accept them, however, without knowing more about them. Where in this scheme, for example, lies the responsibility for legislating, Mr. Speaker? Apparently nowhere. In its place we are told that parliamentary democracy no longer means government by the majority, with adequate protections for the rights of the minority. Instead, it seems to mean that a minority of the members of the house have the right to block for indefinite periods the wishes of the majority of Canadians as expressed in general elections.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If this be the opposition's view of what democracy is all about, it is fortunate that the people of Canada have been given this opportunity to learn of it. If the opposition accords so little respect to parliament that it defines governing as evil, that getting on with the job is regarded as tyranny, then I am happy to be given the chance to join issue. When the people of Canada returned this government to office they gave to it the responsibility of governing. We accepted that responsibility. We shall gladly leave to the electorate the assessment as to how that responsibility has been discharged during our term in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We leave to the electorate as well the assessment of which side of this house respects parliament more, that which engages in repetitious speeches that serve to deny the passage of legislation indefinitely; perhaps that which chooses on occasion to play games with the rules or hide-and-seek in
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
the lobby curtains and then counts the result as a great tactical victory; or that which asks only to get on with the nation's business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have been told here, Mr. Speaker, that the government's view of parliament is wrong, that the possibility of endless debate is laudatory and that we are impatient and arrogant. Canadians are being told, in effect, that in the view of the opposition the world has stood still since 1867 and that the Canadian parliament should do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do not accept that view, Mr. Speaker, nor do I suggest, do Canadians. At this point in time, with social structures in greater ferment than on any occasion in history, with scientific achievements of fantastic magnitude, with concepts and applications of concepts so complex and revealing as to stagger and refute previous economic and demographic truths, at this time in history legislative institutions which fail to reform themselves do so at peril of their own destruction.

What has this government done in this session of Parliament to lead the opposition to charge that we are guilty of emasculation, of garotting, of assassination, of all those colourful phrases that have been sprinkled through Hansard these past days? What indeed?
Here are some of the Parliamentary reforms which have been made this year.
First, we have participated fully, Mr. Speaker, in implementing the wise proposal that the office which you fill with such distinction be separated totally from party politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have in addition provided, for the first time in the history of this country, large sums of money to the opposition parties to permit them to employ their own research staffs and so be better able to fulfill effectively their proper function of examining and considering government legislation, of pointing out weaknesses and proposing, if necessary, alternatives. But this is not all. This government has been the first to provide to the opposition adequate and regular opportunities to bring into this House matters of debate of
DEBATES	H57I
Procedure and Organization its own choice. The importance of this latter provision cannot be over-emphasized.
Hitherto, apart from supply motions which were generally concentrated in one or two short periods each session, the opposition has been able to control totally the topics discussed during debate on only two occasions: during the Throne Speech debate and during the debate following the presentation of the budget. In short, the opposition had had few opportunities in the past to choose the subject of debate.
For these reasons the rule changes introduced and passed by Parliament this year are outstanding achievements of which we are proud.
We are told that we are bent on muzzling the opposition, Mr. Speaker, but from now on, under the reforms which we have proposed to the house, of approximately 160 or 170 sitting days in a reasonable parliamentary year, 8 days are to be occupied by the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, 6 by the Budget debate, and an additional 28 are earmarked for the business of Supply and are allocated as opposition days, to be distributed throughout the sitting year so as to permit the opposition at frequent and regular intervals to challenge government policy on points of its own choosing. This means that 42 days in each session-** approximately 25 per cent of the session-are days controlled by the opposition.
I think it proper to observe, Mr. Speaker, that in the current procedural debate, the opposition has chosen either not to mention at all, or to pass very lightly over the introduction of this important parliamentary safeguard. Far from fettering parliament, this government has moved further than any in the history of Canada to assure to the opposition regular and adequate opportunities to attack the government's record, and we have given them the means, Mr. Speaker.
Are these the acts of a government which is seeking to destroy parliament, to muzzle the opposition? Are these the acts of a government which has no respect for the principle of debate? To ask the question, Mr. Speaker, is to give the answer. To ask the question puts into proper perspective as well the accusations of the opposition in this debate. It serves to emphasize the contrasting attitudes to Parliament assumed by the opposition and the government. It illustrates for all Canadians just what little respect is shown for Parliament by an opposition making such exaggerated charges.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization It is normal in any legislature that bills must often be given priority by the government, not because of their importance, but because of their urgency. What happens in Canada but not elsewhere is that if unreasonable debate delays passage of such urgent bills, then the important ones may never be dealt with at all. The result is that a form of closure is introduced not by the government but by the opposition; closure of government business by exclusion of it from the Commons' order paper through the lack of time to deal properly with it; closure, Mr. Speaker, by frustration.
Every democratic assembly requires some procedure for turning discussion into decision. In the parliaments of the United Kingdom, of Australia, of New Zealand, and of India, there are procedures for bringing on decisions. It is simply non-responsive to this need to say, as hon. members opposite interject from time to time, that closure is available. Closure is indeed available. It is available as well at Westminster and available in most other parliaments. But it does not in these places stand alone. It does not stand alone because its very clumsiness, its time-consuming procedures, demand that it be used only infrequently.
For instance, what happened in the house yesterday and up until now shows how precarious a measure closure is and how inefficient it can be at times.
At the report stage of the Omnibus Criminal Code Bill, for example, closure would have had to be moved approximately 30 times, exhausting some 60 sitting days, almost 3 months, in order to deal with all amendments. We must not forget that the rule of closure cannot be applied to proceedings of standing committees which, therefore, can extend the debates over a very long period of time if not forever.
For this reason, closure is complemented elsewhere by other techniques, in the British House of Commons, for example.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)

Every democratic assembly recognizes that issues will arise from time to time which the minority in all conscience cannot accept, which the minority in order to be true to its values must oppose vigorously and never concede. This is right and proper. It is one of the bases on which rest our democratic institutions. No doubt the allocation of time rule which we are debating now is one example of 
such an issue which the opposition feels it must oppose vigorously and forever. But that base of having a right to speak is not the only base. It is complemented by periodic tests of the will of the electorate to give to the people at large the opportunity to pass judgment on the acts of the majority, and on the attitude of the minority. In a democracy the ballot box, not the filibuster, is the ultimate and appropriate technique of assessment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Recognizing this principle, Westminster, the so-called "Mother of Parliaments", has survived its own adoption years ago of a time-allocation rule. If that bastion of free debate continues to flourish, what weight should the people of Canada give to the present opposition cries that a rule be voted on in reasonable time. In addition, the opposition must be given reasonable opportunity at regular intervals to bring before the house those matters of complaint about government actions which it feels must be aired in public. Prior to this session, the rules of parliament did not offer adequate opportunity for either of these things to be done. The rules, as already changed by this government in the earlier part of this session, have given to the opposition the right which it should have had a long time ago. What the government now seeks is nothing more than a right which it needs equally as much and which has been recognized as deserving and reasonable by most parliamentary institutions in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is yet another perspective to this debate, Mr. Speaker. In dozens of newly independent countries democratic legislatures are now being tested to determine whether the parliaments now in existence elsewhere are credible models. If we here hope to serve as evidence of the ability of a parliamentary system to adapt and to adjust, to serve better the needs of a changing society, better than any authoritarian structure, to be relevant to the demands made upon it, we must not deny the need for change, nor refuse to accommodate that need. Perhaps most important, we must not eschew techniques which have proved successfuly elsewhere.
In this case we propose the adoption of a procedural rule which has been in use in the Mother of Parliaments for many years, a rule which has proved useful and necessary in the British House of Commons during that period
July 24, 1969

and which no one here can say has in any sense circumscribed the democratic effectiveness of the opposition parties there; a rule which has been employed by both Conservative and Labour governments of Britain and which has been retained without repeal through several changes of government. Nevertheless and notwithstanding this need, notwithstanding this precedent, notwithstanding this evidence, we are still told by the opposition that this provision will destroy parliament.
Really now, Mr. Speaker! It is not this provision which endangers parliament, but rather such inaccurate talk as will lead Canadians and others elsewhere to doubt the ability of the parliamentary system to work honestly;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -such inflated accusations as will cause Canadians and others to lose faith in parliament as a means of conducting the legislative business of this and other countries.
The landing this week of a man on the moon is vivid evidence of the speed of change in men's lives. In a timeframe of less than seven decades in length, a period shorter than man's biblical life span, man has ceased to remain earthbound and has reached out into his universe with a skill and a success that promises future change at an even more bewildering a rate of acceleration. If this parliament, which is charged with the responsibility of assimilating these technological changes into legislation for the benefit of Canadians, cannot keep pace, then Canadians will seek other institutions which are capable of doing so. We have no choice. Parliament is not inviolate to rules of nature. It must be relevant. It will adapt or it will perish.
This government has revealed to the people of Canada how it chooses to be adjudged. I do not hesitate to declare again the confidence of my government in the future of Canada, in the future of Canadians, and in the future of this parliament of which we are all so justly proud. This proposed change will not weaken parliament, Mr. Speaker, it will strengthen it and permit it to accomplish the great tasks of nation building which devolve upon it and which now demand attention. These rules, Mr. Speaker, are needed now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell hon. members in the house that 29180-731
Procedure and Organization I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Far more than government members ever did.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim the status of the Prime Minister in this house but he was given a very careful and respectful hearing and I think other hon. members should be given the same careful and respectful hearing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


David Lewis: I was saying that, like all hon. members here in this house, I listened to the Prime Minister with great interest. It saddens me to say this, but I think in all honesty I must say I have seldom heard a speech which contained such a complete distortion of the position of the opposition.
The Prime Minister stated that the position of the opposition was to claim the right, and he used this word, to "indefinitely"-and he did use it a number of times-indefinitely delay the debate on legislation. That is an utter, complete, unfair and conscienceless distortion.
Even before this Prime Minister came into this house, and before he joined a political party, there were members in this house-I was one of them, and there were many others-who spoke in this house and all across Canada about the need to change the rules of parliament to make it more efficient.
The reason for that distortion was evident in some of the other things the Prime Minister said. In fact, there was a twofold reason. The first was that he knew the present rule which he has placed before the house is indefensible, autocratic and unworkable. The second reason is that he made such an extravagant distortion of the position of the opposition that he had to defend against the fact, and it is a fact to which I will come back in a minute or two, that all the parties in the house were beginning to move toward a position of accommodation when he, and it must have been he because he is the power in the Liberal party, said there would be no more negotiation, there would be closure- this is what they will take and nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I deny utterly, not only in the name of my colleagues, the members of this
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization party, but in the name of other members of the opposition as I am sure they agree, that we wanted unlimited or indefinite debate in this house. The Prime Minister said that if you have extravagant debate you will lead people into thinking that the parliamentary system cannot work honestly. I suggest that he has a duty to be honest in his statements in the same speech.
The Prime Minister has not been in the house for much of the debate, except in the last couple of days when he was apparently waiting to rise in his seat, but he must have learned, even though he was not here, that every spokesman for every opposition party declared himself on behalf of his party ready to arrive at a scheme of allocation of time and limitation on time for debate.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


David Lewis: It is absolutely true and if the Minister of Economic Regional Expansion (Mr. Marchand) says it is a lie, I tell him the he goes right back into his mouth where it belongs. I am not going to pursue that because that is not what this debate should be about.
Let me say briefly, because my time is limited, that members should recall, along with the people of Canada, that a committee worked, not only in the last few months but for a few years before this session began, to change the rules and improve the procedures of this house. As a result of that work by the committee of this house and as a result of its recommendations-not as a result of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party-it unanimously proposed to this parliament a new way of dealing with the estimates and allotted days. This was not a decision of the government or the Prime Minister, it was the result of the work of a parliamentary committee.
Furthermore, and the Prime Minister has probably forgotten this, there are now 28 allotted days, but immediately before this change there were 38 allotted days for the consideration of estimates and non-confidence motions. Two, three or four years before that, there was unlimited time for the consideration of the estimates in this parliament. Those changes, I repeat because of the arrogance of the Prime Minister, were not the result of action on the part of this government, but the result of recommendations of an all-party committee that unanimously decided on this action.

This committee laboured hard. The members could not arrive at a unanimous decision in respect of the entire rule 75. What did it agree upon? Let us realize the importance of this? I will come back to my attitude in a minute, if I have one left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: We were worried about that.


David Lewis: I can only say touche; I meant if I had a minute left. This committee agreed on 75a and 75b. What does that mean? That means an attempt by the parties of parliament to limit the time of debate. It means the rights formerly held by individual members of parliament, including the right to squeeze the government, if you like, for as long as the rules of parliament would permit until they got something for their constituencies or something that their electors sent them to this house to get, would be completely lost under 75a and 75b. It means that no individual under these rules could get up and refuse unanimous consent. Under 75a and 75b an individual member would not have the right to interfere with the progress of the house- not a single member or indeed ten, twenty or fifty members. This right would be withdrawn because the measure would be decided by a vote of the majority of this house. This was what was given up and agreed upon.
The Prime Minister has gone a step beyond this with 75c. Negotiations between house leaders and the President of the Privy Council resulted in some concessions. The official opposition made a number of concessions and accommodations. We made suggestions for accommodation, and I would like to deal for a minute or two with them.
We said to the government, and I was not there but I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) presented this fully and carefully to the members of all parties, that we appreciated the debate on second reading is a debate on principle and that the principle could be stated and discussed in a couple of days, just as well as in four or five days. We admitted that the third reading stage is the apex of the entire process, and that when the clauses of the bill have already been passed this could be dealt with in a couple of days, but we said this cannot apply to the report stage.
We have upgraded the committees of this house, and instead of the committee of the whole we now have the report stage. As I
July 24, 1969
have said and I repeat, it is utterly unreasonable to try, ahead of time, to limit the debate at the report stage. How can you do that? The present rule, as I understand it-and I will be corrected if I am wrong-is that if there is no amendment on the order paper at the report stage, there is no debate at all.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


David Lewis: Whether the debate should be half a day, one day, two, three, four or five days obviously depends on the number of amendments on the order paper, and not only the number but their importance, the weight of the issues with which the amendments deal. It is utterly stupid, to use an adjective the Prime Minister used in another connection much less reasonably, to suggest in a rule that you will limit debate during the report stage, when the report stage of every bill is an entirely different thing. In one case it may require no debate at all; in another case it may require a debate of an hour or two; in a third case it may require a day, and in a fourth case it may require five or six days, without delaying anything but dealing as honestly and as briefly as possible with the ideas of hon. members which they have the right to place on the order paper for the consideration of parliament.
We said to the government we would agree to a limitation of time on all the other stages, but the report stage should be removed from that limitation. It was possible to discuss the matter further. If the President of the Privy Council had not, on the orders of the Prime Minister, a cabinet committee or the cabinet, I do not know which, closed off discussion, I am certain that some accommodation would have been found. Personally, I felt that if we could not agree upon removing the report stage from 75c, a sensible way of dealing with the matter would have been to place the matter in the hands of Mr. Speaker of this house. In the light of the number of amendments that are put on the order paper and which he now has the duty to consider and decide whether they are in order, to group together wherever grouping is reasonable, and the duty and right to defer votes wherever that was good for the progress of the house, Mr. Speaker could have been given the authority, perhaps after consultation with the house leaders of the various parties, to set a reasonable time limit on debate, bearing in mind the weight of the amendments. This would have been a perfectly reasonable 29180-731J
Procedure and Organization accommodation which would have been made if the government had not been determined to put this stupid, unworkable rule on the order paper.
I agree with the Prime Minister that parliament will not go to pot by the introduction of 75c. The people of Canada will make sure that in the future there will be the kind of government in this House of Commons that will protect parliamentary and democratic rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I said that I wanted to say something about my own attitude. I tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I do not get excited about rules, as some people do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: I do not think that one particular rule or another will do this or that, in the long run, for the Canadian people. I do not have a technocratic approach to this question. I do not think we will settle the problems of Canada and the Canadian people by setting up a framework and believing that everything else will magically fall into place. This seems to be the belief of the Prime Minister. I do not believe in that kind of thing.
All the time we have spent on this question would not have been worthwhile if it were not for the fact that the government would not even look at the rule which the committee report proposes and see how stupid and unworkable it is, how it is designed to invite chaos in future sessions of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: We are not discussing limitation of time in the abstract; we are discussing a particular rule which is before us. Rule 75b provides that if a majority of the parties in the house agree on something, there is an agreement.


An hon. Member:: Brilliant!


David Lewis: Unless there is no agreement, 75c cannot be imposed. I would, as a lawyer, be prepared to bet a great deal on whatever reputation I have in that realm that if the three opposition parties wanted to agree every time, they would produce an agreement under 75b and the President of the Privy Council would be unable to say to Mr. Speaker, "No agreement has been reached with regard to this piece of legislation". The government recognizes that.

11576	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization
I have tried hard to understand the government's position in this respect. I have listened to a great deal of the debate and read much more of it in Hansard. Why should the government have insisted on closure and on ramming this meaningless, unworkable rule down the throat of parliament, thereby inviting chaos in future sessions of this parliament? Would the Canadian people have lost anything if the committee had been asked to study the matter further and bring in a rule that made sense? Would the Canadian people have lost anything, would this parliament have lost anything, if we had adjourned and the government had taken the time to clean up this rule and to make at least the changes which the President of the Privy Council said must be made? I suggest that the answer is obviously no.
It would have been a sensible, responsible attitude of any government and any Prime Minister who did not believe in his divine right to govern and were not determined to impose their will on parliament, though that imposition made no sense even from their point of view. They were just going to show the opposition who is boss here. I can see no other purpose. When I look across this aisle from time to time-I say this not too offensively, I hope-and observe the disdain with which the Prime Minister treats parliament, and the way he looks at us in the opposition,
I often say to myself: There but for the grace of Pierre Elliott Trudeau sits God.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: He sits there stern and severe, Mr. Speaker. Why do this to the house? Why create the atmosphere which is here now? What does participatory democracy mean, if I may use that favourite phrase? Does it mean merely the possibility of some people saying something some time at the will of the Prime Minister or a minister of the crown? What are our young people in Canada crying out for? Are they crying out merely for the opportunity to have a meeting-


An hon. Member:: They are not crying out
for you, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Lewis: Are they crying out merely for an opportunity to have a minister of the Crown, the leader of my party or the leader of the Conservative party appear at a meeting to speak to them? Participatory democracy, in

DEBATES	July 24, 1969
any genuine sense, means giving people an opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process of the country, giving them an opportunity to feel that the environment in which they live is one they have helped to fashion. Apply that to this parliament. Are not the members of this house as entitled to that kind of participatory democracy as anyone else in Canada? Is it not our duty to be a part of the decision-making process of parliament? And is a decision made merely by a vote? Surely, not!
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Surely, it is a most simplistic and idiotic idea to say that a decision is made only by a vote. The process of decision making is more complicated than that. It is an exchange of ideas. It is listening to other proposals. It is producing a program which emanates from both sides of the house. This is what is now to be in the hands of the government alone under rule 75c. That is why we say it is a bad thing.
Many years ago I said at a meeting in one city in the country that in my view the days when parliament was a bear pit where the government and the opposition faced each other in battle are gone. Nowadays, parliament has more positive things to do and must play a more constructive role.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is most difficult to hear the hon. member's speech when there are these interjections.


David Lewis: I think I can say without immodesty that, perhaps on many occasions in this parliament, I have shown that not only do I believe in the constructive work that must be done in parliament but I think I have participated in it. I think I can point without shame to my participation in the parliamentary committee dealing with collective bargaining for the public service and I think I can point without shame to my participation in the special committee on the official languages bill, to mention only two things. But I do not believe that the constructive work of parliament can be done by an unenforceable law. Every law which is not enforceable is a bad law. I do not believe that the constructive work of parliament can be done if the government is to have every right in its hands.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time expired a few moments ago. He can continue with the agreement of the house.
July 24, 1969	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is agreement.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult for the Chair to ignore the negative voices. I regret to say that the hon. member cannot continue.


David Lewis: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will ask again whether the hon. member has the agreement of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall point out that I represent the constituency of Temiscamingue, not that of Villeneuve. In any event, I would hate myself if I did not say a few words at this time on the new Standing Orders proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and by the government.
I was listening moments ago to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) telling us about the great kindness he had shown the opposition. He said, for instance, that considerable amounts of money had been made available to opposition parties in order to facilitate research, to study legislative proposals, to find their weaknesses, so as to better discuss them.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister says to the opposition: from now on, debate on this or that bill will be restricted to so many days.
He makes me think of someone who takes the opposition members for school children to whom one gives candy to win them over. I saw once a man trying to break a horse in a corral; he did not show the halter, he hid it behind his back and held a dish full of oats in his hand to get the horse to come to him. Then, as soon as the horse started to eat oats, he put the halter on it.
That is about the way the Prime Minister is trying to treat the opposition. We are being offered a dish of oats and then the halter, in the form of rule 75c.
Mr. Speaker, for the last two days the Prime Minister has been busy repeating on local and national news casts, on CBC radio and television, that the opposition parties are talking drivel, that the opposition members are drivelers who are merely trying to keep
Procedure and Organization the debates going interminably, wasting the time of the house, and so on. But if there are drivelers in the house, they are not to be found in the opposition but there on the government side.
The government is trying to impose rule 75c, and I will tell you exactly why. The opposition of the Ralliement Creditiste to the omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code, on which the Prime minister had set his heart, is the reason why the government is now presenting rule 75c. And after that, they will come and tell us that the rights and privileges of the opposition parties are not interfered with. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) even said, and I quote:
-I do not expect hon. members to accept this. On the other hand, surely they cannot expect me to encourage a system under which a small group of members would control the activity of the house.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose was not at all to control the business of the house, but to take enough time to arouse public opinion in Canada and to enable the people of Canada to express their views to the government. This is what displeased the Prime Minister and this is why he will not forgive the Creditistes their fight against the omnibus bill.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is no concern of the Prime Minister's. If the official opposition or the New Democratic party wages a fight against a bill, it does not behoove either the Prime Minister or the government to decide when that party will lay down its arms. It will fall, however, to the Canadian people to decide whether that political party abused public confidence, or the privileges of the house; when election time comes, the people will have their say. We have seen examples of it before. In 1964, we voted with the government of the right hon. Mr. Pearson, to impose closure at the time of the famous Canadian flag debate, and the one who opposed the most vigorously the Canadian flag, the right honourable member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) shocked not public opinion but his own followers to the extent where they replaced him as soon as they were able to do so.
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the people to decide whether or not a party deserves its confidence.
Let us go back to the great pipe-line debate in 1956: the one who fought to get the bill through, former minister C. D. Howe, lost the following election in 1957, in the riding of Port Arthur, to a young New Democratic
11578	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization teacher, Douglas Fisher, for having moved closure.
Mr. Speaker, it is public opinion which threw out the right hon. C. D. Howe. It is also public opinion which rejected the Liberal government in 1957, and elected a Progressive Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the responsibility of a political party or a government to impose rules such as standing order 75c which they want to ram down the throat of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, drivelers are not all in the opposition. There are some on the government side.
As far as extending the debate on the omnibus bill, the Canadian people will judge us in that respect. We fought in earnest. We fought with conviction and I cannot see why a government would now want to practically render the opposition powerless to carry on the struggle.
If we do not have the right to take the necessary time to arouse public opinion about a bill, what is the use of parliament? Why not resort to standing orders 75c and 75d in order to abolish all opposition parties?
The Prime Minister boasts about the fact that he gave us 28 days to blame the government but what bills can the opposition introduce in the house? We can criticize the government for a day or for 28 days but that doas not change the legislation. The government alone has the right to prepare and introduce legislation. Now it practically takes away from us the right to discuss that legislation when the time comes to do so.
The government talks about improving parliamentary procedure. But the closure rule is nothing new. I heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) say the other day "We will almost never use section 75c." Then, why include it in the standing orders of the house?
Opposition parties were willing to accept sections 75a and 75b, but not 75c which constitutes a permanent closure rule. Tonight we are witnessing, I repeat we are witnessing the last hours of parliamentary democracy. With standing order 33, they want to impose on us a permanent closure rule, known as section 75c.
Mr. Speaker, if that is democracy as the Prime Minister understands it, it is a democracy that strangely resembles what I saw in Moscow a few years ago and what is to be
IMr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	July 24, 1969
seen now in Communist China, under Mao Tse-tung.
Mr. Speaker, when debates are hindered, when the opposition is prevented from expressing its views, as I said a while ago, what is the use of an opposition? The Prime Minister said that a minority cannot impose its views on a majority. Therefore, must we always submit to the majority, refrain from discussing government measures, be content with receiving the allowances the Prime Minister says he has granted the opposition for research work, and then have no longer the right to debate anything? We are being gagged with section 75c.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties are not the only ones protesting against Standing Order 75c. I was reading today various Canadian newspapers-not Conservative, Progressive or N.D.P. papers-but papers of a certain intellectual standing that are against Standing Order 75c.
I have before me an editorial from the Montreal Gazette of July 24-it is not so long ago-and the writer warns the government against the passage of Standing Order 75c.
Finally, let us reverse the roles somewhat. If the Prime Minister were sitting in the place of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), what would he honestly say about Standing Order 75c? He would fight against the government that would want to muzzle him.
Well, we have the right to fight the government who wants to muzzle us. We do not accept closure and the government will not impose it upon us tonight, at one o'clock. I quote this editorial:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

If that parliamentary majority approves of what the government proposes, then democracy is in action and must not be hindered. This doctrine, however, omits something which is essential. The government is very unlikely to receive critical review from its own supporters-

We have only to look in front of us to see that members do not rise often to criticize the government. They cheer at random, they howl because they are held up and caught, because they are put on the spot, because they have to do it, because they are afraid and it is with such spineless followers that an
July 24, 1989	COMMONS
appeal is made to democracy in action in a country like ours.

The government is very unlikely to receive critical review from its own supporters, least of all in parliament. The majority which approves its proposals in parliament is a highly regulated majority. It is subject to all the pressures and penalties which any government in power may exert to regulate its followers.
Look at the regulation!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: They are regulated under the regulations of the party in power.

Mr. Speaker, about the stab that is to be given at one a.m. to the right to debate in the house, I say that many who will vote in favour of this rule, will regret it in a few years. But, then, it will be too late. We are being sucked into one-sided decisions. We are moving towards we do not know what. The Prime Minister, to conceal the perfidy of rule 75c, talks to us about the men who have travelled to the moon.
I wonder why he did not join those travellers to the moon a few days ago, but for one way only.
Mr. Speaker, the rule of closure was first applied on April 24, 1913. A debate had lasted from December 12, 1912, to April 10, 1913. At that time, the Conservative government applied the rule of closure. It was applied twice in 1917 and, then, was not invoked for four years.
The closure rule was applied by the Borden administration in 1917, on third reading of the Canadian National Railways bill.
It was applied a second time when the War-time Elections Act was being considered. The war in question is that of 1914-1918.
It was applied again in 1921 by the Meighen government, in connection with interim supply.
It was also applied in 1932, by the Bennett government during a debate on unemployment. Mackenzie King said on that occasion that it was "the most arbitrary and most coercive measure a government could enforce." He expressed the hope that it would not be considered as a precedent.
His 1969 successor is trying to show us the bright side of a system that is gagging us, of a system that presents us from saying what we have to say. The goes on merely repeating
Procedure and Organization that the opposition members are always making the same speeches and always singing the same tune.
It is sometimes important to repeat a speech when people do not understand or refuse to understand. Again I say that rule 75c could have been entirely discarded as recommended or suggested by the opposition. Rule 75a and 75b were enough. We would have gone on discussing here in the house while allocating reasonable periods of time for the consideration of government legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today it is a so-called Liberal who is applying the closure rule and who wants to make it permanent with this section 75c of the standing orders.
In 1956, it was applied four times in the space of 22 days by the Liberals during the pipe line debate. On May 14 1956, the Right Hon. C.D. Howe gave notice of the motion and on May 15 it was adopted. On May 30, prime minister St-Laurent gave a similar notice in the course of the debate on the bill to establish the crown corporation known as the Northern Ontario Pipeline. On May 31, the Right Hon. Louis St-Laurent had the legislation passed on quite recently, on December 14, 1964, the present solicitor general (Mr. Mcllraith) took the same stand on the sixth report of the flag committee.
This measure always tends to cut off protracted debates.
Standing order 33 states that no member shall rise to speak after one o'clock in the morning and that the question should then be put.
Tonight, at one o'clock, the vote will be taken Mr. Speaker. We said what we had to say, we said what we thought and I think the government had in hand everything required to make progress in the business of the house.
Indeed, citation 88 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne reads as follows:
Let us now briefly indicate the influence directly exercised by the leader of the house on the course of business.
-of the house. In the present case, it means the President of the Privy Council.
It is his task in the name of the government and the party in office, to distribute over the session the programme of legislation announced in the king's speech and to advocate it in the house.
That is the responsibility of the house leader of the government.
He assumes the duty of proposing all such motions concerning the agenda of the house as are deemed advisable by the government and is their spokesman in the debate thereon.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
When a bill is brought before the house, it becomes almost the sole responsibility of the government house leader. It falls to him to introduce a priority bill or one which is more important than another. And that is what the government has failed to do in the past. The government has failed to introduce the most urgent bills, the most important ones to deal, for instance, with Canada's economic problems.
We have been fighting for three weeks over section 75c while the number of unemployed is increasing in Canada, while the wheat problem has yet to be solved in the West even if $250 million have been promised and while the problem of milk production has not yet been solved in eastern Canada. So, our economic problems are not settled, but bills are being introduced so that the members of the house will spend four or five weeks discussing them.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council is the one responsible for this situation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
As for the government bills, the house leader decides in the last resort the course to be taken. Indeed, he decides the period of time allotted for each stage of the debate and the putting through of closure, as he did this evening. He is asking hon. members to pass a provision to put through permanent closure or other means to shorten the debates and to bring matters to a successful issue.
The entire behaviour of the government, especially to the extent where it concerns the internal life of the house and the bills which are proposed, is centered on the person of the house leader. Moreover, when progress in the house is slow, the responsibility lies in the first place with the present President of the Privy Council.
Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement Creditiste will continue to fight, not for partisan purposes, but in order to give Canadian citizens the maximum results they expect from the administration of national affairs.
We will keep on calling for necessary economic reforms. The Canadian people do not need rule 75c but rather the implementation of effective and urgent measures which will bring results for the entire population. It is for this reason that Canadians elect a government and representatives to the Canadian Parliament. It is not only to give the government the exclusive right of proposing
[Mr. Caouette.l
motions, legislation or rules in order to annoy everyone instead of clarifying the situation.
The Prime Minister is well aware that if he proposed to the house some workable economic reform, such reforms would be agreed to by the house and would attract public opinion. What is the use of going to western or eastern Canada and telling the people: We do not have any money. This is not a solution to the economic problems or today.
If the Prime Minister can find the billions of dollars needed to co-operate in all kinds of international programs aimed at assisting other countries, I think the government's first duty is to run the nation's business as the people expect it to.
Mr. Speaker, our position has been clearly set out in this connection. In fact, my colleagues rose in ton and stated the position of the Ralliement Creditiste with respect to rule 75c which amounts more or less to a stab in the back of Canadian democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speaking a few minutes ago I thought of Jonah in the whale. It was dark inside there for Jonah and the whale had swallowed quite a mouthful. As I listened to the Prime Minister's facetious sophistry about the minority wanting to frustrate the majority in the debating of legislation, I thought the Prime Minister felt a little sick and I was on the point of sending him over some Alka Seltzer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the Prime Minister can't take the heat he should get out of the kitchen.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Prime Minister is now leaving the chamber. I did not realize that his stomach was so upset that he would have to leave the chamber when I rose to speak. Perhaps I ought to take some Turns to help my tummy, because as I listened I began to feel sick myself. I was upset that the principles of the just society had been subverted within one year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is no wonder that hon. members opposite were caught out of then-seats not long ago. As you may remember, there were not enough government members present to constitute a quorum of 20 members. Why was that, Mr. Speaker? They are following the Prime Minister's example; since
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
being elected leader of his party, he has made few contributions to debate except for statements made on motions. Immediately after routine proceedings are finished he gets up and leaves the house for other business, supposedly. In fact, since being elected to this chamber in 1965 he has made few contributions in this chamber. We were both in the same class that was elected here, so to speak, only he advanced, perhaps too quickly, because he has not learned what parliament is all about. I will not quote from his few contributions in this house. Having been elected in 1965, he first became a parliamentary secretary and then took the highest job in the land. Tonight, having made his contribution to the debate that some experienced parliamentarians say is the most important debate that will come up in the life of this parliament, the Prime Minister has left the chamber.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. The opposition is united, man to man, as no opposition has been united since I came to parliament in 1965. We are in favour of change; we are in favour of the majority taking its responsibility on legislative items. But let there be no mistake about this, Mr. Speaker. The just society now means "just numbers". If you have a majority of numbers you can put anything through. The opposition, having agreed to rule changes in 1965 and in December of last year in addition to agreeing to adopt proposed rules 75a and 75b which, if adopted, would mean that there would be little likelihood of a filibuster, now stands united as it has never been united possibly since 1956. Not only did the Prime Minister swallow his principles today; but the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has suddenly been resurrected to contribute to the debate for the first time in seven months. The last time he used his recognized talent for debate was in the rules debate last December. He has been on notice since then. He was resurrected, gave a definition and perhaps will not be heard from after this debate.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We, on this side, are left with this man who talked about dialogue, participation and communication. He has destroyed the meaning of all those words by misleading, mistat-ing and misrepresenting the opposition. The opposition is in favour of change, in favour of the majority ruling on legislative items and of assuming its responsibility under closure, but
Procedure and Organization this, Mr. Speaker, is closure on a closure rule of this institution.
In the criminal sense this is not only rape, but it is indecent assault compounding the act of rape. Dialogue is no longer the word. It is dictate! Participation is no longer the word. It is now program or programming procedures. Communicate is no longer the word. It is closure when you cannot get your own way by any other means.
This is a sad day for parliament, Mr. Speaker. I was elected to this house in 1965. I shared some of the aspiration of the many new members who came into this house after 1968. There are 64 new members opposite, 17 in our party, 9 in the New Democratic Party and 6 Creditistes. This makes a total of 96 new faces in this parliament. I am in a little better position to judge this debate than the 96 new members because I was in the class of 1965, as was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I came into this house at the end of an old era which was moving off the political scene. This was the era of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Diefenbaker, both of whom contributed much to Canada.
We now have two new leaders, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Stanfield. This was to be the new age. I shared with those 96 new members the hope and anticipation that there would be a new day. When I listened to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister in his straining ot logic and reason-he is supposed to be a man of logic and reason-trying to justify an lU-conceived rule which had been improperly drawn being forced upon a parliament in an autocratic and inexcusable manner, I came to the conclusion that the era of 1965 was a piece of cake compared to what it is going to be in the years ahead. That is, unless the government minimizes, clarifies and retreats from Rule 75c which is not a legislative item.
This is not a reasonable use of closure. It is the first time I have heard of closure being imposed on a debate on rules changes. After all the energy and animation used by tne Minister of Manpower and Immigration this afternoon in telling us what dear old merry England was doing and how debate in that Parliament had been shortened from one day to two hours, I asked the question, was closure used? The minister knew the question was coming, and yet he never answered it He could not answer it. All I can infer from his convoluted answer, which I know is correct, is that they did not use closure to ramrod the new rules into that parliament. I do not
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization want to waste the limited time I have pointing out the differences between England and this country. God help us if we are to be like England, with the troubles they have now, let alone the troubles they have in their parliament! We have yet to throw things back and forth or come to fisticuffs. If the condescending, autocratic, arrogant manner displayed in the last few days continues in this parliament for the next few years, we may have to behave in that manner.
By this arbitrary act of conflict and confrontation, we are beginning a period which could well stamp the 28th parliament as the sad and sick parliament. Why? We did not make it that way. The government brought in Rule 75c. The reason the opposition has been united, man for man, as it has rarely been united before, is not because of any one act or bill that the government has brought in about which the opposition feels so strongly. There may be such bills in the future. It is because this whole procedure has been so necessary. It has betrayed the hopes and aspirations of all of us that there would be a new day in parliament and there would not be conflict and confrontation.
The only conclusion I can reach as to why we have this dilemma and why there is this conflict and confrontation is that there is a fundamental difference in the concept of parliament which is predicated on two thoughts that have run throughout this debate. The first is the divine right of the majority to rule on any issue, even the rules of parliament itself. These are not the rules of government, they are the rules of parliament. The word "participation" has been replaced by the words "program and programming". I will not waste too much time talking about the philosophy of the divine right of the numbers game, the majority always rules, the majority is right. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others have belaboured that.
The Prime Minister, in a debate a few years ago, suggested that the government is the master of the house and the majority governs. I will not dwell too much on the fundamental fallacy of a man coming into this chamber and saying, "we are the masters of this house." No matter how Hansard might try to clarify that statement, I was in the house and heard the Prime Minister say it. I agree the Liberal Party was elected to be the government. They were given a mandate to lead. There is not a piece of legislation to which they can point in this 28th parliament 
and say that the opposition held up this item on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They won an election, Mr. Speaker, but the point is no man is the master of this house. This afternoon, in an agonizing moment on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, said he was not the master of the house, but a servant.
Every member has equal stature in this house. Because a government wins a mandate, they cannot say they are the master of the land or the master of Canadians. They happen to be the government with a mandate to govern. That is all we ask, Mr. Speaker. There is no other institution like this in Canada. It symbolizes the heart of this nation. The members in this house personify a cross-section of the Canadians we represent in occupation, religion and geography. We in this house represent all Canadians, including native Canadians and those who have been discriminated against. The two members who came to this house in 1968, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) help us to represent all Canadians. This is what parliament is about.
Among the members of this house are lawyers, doctors, engineers and professors. There are also silly Canadians, stupid Canadians and bright Canadians. Sometimes in this chamber when members do not agree with the point of view of another member, they say it is a silly or stupid speech. We symbolize and personify 20 million Canadians. That is why it is sometimes hard to swallow that the Prime Minister, who was immersed in a classroom and had a protected existence for many years, finds it difficult to appreciate and listen to all types of speeches in this house. At times I can sympathize with him. But, Mr. Speaker, I was amazed that that same Prime Minister could call something which is fundamental to the rules of the house a stupid filibuster after only 10 hours of debate and after six Liberal, six Conservative, four N.D.P. and two Creditiste members had spoken, a total of only 19. That is when the Prime Minister said it was a stupid filibuster. On the same day, he said that 80 per cent of the question period was hypocrisy. The fear of the opposition is that if he will make such a statement with so little proof, who is to say this man would not say that 80 per cent of the debates in this house are hypocritical and wasteful. Who is to say that in a few years he
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
will not say that 90 per cent is hypocritical and wasteful, and on as little evidence.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
My time is moving so fast I can hardly believe it. The other point it has to do with programming, and I am speaking about the President of the Privy Council. Because we personify people, any government that tries to program people will run into the kind of conflict in which we are now involved. You can legislate, organize, consult, compromise and co-operate with people, but you cannot program people. That is the fundamental fallacy of the Liberal government's position. You can program a computer, but this commons has a long way to go before it will become a computer. I can only hope, in the months and weeks before we meet again, this government will appreciate that while we can organize, consult, conciliate and compromise, so long as it tries to use this idea of programming, we will run into conflict. Look at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). I agree with a lot of things he says. Only yesterday he told us about the rights of collective bargaining. What is the ultimate weapon when the parties cannot come to terms? It is the weapon of the strike. I suggest there is an analogy in his domain.
The Minister of Labour is against compulsory arbitration because he says it takes away from collective bargaining. He has a very valid point and he agrees with me. I say, on a like principle, that in the parliamentary process, 90 per cent of which is dependent upon co-operation or agreement, if there is an insurmountable conflict, then the only weapon the opposition has-it is not the numbers game-is prolonged debate. You can call it what you like, but it is prolonged debate. That is as essential, I suggest, to the parliamentary system as the right of strike is to the collective bargaining and labour-management system. Any parliament or government which fails to recognize that will be in trouble.
With the rules of relevancy Mr. Speaker and with television right outside this chamber, the time limit in respect of debate will automatically be reduced. There is no reason whatsoever to even attempt to have this autocratic 75c. The sad thing is that the scar tissue-let no man doubt this-which has been created by this debate will fester in the ensuing sessions unless some people come to their senses. Some names have been called. I shall not adopt a name calling attitude. I am afraid we have come too close to the philosopher 29180-732f
Procedure and Organization king concept in respect of 75c. I refer to the government's position that they are the masters and they will govern. Plato, in his "Republic" developed the philosopher king idea. It might have been an efficient way to govern, but it is not the democratic way to govern. So long as we have this philosophy permeating this government this scar tissue that has erupted will grow.
It is a strange paradox that the man who swept in on a tidal wave just a little over a year ago, in this age of consent, by communicating with the young who are so bothered about the establishment and the rules their fathers had, is not going to pay homage to these acts of consent but is going to cut off the right to debate in this supreme parliamentary chamber, this parliament which personifies the people of the land. There is not a provincial legislature which has this rule. I look across the way and see some hon. gentlemen who have been mayors and councillors.
Rule 75c is not a legislative bill. It represents the right of the government to predetermine how long we will debate a matter. It is this to which we object. Any mayor who ran for office on such a program would be defeated. There are many members here who have contributed their services to school boards. Any school board chairman who tried such a program would be tossed out of office. The university councils and the senates of the universities, which the students are trying to storm, would be in a state of constant uproar such as we have had in the past few days if such a thing were tried.
If anyone wonders about co-operation or compromise, they have only to look at the charade of yesterday when the rules were used to their full maximum. Things bogged down.
In my closing minutes I should like to refer to excerpts from the New York Times of November 26, 1922 in the days of Mussolini. There is a heading, "Rome (by wireless to the New York Times)." Then there is a headline, "Near Dictatorship given to Mussolini". Following that there is a subhead, "Premier Dominates House". Then there is a sub-subhead entitled, "Wrings Vote of 275 to 90 from Weary Members". I should like to read this report:
By 225 votes to 90 the Mussolini Government tonight received from the Chamber full powers to adopt any measures it thinks best in all matters pertaining to bureaucratic and financial reforms. These full powers are valid up to Dec. 31, 1923-
The Mussolini Government can now proceed with all the reforms it advocates, quite unhampered by
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization parliamentary considerations. But at the same time the full weight of responsibility is thrown upon the Ministry-
-Premier Mussolini.. . said "We ask for full powers because we wish to assume full responsibility for all our actions."
The entire afternoon in the Chamber of Deputies was spent in the discussion of the bill granting to the Government full powers for bureaucratic and fiscal reforms. At nine o'clock tonight Deputies on all sides of the Chamber, pleading that they were hungry and tired, asked that the sitting be adjourned to Sunday but Premier Mussolini rose and said: "I prefer that the discussion be concluded tonight."
The Speaker asked for a vote on the subject whereupon all the Deputies ... that desired adjournment approved of Mussolini's suggestion amid considerable hilarity.
Socialist Deputy Modigliani complained about the haste in closing discussion.
"The Chamber should be at least allowed to make its testament before being killed", he declared.
Deputy Chiesa said he would have preferred a full detailed program of what the Government intends to do if the Chamber granted full powers.
"Vote against the Government and be done with it", cried the Premier. "We don't need you."
My closing remark is not that we have come to the situation which existed in the days of Mussolini, because I do not believe this will happen in respect of 75c. I say, however, the end has come to the bright start of the 28th parliament. There is no doubt about this. This parliament will not die. There will be other members here in time. The unfortunate thing is that, although parliament is not dead, this marks the end of the beginning of the brightest prospects we have had, with some of the brightest members who have been elected to parliament. We now have the beginning of a parliamentary confrontation and conflict that will not do justice to and will not enhance this parliament. Mr. Churchill, many years ago, said that democracy is the most inefficient form of government designed by man but it works. That is the way this parliament has worked. In the name of God, Mr. Speaker, if men can land on the moon why can men not work together, debate together, consult together, co-operate together and compromise together in this institution? This is the only way parliament can function constructively in this day of change, as it always has functioned in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the government house leader is probably now sitting in the

position in which he is in order to control the work of the Clerk's office.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan).
e (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as all sides of this house-


An hon. Member:: Take your foot off the chair and stand up like a man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: And put your purse down on the floor.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim the respect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) receives, and I do not claim even the respect that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) received, but I would appreciate the opportunity to be heard.
As all sides of the house acknowledge, yesterday and the day before have been sorry days in this house. This has been a shocking and frightening debate carried out at a low level. On Tuesday, Mr. Speaker was on his feet more often than the speakers from the floor.
There have been several low points in the debate. Perhaps the lowest was the speech by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who is unfortunately not in the house now. I hope there is no other speech in the records of this house that is as low.
Another low point came from a surprising source. It came from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He laid before Mr. Speaker yesterday a series of considerations and arguments that the rules would permit, and indeed authorized, a procedure whereby without any intervening business the Chair might be obliged to entertain a series of motions for adjournment at fixed times-at perhaps 10 minute intervals. This novel proposal, which Your Honour indicated had never been argued before to your knowledge, would allow any five members of the house who could command a standing vote to prevent parliament from ever considering legislation again.
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was a great relief, because I read the rule in question and I could see the possibilities. This submission was not worthy of a man who loves this institution, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does, and who has given his life to it. It was not worthy of that hon. member.
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
The final feature of the last two days on which I want to comment as a foundation for the points I should like to make is the demonstration we have had in the last two days that closure, in its 1913 variety, will no longer work against the style of dissent which we encounter these days. Then, if time allocation is appropriate, which is what I want to discuss, a new method is required. The proposed rules 75a, 75b and 75c are, generally speaking, such a measure although they would not apply to debates on changes in the rules. The question is, are the rights of parliament and of members of parliament really dead as a result of 75a, b and c? Is participatory democracy over? Have the rights of hon. members been extinguished? This is what I should like to consider.
On Tuesday night the member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) observed that parliament was just as much a place for the opposition as it was for the government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said this afternoon, that the right of the opposition was equal to the right of the government in the house. I go further than this and say, in a special sense, that parliament is more the opposition's place, and that in some respects the opposition's role is more important here than the role of the government.
I could sum up the difference by saying that the opposition expresses itself and performs its functions in this chamber; the government, on the other hand, expresses itself in its legislation and in its administration, not only by what it in fact achieves by way of a legislative program, but by way of what it fails to achieve.
We can talk in this chamber around the clock and around the calendar. Government members can produce the most beautiful speeches you have ever heard. Every member of this chamber can speak for 20 minutes or 40 minutes on every section of every bill. We would then have participation which would make ancient Athens look like a police state. But with such a forum, the government would not be giving this country what it wants; it would be failing the Canadian people.
This country is changing and the government has to respond as best it can to these changes. There is in this country a growing sense of fairness, a growing openness, an increasing humanism, a growing respect for privacy, a growing concern for poverty, a growing distaste for militarism and a growing trend towards urbanization. The government has to meet this mood. Whatever good the
Procedure and Organization members of this house do in this chamber will not satisfy the Canadian people if the government of this country has not provided good administration and good laws.
The opposition has no such responsibility. Sometimes the opposition will propose a policy alternative; sometimes they will suggest improvements to legislation. I agree that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) often has done this, but the opposition has no such responsibility. If the government fails to govern or governs badly until the next election, normally that is no reflection on the opposition.
As a result there are two perspectives on parliament. Parliament serves more than one function. To the government, it is part of the process by which its legislative proposals are enacted. To the opposition it is a place to criticize government administration and to let the public know about government failings. It is a place for proposing amendments, not so much to have them accepted but in the spirit of showing that if the opposition were the government the legislative proposals would have been perfect to begin with. This is fair enough, it is our system.
A dangerous proposition which the opposition has lately advanced is that when the opposition proposes legislative changes the government has to compromise in order to have its legislation passed. I am not referring to compromises relating to the rules, I am suggesting that the opposition argues for the right to effect compromise in the substantive legislation program. As one opposition member put it, "we must have freedom in this institution to express differences and resolve them", with the suggestion that resolving our differences might take longer than ten days in the case of what he called bad legislation.
I firmly agree and all hon. members surely agree that there should be freedom to express differences, but I dispute that such differences have to be resolved here. Canada's differences will never be resolved and should never be resolved. This country with its diversity-cultural, religious, regional and economic-can never be governed by concensus, and any effort to try can only lead to frustration and inaction. The search for concensus is one way in which the public is informed of the differences between the parties, but I would be suspicious that if concensus were obtained on this measure or on a great many measures, that it would mean that all the interests in the country and all diverse points of view were not being effectively represented here.
11586	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization
This principle that concensus should not be our goal was wisely recognized by the fathers of Confederation and inserted in the B.N.A. Act as section 49, which says:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices-
I would think that the B.N.A. Act would take precedence over the interpretation of the rules being alleged by the opposition. The concensus principle if accepted would be a tool by which any minority party, however small or regional or doctrinaire, could force its will on the majority at the price of deadlock. And yet, this is precisely the substance of the argument of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) this evening advanced a different proposition. Perhaps that was his own point of view and not his party's because the position which has been taken all day and all through this debate by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is clear; he is arguing for consensus.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On rules.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I shall come to the question of the rules. I do not think there is very much difference between rules and other matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can stick to the facts, anyway.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not feel that the majority should have power to move forward until the minority agrees.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, if I have any time left.
Why should the minority agree? As I say, it might in certain cases have to betray its minority supporters in order to agree. Why should it do this? Such position is simply not tenable. Parliament should be a place where a variety of views may be expressed loud enough and long enough for the country to hear; but it must be a place where legislation is considered and passed. It can never be, and should never be, a place where varying views must be resolved as a condition precedent to passing legislation.
There have been some strange noises in this debate.

DEBATES	July 24, 1969


An hon. Member:: We are hearing the strangest one right now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: One of the strangest is the effort of the opposition to distinguish between procedure for rule changes on the one hand, and procedure for passing laws on the other. Attention is being concentrated on the fact that this is closure to create time allocation, and that closure is different when it deals with substantive legislation.
This is a distinction which is absolutely without a difference, more particularly because this rules debate deals with the question of time allocation. A failure to obtain the allocation on this so-called procedural matter would constitute failure to have time allocation on substantive matters. Mr. Speaker ruled before dinner that there was no such distinction in finding that although the resolution in question related to a report on rules; it was for Your Honour's purpose and the purpose of the house, like any other report, notwithstanding its content.
Standing Order 33, which deals with closure, makes no such distinction. All these questions are simply questions relating to resolutions whether dealing with rules or legislation. The British North America Act makes no such distinction.
This is an opposition that wants us to enact only what they call good legislation. With respect to bad legislation they want the right to veto. As a matter of fact, they now have the right to veto, and they want to keep that right. That is what this debate is about.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not what this debate is about.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This basic strategy is being masqueraded as a special concern for rules, which they allege deserve special treatment.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken on this question in the past, he has talked in terms of a big legislative program and restrictions on our time, about planning, efficiency and the recognition of priorities. The opposition has called this the sausage factory approach. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) used a similar expression this evening. But in addition to all the arguments one can raise about efficiency, planning and priorities, there is a question of principle. Is this country to be governed by negative veto, by a minority special interest group in this country or even, to follow the line of reasoning tendered to
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
Your Honour by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by any five hon. members who would invoke repeated adjournments until they got their way; or is this country to be governed by majority rule?
A great deal of talk has been directed to the government's alleged unwillingness to compromise. I was not present at the negotiations and can only take note of the statements of the house leaders. Some of the Conservatives who attended the meetings, to their credit, accepted the principle of majority rule in regard to time allocation and seek only a longer period for debate. I would have thought that under those circumstances a compromise would have been possible. But the N.D.P., as the hon. member for York South has indicated, do not accept majority rule at the report stage. If there is no majority rule at the report stage, there is no majority rule. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the tyranny of the majority. But is that worse than tyranny of the minority?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It has been suggested that these hot, political, controversial issues be referred to Mr. Speaker who would determine the time to be allocated. This is obviously unacceptable.
The most difficult opposition argument to answer is that this rule is entirely satisfactory to no one. There has been the suggestion that further negotiation might lead to what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) called rapprochement. This might happen with the Conservatives, but never with the N.D.P. if they insist as a precondition that consensus prevail, because if it is to prevail in respect of the rules, it will prevail in respect of all our business. There is no difference between consensus in respect of the rules and consensus in respect of anything else.
The answer that satisfied me on this point was made in the house yesterday by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who affirmed on behalf of the government that it would honour the package deal compromise which it offered in its negotiations, and that it would be prepared to see the rules changed to that effect. As I said, that satisfied me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It does not take much to satisfy you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In its pursuit of the consensus principle the opposition has introduced a
Procedure and Organization theme, which was stressed again tonight by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, which can only be described as a sort of blackmail. Speakers from all parties have stated repeatedly that if the rules cannot go their way, no business will be transacted in this chamber.


Mr. Forreslall:: That is a harsh criticism of 1,000 years of democracy.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member for
Annapolis Valley this evening said there is a scar tissue which will fester unless the government changes its position. What clearer threat could there be than that? There have been dozens of statements to this effect: if the opposition does not get its way, to hell with the majority, to hell with the business of the people. This is an interesting way of protecting a democracy. How does yesterday's performance differ from smashing computers at Sir George Williams University?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How do these threats differ from throwing bombs in Montreal? No property was damaged here, but parliament was damaged.
One of the speakers in this debate said the other day that an opposition does not put the government out of power; the government puts itself out of power, and the opposition just puts the government out of its misery. If that has been true in the past, the next round may be, perhaps for the first time, a case of the opposition keeping itself out of power, reducing its constituency and doing itself real damage by its undemocratic approach to the procedures of this house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will entertain a question, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I listened attentively to the hon. member because I thought he was trying to make a constructive contribution. Does he know of any other organization to which he has belonged wherein the constitution and bylaws are subject to change by a simple majority vote?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. And, the constitution of Canada provides for changing the rules of this house by a majority vote.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder if the hon. member would answer a question. All I wish to ask him is this: Is he honestly prepared to say that he would recommend the adoption of this rule by the house in its present form as a good rule?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: With the undertaking of the house leader to make certain changes, yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder if the hon. member would answer the question I asked him in simple and straightforward language. That is all I ask. Is he prepared to recommend to the house this rule in its present form as a good rule which the house should adopt?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member will see me vote for the motion, and that will express my feeling about it.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) would like to put a question. I might again point out to hon. members that it is not the usual practice to have a protracted question period following a speech by an hon. member, and I invite the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to put his question briefly.


Mr. Broadbent:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member who is about to speak. The reason for putting my question is that I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. member opposite which I think was a very thoughtful and constructive contribution to this debate. I agree with his argument to a very substantial extent. It is a serious point to which I would like an answer. I do not wish to be argumentative. If I understood him correctly, he said at some point that the majority should have the right to determine not only substantive legislation but also the rules of the house. In fact I am in agreement on this point, but would the hon. member agree-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As I pointed out originally, I think it is a bad practice to allow a series of questions following a speech made by an hon. member. There is no provision for it in the rules. It is left to the discretion of the Chair and the courtesy of hon. members. Although I allowed hon. members to pose questions, I would not like

this to be the pattern in the future. Therefore, I invite the hon. member to put the question immediately.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member agree that the provision that there should be a period no longer than one day for the report stage under the proposed legislation is sufficient for an important piece of legislation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This would depend generally on the bill, but I do not think this would necessarily be one of the sticking points in the negotiations. It is the principle that is the important thing and it is the principle that is not acceptable to the hon. member's party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member is just as evasive as his leader.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, in the ebb and flow of debate that has been going on in this house for so many days, and in the ebb and flow of public opinion as expressed in our news media, the radio, the T.V. and the press, I had hoped that this debate would end by the meeting of reasonable men arriving at a conclusion I had hoped the government would be reasonable and adjourn this house or withdraw that part of the report which we find so obnoxious, namely rule 75c, so that we could adjourn the house and go home. Then, I would not have to make this speech tonight. However, I, along with a lot of other members of this house, have had the opportunity and the privilege of welcoming hundreds of young people to these beautiful parliament buildings, to these marble halls and to this attractive green chamber throughout my period in this house. I have been always proud to show them this building in all its beauty and magnificence. I have heard members of this house explaining to our visitors the traditions, privileges and rights of this place and what it stands for
However, this place in which my remarks are being made tonight is sometimes referred to as that funny house, that place, and this debate in which I am taking part has been called a stupid filibuster. I have a feeling that there are some people in this area who would like to see these walls come tumbling down, like the walls of Jericho. This could happen. It has happened before in democratic countries where irresponsible people let their rights and privileges be chiselled away. That is what is happening tonight; one of the privileges of free debate is being interfered with in this house. Sometimes I wonder if a time
July 24, 1969

will come when members will be as proud as they are now of this particular chamber. It is rather interesting to note that the very chair in which Your Honour sits is made of wood from the roof of Westminster Hall and from Nelson's flagship. Westminster Hall is that great English hall where the law courts of England sat for so many years and from where many of our great laws and traditions were handed down.
This is a place of freedom, as is indicated by the accoutrements that we have here, and as such we should revere it and be honoured to be members here. We should stand on guard to prevent anybody from destroying our rights and democratic privileges.
It is with a feeling of nostalgia that I enter this debate tonight because my memory goes back to a few years ago when an arrogant government majority tried to curtail debate in the house, as will be done by the use of rule 75c. In 1955 an arrogant government tried to change a piece of legislation on which there had been a time limit of three years. I refer to the emergency powers legislation of 1951. In 1955, the government of the day thought: Why worry about a time limit? Let us change this legislation. What did they want to do? They wanted to extend those wartime emergency powers by removing the time limit on the legislation, thus giving the government arbitrary powers over every segment of our economy in peacetime, the same as had been necessary during the war years.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I take part in this debate with nostalgia because the debate to which I referred was instituted by a man who was a great Canadian. As an administrator during the war years he had done much to unite the whole Canadian economy in an all-out war effort. He brought together the economic forces of our farms, our manufacturing agencies, our mines and our forests into a unit which helped in the second world war by supplying food, munitions, clothing, lumber, and all the things necessary to support our forces and to help feed, clothe and supply a great many of the components assisting our allies during that terrific struggle.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I say this with a feeling of nostalgia, because that man bore the same name as myself; he was referred to tonight by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), and his action at that time was the beginning of his downfall and of the downfall of his

Procedure and Organization own party. I refer to the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe. He was something like our Prime Minister today who last session coined the phrase "We are the masters of this house." The Hon. C. D. Howe coined the phrase: "If we want to get away with it, who is going to stop us?" Mr. Howe did not like the House of Commons. We find this feeling exemplified today. As I said in my opening remarks, it would appear as though some would like to see the walls of this place torn down. There were days when those on the government side derided us in opposition, saying "Let the people decide". Well, in 1957 the people did decide, and in 1958 they did so even more emphatically.
The defence production debate left such a bad taste in the mouth of the Minister of Defence Production that he made up his mind to bring in some form of closure immediately debate was instituted in the following year should there be objection to his proposals. This is what he did. How similar this is to the situation which now faces us. The government of the day was forced to withdraw its 16a proposal before Christmas. Then, in the closing days of the present session they bring in a report which if adopted would create an untenable position for the opposition. It is interesting, too, Mr. Speaker, to recall that the debate to which I referred earlier took place in 1955,, 20 years after the Liberal government had been elected in 1935. Today, just one year after its election, the Liberal government is trying by all the means available to it to force measures on the house which would destroy democratic principles by curtailing debate, by taking away from parliament the opportunity to debate an important issue long enough to make the people of Canada aware of the implications of a particular piece of legislation or to provide an opportunity for a vigilant press and a vigilant public to examine thoroughly each piece of legislation presented to it. This is of the utmost importance, Mr. Speaker, as is pointed out in an editorial which recently appeared in both the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and the Guelph Mercury. I should like to quote from one of these editorials. It is headed: "Voter Feedback Important in Commons Rules Debate."
If, as seems likely, Parliament is headed for a prolonged and bitter battle over proposed rules changes, events will be guided to a large extent by public reaction.
"Feedback from constituencies," is the way most MPs describe this. The feedback, in the form of letters, telegrams and telephone calls, pours into the offices of MPs whenever Parliament bogs down on a major issue.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
No doubt the government thought that since this was holiday time the people of Canada would not be interested in the issue. They thought they could rush this through. They were wrong. Public opinion has been aroused, as editorials in most of our newspapers tell us today. Most of us here could cite many examples of cases in which public reaction has been important, and in which legislation has been improved by opposition amendments and criticism. I could refer to the Canada pension plan which was brought in and pulled out like a yo-yo. Even now I sometimes wonder whether the government realizes that this was one of the factors which produced the present inflationary period-and the problems which inflation has created particularly for all those who have to live on fixed incomes and old age pensions.
I might refer to the transport legislation which was presented at one session, withdrawn, and presented again at a subsequent session so amended that its final version bore little resemblance to the original except that it did provide a very rewarding job for the then minister of transport. I might also cite the drug licensing bill which in its original form did not contain the safety measures suggested in the Harley report which contended that the people of Canada were entitled not only to cheap drugs but to safe drugs. Many of those present can remember what happened when this bill was first presented. Arguments were repeatedly advanced by the opposition that measures for greater safety should be incorporated in the bill, while the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs persisted in indicating that the legislation under the Food and Drugs Act was adequate. Suddenly, after the debate had been going on for several days, the minister himself came over to the opposition saying: Keep it going; we want it to die tonight. Which it did. The legislation was not brought forward again during that session and when it did reappear this session, it incorporated the measures for which we had asked.
Had 75c been in force at that time, and had the government been adamant about passing the drug licensing bill, I wonder whether the cheap drugs which could have been brought into Canada under the legislation would have been subject to an adequate examination so as to ensure the good health of our people.
More recently, Mr. Speaker, there was the case of the estate tax. I do not need to remind the house how unrealistic this legislation was, 
or how great was the feedback to every member of parliament when those implications were understood. As a result, the government was forced to change its stand. I contend that had 75c been in force at the time very little opportunity would have existed to make the press and the public aware of the extent to which this particular piece of legislation was unrealistic, taking into account the present inflationary pressures.
It has been said that the government opens the house with the Speech from the Throne indicating its legislative program for the year, but that the opposition closes it after examining, criticizing and proposing amendments to government legislation and expenditures. This is the situation which has existed almost from the time of the first parliament, but today we are debating a proposal which gives the government the right to shut off debate, to shut up parliament, almost at will. Is this what the people of Canada want? Is this what government backbenchers want? I have participated in seven parliaments and in each there was a group of members who felt the rules needed revision. I was not a member of the committees which took part in this procedure, though I was of the opinion, as they were, that the rules of this place could indeed be improved and amended. I should like to congratulate all those who, in the past, in a friendly and amicable fashion, have been able to reach conclusions in this field without situations developing such as that which has developed here today. Never before has a government waited until the last two days before a recess, whether at Christmas, at Easter or in the summer, before bringing in a report containing an item such as 75c which would destroy all the privileges and rights of this, the highest court in the land. On whom is the onus? May I refer to an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star of Tuesday, July 8-and goodness knows, the Toronto Daily Star has never been a strong supporter of the Conservative party. I quote:
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Canadians who take their politics seriously will applaud members of Parliament who are prepared to debate proposed changes in House rules at length, regardless of their shortened holidays. Rules are the stuff that democracy is made of. They permit governments to govern; they protect opposition parties from being ignored. Where you put the accent all depends upon which side of the Speaker's chair your party sits.
Then it goes on to say:
What's wrong with the existing closure rule, which puts the onus wholly on the party elected
July 24, 1969

to govern? Or, better still, closure at one or more of the debate-stages of a bill's passage? No government is likely to forget the people's anger when closure was used during the Pipeline Debate. A deterrent was created there, and before any government overrode the opposition it would have to feel certain it had the people behind it.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the onus in the present debate is on the government. Once again I detect a similarity between this debate in this parliament and the debate of 1955 in a previous parliament. Here, I wish to refer to the words of the late Hon. James Gardiner, then the minister of agriculture, who proved himself a great Canadian by his outstanding service to his province and nation. He became carried away by continual Liberal government and became somewhat arrogant and overbearing because, as recorded at page 1422 of Hansard for 1951, he said that as long as he, the minister of trade and commerce, and the prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, were here, the country would be assured of good government. There, however, the similarity ends because we all know that the President of the Privy Council has been told that until the Prime Minister decides he must not make a move. He is not a member of the present troika made up of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) and the Prime Minister. So. he cannot sit in on their deliberations, he has been told to follow orders and to disregard what his colleagues in the backbenches, who should be looking after their businesses and getting acquainted with their families, may think.
In the former case I alluded to, two members and public opinion prevailed on the minister involved, C. D. Howe, and he was persuaded to go on holiday-maybe a fishing expedition with some of his colleagues from the Maritimes. When he came back a time limit had been placed on the legislation being considered and the opposition had won a battle for democracy and for parliament, the people's forum.
In closing I should like to say this. Rule 75c should never have been brought before the house. The government no doubt will win the vote and bring 75c into force; but that will not be a defeat only of the parties in opposition; that will be a defeat for parliament itself and for the democratic order it represents.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that in delivering my remarks this evening I can avoid generating the rancor and bitterness which seems to
Procedure and Organization have been evident during the last two days of debate.


An hon. Member:: Impossible.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It is my view, sir, that over the past decade or so, bit by bit the respect of the people of Canada for this institution has slowly been eroded. The science of politics in Canada has failed to keep up with advances in the other disciplines of the community. We have failed to provide immediate responses to challenges taking place in a rapidly changing society, and the younger generation that is now coming up is firmly of that opinion.
The reasons for this are obvious and some of them have become obvious in this debate during the last two days. Other reasons could be cited. I do not blame any particular government, any particular member or any particular opposition party here or in the other place for this. I just say that we have failed to accept change and to respond and react to it.
In my opinion, the people of Canada today think that we are all talk and no action.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I think there is some justification for what they say.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is absolutely correct.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I say that because in the last six months we have seen debates in this house-and I admit that both sides participated in them-which took a seemingly endless time to conclude.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why does the hon. member not talk about policy?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We have seen debates which in part were filibusters and which were admitted by one segment of the opposition here to be filibusters in part. As a result, it has taken us until July to finish the work of the house.
Actually, we began debating the present subject matter last November, and the debate has no yet finished. We have seen how the Standing Orders of the house have been used to obstruct and delay the work of the house. We have had that obstruction in place of the constructive criticism the opposition is supposed to supply here. As a matter of fact, I have heard so much about this man Beau-chesne in the last three days that I am convinced he would not be elected dog catcher in my riding. I think it is time to bring in a few changes to the rules.
Procedure and Organization


An hon. Member:: Why don't you burn the
books?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We have had endless repetition. We have seen the same points endlessly repeated.


An hon. Member:: Burn the books.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Speaker after speaker in the same debate has repeated the same point.


Mr. Bell:: Stick around a little while and you will learn.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I believe we are dedicated to the simple proposition that this government must produce policies for the people of Canada-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then why not produce them?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: -because we must solve the contemporary problems facing the people of Canada today.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then it is time the government performed some single act which would support that claim.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: If we want to carry out our aims, we must have a more effective parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nonsense.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: To do all this, parliament must become more reputable in the eyes of the people of Canada. If we are to perform this work we must reform the rules under which our legislation is to go through parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Really, this is nonsense.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We are also dedicated to the simple proposition that in a democracy the rule of the majority of members of the House of Commons must prevail.


Mr. McGrath:: Might is right.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It does not matter to which political party you belong; the will of the majority of members must prevail. That is provided for under section 45 of the British North America Act which governs the manner in which substantive legislation shall proceed through the house.
In the report of the committee and in this debate we have reached an impasse. This is an obvious impasse, brought on perhaps because we have too many political parties in this country.

DEBATES	July 24, 1969


James Aloysius McGrath: The government is prepared to have only one political party in this country. That is where it is heading.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Perhaps there are other reasons for the impasse. I do not attach blame. Nevertheless, the impasse is here to be seen. It seems to me that in the ensuing debate, which some members of the opposition have referred to as a senseless debate, the majority in this house has said that its will must prevail. Unless the majority will prevails the work of this house cannot be carried out. We cannot do something if all 260 odd members insist on talking about something. In the early hours of tomorrow morning, the majority will say that it must have the right to carry out a program. When I say majority, I do not necessarily mean one political party. It is the majority of the members of this house which will do it.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: No, not right now.
If we abuse this power under Rule 75b and 75c, if we have abused the power under Standing Order 33, we shall pay for it. We will be slaughtered at the polls in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: As the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe) stated a few moments ago, many of us in the Liberal Party acknowledge the mistakes of the fifties. On June 10, 1957 we got it in the neck because we abused the power with respect to closure. We know what can happen. We are conscious of this fact. Our house leader will continuously be kept conscious of this fact by the backbenchers on this side of the house.
I am very interested in some of the remarks made by some of the hon. members opposite, particularly those by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The remarks of the hon. member were adopted by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). The remarks I am referring to are recorded at page 11474 of Hansard:
The result of this decision, if it is carried through, is as clear as can be. Proceedings during the next session of parliament will not be of the kind that they have been during this session. There will be confrontation and frustration. There will be work to rule, no more participating democracy. I appeal to the government even at this late hour to reconsider its position-
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
The reaction from other hon. members has also been disappointing. We have heard words of deep bitterness from members opposite. The words have been provocative rather than intending to find some solution. We have seen the Nazi salute given. Members of this house have been called fascists. Those things do nothing to enhance this parliament.


Thomas Miller Bell: Who started it?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I want hon. members to know, Mr. Speaker, that as far as those words and gestures are concerned, they do not anger or embitter me or other members of this government. I reflect with sorrow on the effect to which they will extend and promote the degradation of the science of politics in Canada today, particularly dealing with the threat of working to rule.


An hon. Member:: What about the Justice
Committee?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I can think of countless instances in the Justice Committee of give and take and if the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) were here they would support me on this. There were no party politics.


An hon. Member:: You destroyed all that.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: There was no work to rule in this committee. All points of view were considered. Opposition amendments were sometimes recommended far more rapidly than those put forward by government members. What is going to happen and what did happen in that committee? We did not work to rule. Will we have to work with this threat being held over our heads? Injustice will be served.
I hope in the next session we will have another Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. We have some very interesting legislative programs to bring forward. We must again serve justice. If we are going to be faced with working to rule, this parliament will not be serving the people of Canada.
I am a member of the Fisheries Committee. We went on a trip out west. I see the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) here.


James Aloysius McGrath: I didn't go west.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I was going to talk about the seal hunt when I referred to you.
Procedure and Organization


Gerald William Baldwin: There are the seals, over there!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: In any event it was the member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who went west. He has gone east tonight. If, when we went west, we had worked to rule and demanded that all the rules of the committee be enforced properly, I wonder if the people of western Canada would have presented so many briefs to our committee? I wonder what they would have thought of parliament if we had been quibbling about politics in this committee? I know a couple of issues that would not have got through. We would have been lynched.


An hon. Member:: You might still be lynched.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: My reaction is this, Mr. Speaker. There will be no confrontation by me during the next session. There can be no work to rule and frustration of good ideas. I say, Mr. Speaker, that only good will can bring about good government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I say that only good rules can provide effective legislation. Backbenchers on the government side, considering their position and desire for freedom of speech and knowing that they will have to face the electorate when the time comes, have to make sure that it is not the government house leader that is going to fix the time for debate. They are going to make sure in caucus that there is ample time for everybody. We should not be here to promote the political ambitions of our independent parties over and above our obligation to serve the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It is regrettable that no solution was found in the negotiations that went on for so long with respect to this particular rule. It is regrettable that these proposals were met with filibuster and useless debate. However, the ultimate aim and objective of the majority must be carried out. It must be carried out in the manner that majority requires to have an effective parliament with effective legislation providing good and just laws for the people of Canada. If at the end of the time we have been sent here to serve the people of Canada it is proven we are wrong, we will not be back.
I do not pretend, as many members have done yesterday and today, to be an experienced politician. I do not pretend to be
11594	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization able to offer suggestions as to how this impasse could possibly be handled and dealt with. Some of us have not been here long enough. I am one of them. However, there are some who have been here too long.


An hon. Member:: The Solicitor General.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We were all sent here to serve.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is rising on a point of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member should be allowed to insult the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) like that. He is a respected long-standing member of the house, the dean.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I always
thought he was one of the younger members.
If I might conclude, I should like to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested to the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) that there are still some things wrong with the rules.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I asked him a question.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes, and he thought there were. I think any rule in a court of law or in the articles of association of a company or society can be misused or misconstrued. If these rules we shall adopt in the early morning hours tomorrow should work to the disadvantage of democracy, in my view and I know in the view of every member on the back benches either in the minority or majority, we will have to change those rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: We will have to change them time and time again if necessary, until this chamber becomes a rational and productive institution responsible to the people of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: By closure?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps the hon. member might have indicated his willingness to answer my question when he finished. Will he say quite frankly and honestly whether he is prepared to recommend this rule to the house in its present form and whether he considers it is a good rule for the house to adopt?

DEBATES	July 24, 1969


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition referring to 75b or 75c?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am referring to the motion
which is before us.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I will answer, Mr. Speaker. My position is that it is too late to try to change it now in this session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is the first honest answer we have had.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I say that we should use what we have here now, see how it operates and not cry until somebody is offended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Crouse:: Not one of you are satisfied with this rule.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members are anxious to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).


Winona Grace MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tuesday, July 22, was a bleak day for parliament, for it marked the rupture of a process whereby government and opposition, the two essential parts of the House of Commons, were seeking to work together to streamline and modernize the machinery of parliament, and regardless of what may or may not be said here we all want to streamline and modernize the machinery of parliament. But we want it streamlined to work more effectively to pass government legislation without interfering with the vital function of the opposition which is to criticize government measures and bring forward alternative policies.
We have heard a lot in this debate from government spokesmen about the need for the government majority to rule. Let us make no mistake about what happened on Tuesday. When the government house leader gave notice of closure on Tuesday he was turning the country away from rule by the majority to the direction of arbitrary government, first the rule of one party and then the rule of one man government. Let us make no mistake about it; we are, under this rule, getting away from majority rule. Democracy is the new thing which the world is striving so hard to build today. Autocracy and dictatorship represent the age-old road-there is no doubt about it-of those who have no faith in the people, those who fear the people and those
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
who are determined to ride roughshod over the will of the people. That is what has happened.
Last Tuesday we who sit opposite the government witnessed something very disturbing as the government house leader gave notice of closure. The mask of democratic leadership slipped suddenly from the face of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who sat revealed as a man of supercilious arrogance with mockery in his face. He sat there while the three opposition leaders made their statements. Then, in a house dazed by the shock of the government's action, he rose and, turning his back on parliament in an ultimate gesture of contempt, he made his nonchalant way out of the chamber. Those of us who witnessed it will not forget it. It will take many, many oceans of words to sweep away that expression. It will take much more than words; it will take a great deal of action to obliterate that.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) mentioned the fact that some members have been here in this chamber too long. That is probably true, but some of us are concerned about those who have not been here long enough to know the traditions of this house. In the Prime Minister we have a man who up until four years ago had had no parliamentary experience whatever, a man who had no feel for the traditions of parliamentary government, a man who would brook no opposition to his will. He was chosen by the members of his party because they felt he could lead them to victory at the polls. He did. But it is a hollow victory for the party today, and it is a bleak day for the Canadian people.
The Canadian people gave this government power because they believed that the new Prime Minister, a man of undoubted intelligence and charm, would use power wisely and responsibly and in the best interests of the whole population. But now, in one short year, we see what has happened. The first duty of the government is to protect and strengthen the instrument of parliament itself. A democratic parliament requires a strong opposition, for the job of the opposition is vital to protect the public. There are grievances to be raised and wrongs to be righted. There are minorities with viewpoints to be safeguarded. There are dangers and shortcomings in government policies to be criticized and removed. There are alternative policies to be enunciated and publicized.
Procedure and Organization Without this, parliament becomes nothing but a dead shell of once living democracy where the government leader tramples on the remaining vestiges of freedom while eloquently assuring the people that he is building participatory democracy and a just society.
We of the opposition parties have done all we could to prevent this happening. We shall continue in the months ahead or in the weeks ahead in our efforts to prevent this happening and to see that the trend is reversed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, influential sections of the press and the media are determined that this shall not happen. People are slowly but very surely beginning to realize that something is very wrong in this house, in this debate. They are beginning to ask questions. These questions are sifting in through letters, editorials and news items in the press. Questions of this nature are asked: Why, when the government has completed all its legislative program for the session is it necessary to bring in rule 75c to choke and gag the opposition? Why do they want to weaken the opposition if an opposition is necesary for good government? Why do they want to get rid of criticism of their policies if their policies are so good and meet the needs of today? Why, if they are anxious to get ahead with legislation, do they propose not to call parliament until October 22, three whole months from now?
The hon. member for New Westminster told us the government has policies in line with the requirements of the people of Canada and that they are programming legislation to meet the needs of the people in this country. Let me tell you this. Programming is no substitute for the failure during a whole year to introduce the kind of legislation that the people of this country want, need, and are crying for. Let me ask this question. Does programming for the next year include improved legislation to help veterans and their families?
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Then, why was it not done a year ago? Does it include legislation to help people on old age pensions? Will it help the superannuated civil servants? Will it include measures to assist people who do not have jobs? Will it include measures to assist families on low income to buy the houses they
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization need at prices they can afford? Will programming include legislation for genuine consultation with the Metis and Indian people who are being told what is good for them, whether they like it or not? If it includes all these things the government does not need 75c. The opposition will be only too eager to pass such measures.
The people of Canada are alarmed by 75c, and we are alarmed about it. They know that the kind of legislation which will be passed with the full consent and co-operation of the opposition is the kind of legislation to which I have referred, and they wonder why in thunder we have not passed it before now. The reason for the alarm in respect of 75c is that if the government wants 75c it must want it to prevent the kind of legislation which should be brought in to look after people's needs in the years ahead and to stifle the criticism by the opposition.
Is this program that the government is proposing to bring in next year intended to control the high rates of interest in this country? Will it deal with the steadily rising cost of living? Will this program deal with the growing pollution problems of air, soil and water in this country? Will this programming deal with the problems of Canadian control of Canadian industry and its development?


An hon. Member:: No, never.


Winona Grace MacInnis: That is the answer.


An hon. Member:: What about the cost of fudgsicles?


Winona Grace MacInnis: It will not even deal with the false advertisement in respect of fudgsicles. I worked for two or three months to get this government to make a firm assurance that the weight of as small a thing as a fudg-sicle would be as advertised and this relates only to one small item-chocolate bars that children buy.
On the basis of legislation introduced this session the answer to all these questions is a resounding, no. The government has shown no interest whatsoever in such matters. Some of you may smile because you feel you will keep the government in your hands and stifle the criticisms we are trying to make. Things will be different in this parliament after the next election.
People are not happy, and we shall not rest until we find ways and means of getting their needs across to the government in this chamber. There has been enough talk in this house about opposition obstruction. I want to tell 
you that it is this government which has obstructed every single effort to get action in respect of the urgent needs in this country. Only the government has had the power to bring in legislation dealing with these problems. It has failed to bring in that legislation; that is obstruction of the will of the people.
The people want the government to give top priority to things like jobs, training for jobs, the development of industry, restrictions on the interest rate and the high cost of living, and the provision for housing for people on low incomes and to deal with the wheat problem and all these things. Until the government absolutely had to give money to the western farmers to keep them from sinking into nothingness it did not do anything worthwhile about this problem. Let us have no more talk about opposition obstruction. If the government can now hamstring the opposition by this closure rule they think they will have no need to worry about criticism in the future. They can close their eyes and their ears to public clamour for legislation of the kind we need in this country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) claims that people feel parliament is becoming less relevant to the problems of today. If parliament is becoming less relevant to those problems in the minds of the people it is because this government has contributed to making it less relevant. It is no wonder that people feel parliament is becoming less relevant after trying in vain to get this government to understand that there are a number of problems that need solving. In spite of this, the government can turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to these needs of the people.
Let me point out that at Christmas time the Vancouver Sun, which is the organ of the Liberal party on the west coast, published an editorial pointing out that the government had the good sense to put the then proposed closure rule, 16a, in the deep freeze. It said it would be wrong for the rest of us to think that the government was putting this rule through to hobble parliament. But it added that the Prime Minister had made a mistake. The editorial went on to state:
The plan of wholesale advance closure Inherent in rule 16a was seen on examination to be intolerable. He [The Prime Minister] had not realized how sensitive parliament and people are to the rights of this great institution.
The Prime Minister, inexperienced as he was, was surely entitled to a mistake. But when only six months later we see the same mistake coming around again we are entitled
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
to second thoughts. Why should he make the same mistake, one which shows complete lack of understanding and of respect for parliament? Is the Prime Minister that accident prone? Is this a death wish shared by the cabinet? There is mounting evidence that a number of Liberal backbenchers are reluctant to be a part of this new charge of the Light Brigade. They would rather have a more viable cause for which to lay down their political lives. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) indicated very well his reluctance about Rule 75c when he said it was too late now to back out of this position.
Let me point out that this is precisely the same mistake that was made once years ago by another Liberal government. This was back in 1956 when the Liberal government had a muscleman who also got himself confused with God. Among other lordly utterances of his were the famous "What's a million", and 'Who is to stop us?" These off-the-cuff remarks had about the same slow-burn effect on the public as the more up to date remarks "There is no housing crisis" and "Why should I sell the Canadian farmer's wheat?"
The effect in 1956 was to bring about the defeat of an arrogant government and to scatter its shattered remnants throughout the valley of desolation, where they wandered for years. The valley is still there, waiting. Parliament cannot be mocked or manoeuvered with impunity. Parliament has its defenders in this chamber as this debate amply testifies. As we fight on, the forces of public opinion outside are growing and will continue to grow as people realize more and more fully just what is at stake.
Who is to stop us, asks the present government as they bring down the guillotine. Let them reflect at this eleventh hour on the fact that this house is one of the few remaining places in Canada where the Liberal party remains in power today. Of course, there is Newfoundland. The Liberals are pretty rocky there as the stalwart contingent of opposition M.P.s from that province demonstrate in this Chamber. There is Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, both with strong and effective shock troops here. Lastly there is Saskatchewan. Having recently experienced public sentiment there, I should think the Prime Minister would realize that there are times when discretion is the better part of valour, unless of course the urge for political suicide becomes too strong on his part to be resisted.

Procedure and Organization
The truth is that Canadians are becoming sick and tired of being fobbed off by grand gestures and empty phrases about participatory democracy and the just society. They want a start on the real thing. Province by province they are turning away from the Liberal party which tries to be all things to all men- and women-and ends up being nothing to anyone.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Now, while there is still time, the once-great Liberal party would do well to look to its age-old traditions of free speech and free assembly. It used to be proud of the fact that it had those traditions. Unless it can reverse the step it proposes to take tonight, this government is headed for the boneyard of history. Already in British Columbia it is being written off in the forthcoming election.
In this modern age, when two men have set foot on the moon through the co-operative effort of thousands of people the world over, any petty attempt by a minor tyrant to stifle free speech in Canada's parliament is doomed to ignominious failure.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, since the commencement of this very important debate on rule changes I have listened fairly constantly to it. I listened this evening to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), who sat on the justice committee. The hon. member's approach to the rules of the house reminds me of the Perry Mason series in which Hamilton Berger prosecuted in the courts of the United States. The hon. member for New Westminster may be able to do it in the courts of Vancouver and New Westminster, but he cannot come here and impose restrictions and coerce the members of this house, especially those in the opposition, the way he apparently does in the courts of the country.
I was very sorry to hear him speak the way he did. During the sittings of the legal affairs committee he quoted various people and books. He does not think much of Beau-chesne, apparently. Beauchesne was here before him, and I suggest will be here long after the hon. member has gone. He spoke about the need of programming and all that goes with it. He spoke of the techniques of automation, of computers, and so on. He spoke of the necessity of changing the rules until parliament is productive, as he put it.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization An hon. member of this house-I shall not pinpoint him-said not very long ago that by the time the new rules are passed we will not recognize parliament. I wonder what was meant by that. I wonder what legislation will be brought forward by the government during the next session.


Thomas Miller Bell: "President'' Trudeau.


Howard Russell MacEwan: There will perhaps be changes in taxation and welfare. One morning, as I was walking to the house with a government member-


Mr. Turner (Oilawa-Carleton):: You are a
pretty broadminded guy, Russ.


Howard Russell MacEwan: -he asked how many members there were from the province I have the honour to represent. I told him. He said, "That is too many. I represent a large city constituency and I do not think it is right that your province has so many members." I said, "Try and change it. The number of members from my province is provided for in the legislation of this land. The members from my province can be no fewer than the number of senators". He said, "We will change that". Perhaps this is the thinking of the government, namely, to change the British North America Act and the number of members who have the right to represent the provinces of this country. Perhaps that is why the government brought forward 75c.
The hon. member spoke about rules and said, "We will try these rules, and if they do not work we will change them". I wonder who will change them. What faith can we have in this government when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at New Year's said, after rule 16a had been withdrawn after the great speech of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), who came to the front today and rolled into the aisle to speak-he is always brought forward on occasions such as this-


John Napier Turner: He is a
great Nova Scotian.


Howard Russell MacEwan: He is a member from Nova Scotia; in fact, the only one on the other side. At one time we enjoyed the fact that in parliament there was no Grit from my province. That will happen again.


An hon. Member:: And very soon.


John Napier Turner: One to ten
is good odds.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The grandfather of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) came from Nova Scotia.


John Napier Turner: From your county.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I think the minister has forgotten that, because he is supporting these proposed rules. We Nova Scotians care for democracy and I am surprised at the attitude of the minister in this regard.


Thomas Miller Bell: He deserted Quebec.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member for New Westminster said the government would change the rules if necessary. What faith can we have in this government when just after rule 16a was withdrawn the Prime Minister, in a television interview, told the Canadian people, "We are not really interested in changing the rules too much. All we did was suck the opposition in so they would accept a certain part of the rules which were put forward"? How can we believe a Prime Minister who makes such a statement?
The hon. member for New Westminster said that some members have been here too long. Perhaps they have. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) has been here too long. He is collecting taxes, and that will not help him in the future; people may hold a personal grudge against him. It is not for the hon. member for New Westminster, the Prime Minister or any member of the government to tell me, the member for Central Nova, that I have been here too long. The people of Canada decide that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The area I represent does not have any beetroot growers, as has the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan); we have coal miners, farmers, fishermen and shipyard workers who are in favour of democracy. They sent me and other members to this house. I suggest it is not for the government to introduce rules to muzzle members of parliament.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Don't forget they are Liberals, Russ.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That is right. The question was asked: What is the government trying to do? The simple answer is that it is trying to control the procedures of the house; in other words, it is trying to make parliament the errand boy of the government. One of our oldest traditions is that parliament controls
July 24, 1969

its own procedures. It is parliament which makes the rules, not the government. Now we have the government asking parliament to bind and gag itself.
I suggest that hon. members on the other side think about this. If we came into this house and silently acquiesed in what I would call the mummification of parliament, we would never again be able to hold up our heads among the honest Canadians of this country. They did not send me here in order to assist the government to ride roughshod over parliament. Those who have attempted to bring in these restrictions, those who have attempted to place parliament in a strait-jacket, have used the excuse that this is the way things are done in England. I suggest it is not the way things are done in Canada.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
I do not know who cooked up rule 75c, but I have an idea. Perhaps the government house leader had something to do with it, assisted by someone else who is now no longer within these walls but who is a former member of parliament. I will not go into personalities but at one time he sat as a member of the opposition.


John Napier Turner: That is a pretty mysterious statement.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) works in mysterious ways, as well as other members of the government. Some of them are here one day and gone another. Their spirits and ghosts are here, so we know about that. The Minister of Justice should uphold justice and remember about the previous great ministers of justice of this country. The present minister should keep that in mind when his legislation is brought before the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He can forget about his predecessor.


Howard Russell MacEwan: With regard to these rules, if the house leaders cannot agree or do not reach a conclusion which is satisfactory to the government, then a minister will have the power of life and death over the business of the house. He, and he alone, will have this power. That is a lot of power to place in the hands of one man, however modest, unassuming and solicitous of the rights of others that man may be. In this particular instance I am not referring to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) because it is definitely a terrible temptation to place before
Procedure and Organization him. I suggest that the government house leader has already demonstrated his lack of fitness to wield such absolute power over the business of this house.
There is one reflection which comes to my mind if rule 75c-to which I refer as the butcher rule-is passed, and that is the considerable saving that will ensue in parliamentary positions. For example, we will no longer require any of the opposition house leaders because in that instance the government house leader will be all powerful. Perhaps we will no longer require opposition whips. This would be a terrible thing for the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) because there would be no point in him coming to this chamber. If rule 75c is passed, this parliament will simply become a graveyard of free speech, and the battle, like so many battles for freedom, will be lost quietly, unspectacularly, and with hardly a whimper. Parliament will simply become another occupied country with the government acting as the occupying power.
Parliament cannot accept the imposition of a gag by this government. Members are not sent here simply to say yea or nay. Members are sent here to complain, to criticize, to demand redress of grievances and to point out the faults and failure of the government.


Mr. Sharp:: And to legislate.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The minister should know all about that. He has been in the backrooms of deputy ministers for so long. He has been a bureaucrat, and he has shown it in the legislation which he has brought forth here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am not sure how it is in other branches of the Department of External Affairs, but the passport branch is certainly not so good. I suggest that we need more legislation there.
However, let us go back to the consideration of rule 75c. Members are also sent here to be informed, to represent the people who sent them, to put forward the interests of their constituents, and so on. Parliament cannot degenerate into a series of seminars, with government ministers telling us what to think, what to say and how long to speak. If we are only allowed to vote and not to speak, we will be getting suspiciously close to the systems practised in countries where the state has been allowed to become the supreme entity of the nation. The issue is simple: Is the state a creature of the people, or are the
COMMONS DEBATES	July 24, 1969
Procedure and Organization
people creatures of the state? A stand has to be taken, and that stand can only be made in parliament.
The control of the finances of this nation must be returned to the people of this nation, and that can only be done in parliament. It cannot be done in committee; it cannot be done in newspaper editorials; it cannot be done on TV panel shows. It can be done in this house, and this house only. That is why this parliament must rise up and reject the motion by the government and support the amendment proposed by the opposition house leader who clearly set out the dark chqsrn toward which we are steering. This is the time for parliament to say no and to make it plain that all sides of this house will maintain the supremacy of this institution and its freedom from control from whatever source.
Many editorials were written and many statements made regarding this matter. Perhaps I should quote what the Prime Minister said outside the house, where he usually says things. This is what he said:
. ^many Canadians have begun to feel parliament is irrelevant. His government will stand or fall on the proposition that reasonable men can take a decision on a proposal after the arguments have been heard, and the decision must be the decision of the majority.


John Napier Turner: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am glad we have a little support from the Minister of Justice. The Prime Minister said that Canadians have begun to feel that parliament is irrelevant. I do not know where he got this idea. I suggest that he has a lot to learn. Canadians do not feel that parliament is irrelevant and they will prove this at the next election, wherever it may come.,


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: My suggestion is that under rules 75a, 75b and 75c members will not have a reasonable chance to speak. The time limit is such that after a lapse of ten days a vote has to be taken. Certainly, this is not a reasonable length of time. This allows only for four days of debate in ten days during which a major bill must be processed. Again I ask the following questions: What will the government bring forward during the fall session that requires us now to pass rule 75c, not to bring in further legislation but to bring in closure on debate in parliament, or closure on closure?
I have listened to my friend, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). He is much 
changed since the time when we went on trips together. Since the government has a majority he has changed much. He was a pretty good fellow on the trips. When we were out west six years ago he showed democratic inclinations. Even the chairman of the committee, the former member for Hamilton West, was democratic. But now there is a change. We have listened to government backbenchers, and especially to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), who will streamroller over anyone who says that we have been here too long. Rule 75c curtail the right of the opposition to work effectively in this parliament. This is what was said in this regard:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.
It was also said once that:
The absence of a strong opposition means a one party state. A one party state means an all powerful cabinet.
Not every member of this house who has been here a few years has the opportunity to speak as much as he would like. This applies to everyone here, and especially to government backbenchers. Members sitting in the opposition have more opportunity to speak. I suggest this rule 75c will gag parliament. It will curtail the rights of all, and I hope some of the backbenchers on the other side, ordinary members like myself, will not go along with it because-and I say this seriously-if they do, they will live to regret it.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de Grace):: While I do not think that I, or anybody else on this side for that matter, will ever be able to convince the opposition that 75c is a good rule, I do believe it is important that we on the back benches on this side
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
should make it clear to the Canadian people that we fully support this rule and believe it constitutes an important and positive contribution to improving the rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he prepared to recommend this rule to the house in its present form?


William Warren Allmand: While we on this side are not as perfect as members of the opposition are, I would say that the rule is one of the best rules I have seen-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Warren Allmand: -suggested or put to the house in connection with the allocation of time. It is much better than anything proposed by the opposition and I shall fully support it when it comes to a vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Liberals bowed their heads in shame when you said that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Warren Allmand: Right now we are seeing the respect the opposition have for democracy. I have sat here all night listening to their speeches. Now, when I get up they are not willing to listen to me for a while. I want to say that we, the backbenchers of this party, not only support this rule but support it as a matter of principle to the extent that we are willing to place our political careers on the line for it. If, as members of the opposition assert, this is a bad rule or one which the people of Canada do not want, then the people of Canada will have an opportunity to choose. If they want the kind of parliament which the opposition demonstrated yesterday and in the last week or so, I shall gladly leave this place and decline to participate in it because I do not want to sit in a house such as we sat in yesterday, and have sat in for the last ten days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: During this debate members of the opposition have asked what we on the back benches over here think, and that is what we think. We do not support this rule because the whips are on, or because we are members of this party, but because we think it is an important rule in enabling parliament to do the business which needs to be done for Canada.
Procedure and Organization In particular, I think rule 75 is necessary for several reasons. I shall enumerate them because the opposition is so misinterpreting this rule that it is important we should put forward a positive argument in its favour. First, while this rule will allow reasonable time for debate, for all points of view to be put forward, it will not permit the filibuster, or debate merely for the sake of obstruction. Second, it will prevent long, unproductive debate with much repetition and irrelevance. Third, it will help the House of Commons to become a much more productive and efficient institution. I do not think there is any other way in which a government can properly plan a legislative program, schedule business and organize parliamentary manpower and parliamentary services. There must be proper co-ordination between the government and the legislature. The government has responsibility for preparing legislation and if this is to be done properly there must be some kind of schedule. Finally, I believe that a system providing for an allocation of time will make for much better debates. When there is a limit on debates I find that all parties put forward their best speakers; they are better prepared and this leads to a much more productive debate, within the limited time, than those endless debates which go on without limit.
What do we see at the present time? At the present time we have a parliament which is at the mercy of the opposition, as we saw yesterday. It is subject to the control of the opposition. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out tonight, we do have closure at the present time: it is closure by means of filibuster, repetition and irrelevance. While bills may eventually come to a vote, so much time is taken up in wasteful debate that many important measures never get to the floor.
There are several basic questions which I believe we in this house and the Canadian people generally should ask regarding this matter. First, should parliament be controlled by the majority or the minority in the final analysis? Second, should freedom of debate be an unlimited right or should it, like all other rights, be subject to limitation? As part of the civil law of Quebec we have a well known doctrine known as the abus des droits -the abuse of rights. According to this doctrine, no right is unlimited; it is always subject to restriction when it might interfere with the rights of others. There are many examples of the limitation to the right of free
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization speech. In our present law we have a limitation in respect to slander, limitations in respect to libel, sedition, obscenity, and so on.
We need to ask ourselves another important question: to what extent should the freedom of debate be tempered by the need for efficient operation and productivity? What should be the balance between freedom and efficiency? When we talk about productivity we get the impression from hon. members opposite that they do not believe productivity in this house to be important. Yet I cannot recall one election campaign in which the main basis of attack by the opposition has not been: how much has the government done? How many bills have they passed? During this debate the opposition gives the impression that productivity is not important-that the important thing is freedom to debate as long as they wish, or for as long as they think is in their interest. What are we to believe? Are we to believe them at election time, or are we to believe what they say in the course of this debate? In my opinion their credibility is greatly in doubt. Both things are important. There must be freedom of debate but there must also be a measure of productivity. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Star this evening. It is entitled: "Not for freedom". It says:
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
As they waged their last ditch battle against the government's time-allocation rule, opposition members of Parliament tended to present themselves as the last bastion protecting defenceless citizens from a government anxious to ride roughshod over their liberties. But it is a curious fact that the last time the opposition exercised its power to hold up legislation by filibuster, it was trying its best to prevent an extension of freedom.
The issue was the bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. By decreeing that it would no longer imprison homosexuals for acts committed in private, or doctors for performing abortions considered necessary to preserve the health of the mother, the government achieved a modest but genuine increase in human liberty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Warren Allmand: I am surprised at the N.D.P.,
Mr. Speaker. I was attracted to its ideas in earlier years and had always looked on it as a party which believed in planning. I always thought that party was interested in planning and supported the principle that humanity should control its environment by planning, controlling and scheduling. Sad to say, that 
party uses the concept of planning for its own political expediency. It is interested in planning when planning helps it and against planning when planning does not help.


Frank Howard: Be accurate, for heaven's sake.


William Warren Allmand: The opposition has alleged that this government and this proposed rule are dictatorial and autocratic. I ask, was the government being dictatorial or autocratic when it proposed last fall that the opposition should have more money to spend on research so that it could better criticize the government. Was that a dictatorial or autocratic action?


An hon. Member:: No.
Another hon. Member: That was a waste of public money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we have order so that the hon. member can deliver his remarks.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, he deserves to be interrupted for not being accurate.


William Warren Allmand: Was the government being dictatorial or autocratic when it proposed that as a general rule all bills ought to go through committee, thus prolonging the legislative process? Every bill is to be examined in a forum that is open to the participation of the general public. Expert witnesses may be called-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For one day.


William Warren Allmand: Is this government being dictatorial when it proposes that we have a bill of rights entrenched in the B.N. Act?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where is it?


William Warren Allmand: Is it being autocratic when it seeks to preserve the civil liberties of Canadians and their language rights? Is the official languages bill, which protects the rights of a minority, dictatorial? Was the government being dictatorial when it introduced the bill providing for regional economic expansion and industrial incentives with respect to underdeveloped areas of Canada? When the Prime Minister went out west recently and sat in the back of a truck in Saskatchewan exchanging ideas with farmers, was he acting as a dictator?
July 24. 1969


An hon. Member:: Why don't you read his book?
Another hon. Member: Tell us about the little boy.


William Warren Allmand: You see, Mr. Speaker, I am touching the opposition's sensitive spot, because it will not allow me to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: They want to shout me down. That is their concept of democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: Under our constitution, enshrined in the British North America Act that we cannot amend in this house, there is a provision that there must be elections every five years. We say that the majority has the right to put forward its legislative program. If it is bad legislation, if it is wrong in changing the rules, it shall answer to the people. It has that responsibility. If we are doing the wrong thing the opposition should be happy. After all, that will put them on this side of the house after the next election-but I doubt it. Our constitution guarantees that Canada, which is a federal state, shall have elections at least every five years. Therefore the accusations of dictatorship or autocracy are ridiculous.
It is strange to hear opposition members say that the opposition is badly treated and is not given enough debating time. Has anyone counted the pages in Hansard devoted to the speeches of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Peace River and other opposition members? And we should consider not only debate but the question period and other procedures in this house. If we compare the number of pages devoted to opposition members with the number of pages on which we appear, then certainly it may be said that we on this side in the back benches are the slaves of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the hon. member permit a question. Will he tell me at what point the house leaders of the opposition parties will be reduced to the status of backbenchers on the government side of the house?

Procedure and Organization


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I expect more sensible questions from the Leader of the Opposition.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is a typical approach.


William Warren Allmand: Why do we require time limits in this modern age, Mr. Speaker? Would anyone belonging to a club, trade union, corporation, or private association tolerate a situation in which a minority of people at a meeting could prevent the taking of a decision indefinitely? Would opposition party members at one of their political conventions tolerate a situation in which a minority group could block the taking of an important decision? Just look at political party conventions. They are conducted under time limits, and that is reasonable. The opposition has a double standard, supporting the idea of time allocation when it suits it at their conventions and similar party functions, and opposing it here, simply because it is the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Is that the case for the defence?


John Napier Turner: There is no need to impose time limitations on a party that has nothing to say.


David Lewis: I shall think of a retort to that quip by tomorrow.


William Warren Allmand: Some hon. members are trying to give the country the impression that the idea of time allocation on debate is new and that we are trying to foist something on the parliament of Canada. I think it is time the Canadian public were made aware of a few facts. There are many instances in our rules in which time limitation is permissible.


Thomas Miller Bell: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: It is not always by agreement. The time limitations have been brought in over the years because legislation has become more voluminous and complex. First of all, we have a six day limitation on the budget debate.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: And an eight day limitation on the Throne Speech debate.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization


William Warren Allmand: We have limitations on supply debates.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: And we have limited the question period to 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: We have limited the time to be spent on private members' business.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the opposition accepts the principle of limitation of time.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: If they are to be consistent and logical, they should be willing to extend this principle and accept this rule.


David Lewis: That is a classical non sequitur.


William Warren Allmand: We have set limits on how long we are to speak in debates. There is a limit of 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: The opposition parties have accepted the principle of 75a and 75b.


Some hon. Members:: By agreement.


William Warren Allmand: Clearly, the opposition accepts the principle of time limitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
agreement.


William Warren Allmand: Had 75b been in effect in the previous parliament in which the Liberal party was in a minority position, it could have formed a majority with the Ralliement Creditiste and the Social Credity party under that rule which would have enabled the government to set an allocation time against the wishes of the conservatives and N.D.P. Those two opposition parties, with the government, could have combined against approximately 90 Conservatives and 22 or 23 N.D.P. members. In the previous parliament, this rule would have meant that closure would be imposed against slightly more than 100 members. They will accept that situation 

under 75b, but they will not accept 75c which could impose closure on a smaller number of people in parliament. I submit, Mr. Speaker, there is a great inconsistency in their stand for principles here. On the other hand there are many safeguards for the opposition.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Repeat it. We did not quite understand you.


William Warren Allmand: I am very easy to understand. There were many other simple things you failed to understand in this debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the hon. member permit a question at this time?


William Warren Allmand: I have already answered two or three questions from that side. They have not been very productive.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the hon. member answer a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat some of the safeguards in the constitution of this nation and in the rules of this house which protect the opposition from autocratic rule, dictatorship and all the other things they allege. As I mentioned before, there is the British North America Act which guarantees an election every five years.
Rules 75a, 75b and 75c can only be put at one stage of the bill at a time. This means that after we have put on time allocation under Rule 75c for second reading on the committee stage and the public has had a chance to listen-to that debate and there has been reaction from the press and perhaps the public, we then have to set another allocation for the next stage. This is a very real protection and safeguard for the opposition. We can only set a time allocation for one stage at a time.
As was pointed out by the Prime Minister, there are 28 opposition days. There are also the very real powers of the free press in this country. At this time I wish to read a letter I received this afternoon from a student in my constituency in regard to this matter. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Allmand,
I absolutely support the government position on house procedures and support immediate implementation of Rule 75c, as well as 75a and 75b.
Mr. Trudeau was correct in his analysis of the public in Canada. Parliament is becoming regarded as irrelevant... because so much talk goes on and
July 24, 1969

very little action seems to be forthcoming. Important business is always snowed under by so much verbocity on completely trivial matters.
Messrs. Stanfield, Douglas, Caouette seem unaware of the fact that we now live with nearly instant communication (in T.V. and radio) and that public opinion may be stirred up literally overnight to prevent passing of undemocratic or unconstitutional law.


An hon. Member:: Who signed it, Dr. Ollivier?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this letter is from a young student in my constituency.


Gerald William Baldwin: It sounds like he is an old student.


An hon. Member:: Who signed the letter?


William Warren Allmand: Never mind who signed it. It is a person I never met or even saw before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: It is an ex-member of the N.D.P..


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Charlevoix.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rules allow a member to put on the record a letter he has received without giving the name of the one who sent it.
If it is actually signed, the member should, under the Standing Orders, indicate the name of the sender before the letter can be entered in the official report of the House of Commons.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know that is not a rule or precedent of this house.


An hon. Member:: Yes it is.


William Warren Allmand: Your Honour can make a ruling. As far as I know, there is no rule. I do not have permission from this person to use his letter.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You read it.


Mr. Alexander:: You should not have read it then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Learn the rules.
Procedure and Organization


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the practice of the house has been when an hon. member reads a letter he takes the responsibility for its contents. I think this has been the normal practice. In the event it is a personal letter, hon. members may request the name of the author. I could consult further with the table if this objection is pursued. The solution may be that the hon. member's time has already expired.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to correct a misrepresentation made by the hon. member during the course of his speech. When the hon. member said it is only the opposition that is responsible for obstructing and not permitting matters to be brought to a vote in the house, I am compelled, unwillingly, to bring to the attention of the house and the hon. member that he is the hon. member who moved an amendment to the fifth report to the Standing Committee on Transport dealing with the railroad situation in Newfoundland. This report had been approved by a majority of the committee, and he thereby stopped that report from being voted on in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I moved that the report be sent back to the committee because I thought it was a bad report. I followed the same course as the opposition when they moved that rule 16a be sent back to committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have very grave doubts as to whether the original point of order is valid.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I had intended bringing to the attention of the house that the hon. member had moved this amendment to Government Order 68, obviously causing obstruction to the operation of this house. I feel almost out of this tonight after hearing some of the so-called young-fry from the Liberal backbenches suggesting there is a new look in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jay Waldo Monteith: Quiet please.


Mr. Mackasey:: I never said a word.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) was here a moment ago. He seems to have disappeared.
11606	COMMONS DEBATES	July 24, 1969
Procedure and Organization


An hon. Member:: It's his bedtime.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member suggested that many of us have been in this house too long. I am pleased to see the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) coming into the chamber because he has some 13 years more service than I.


An hon. Member:: He is ready for the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: To the Senate, to the Senate!


Jay Waldo Monteith: I suggest that some hon. members who have been around here a few years have quite a reasonable amount of respect for this House of Commons as an institution. I think the hon. member who just took his place, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) was properly put in his place by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he was asked a very simple question. He was asked if he would recommend the adoption by the house of the rule as it presently exists. He cannot follow that through. He knows very well there have been suggestions made by his own house leader and by our people with which he would go along. Therefore, the present rule is not one which should be adopted by this house. Your Honour has had a very long day. I trust Your Honour will be patient with me. I do not intend to be disruptive or argumentative. I will try to put forward what I consider a rather serious approach to this whole problem we are facing. As I rise to participate in this debate tonight, my memory goes back to 1956. I was sitting in front of the curtains. I was participating in another closure debate. At that time I was called to order by the late Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, a very good friend of mine, because I had been attempting to compare the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe to Julius Caesar. I thought I had a good point. The Deputy Speaker did not think so. I had to bow to his opinion and as a consequence did not follow up that argument any further. That was during the closure debate. Tonight, I trust I shall keep entirely within the bounds of what you, Mr. Speaker, may suggest is order. I am entering this debate tonight because I feel so strongly that the government is completely wrong in its approach to this matter. This is not the way reasonable men should resolve their differences or reach solutions to problems in which there is conflict on both sides. This House of 
Commons is, or has been, a democratic institution. Until this particular stage it has been an institution where members have the privilege and the duty to be heard. I am not a particular student of the rules of the House of Commons. I have never pretended to be such, but I have been here long enough, since 1953, to feel I know what makes parliament tick. I think I have a feeling for this institution. I do not like what I see going on here today.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has been here longer than I have. I see the hon. Solicitor General who has been here longer than I have. I do not see the hon. member from Brantford, but he came here the same time I did. There are several others who came at about the same time or prior who do not like what is happening to parliament today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss what happened in this House of Commons in 1955. I believe it was a very interesting situation. During my years here I have seen rule changes. Subsequently, those changes have had to be reformed because they became outdated. I think this is a natural course; it is something which must happen. However, I should like to review exactly what happened in 1955. I was here at that time. Not too many of the present members were here. The Solicitor General will recall this, and I hope that he will listen intently to me because I am sure he will have to agree exactly with what I say.
In 1953 following the election of August 10, a special committee was set up to consider, study, evaluate and recommend changes in the rules. That committee sat for approximately two years. It had frequent meetings. Our party at that time was in opposition. I remember very distinctly the members of our party coming back to caucus and reporting that they and the government members on the committee were trying to negotiate and work together so that they might eventually come up with a unanimous recommendation. The Hon. E. Davie Fulton was a representative of our party on that committee. I recall him coming back to caucus and suggesting that certain steps might be taken. The Hon. Walter Harris was government house leader at that time. The approach we had to the rule
July 24, 1969
changes at the time was entirely different from the approach of the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) today. This Prime Minister and this minister are trying to ramrod changes through the House of Commons. In that day it was done by negotiation.
May I just tell you a little about the result of that negotiation. It was for the good of parliament. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will recollect this because he was a member of the committee. In those days, some 15 or 16 years ago, he was even then considered a knowledgeable man concerning the rules of the house. I think he probably was about the most knowledgeable man in the House of Commons at that time. The committee met on many occasions. The members of the committee came to the conclusion that the only thing to do was to bring in a unanimous report, one that would receive the commendation of all parties in the House of Commons. That procedure is so different from the procedure we are facing today. I suggest that the recommendations of that committee were as far reaching as they could be. In 1955, the first time since 1867, a period of 88 years, one of the recommendations brought in was that there should be a limitation of time for the throne speech debate. Another was that there should be a limitation of time on the budget debate.
This evening the Prime Minister spoke about allocation of time as though it was something entirely new. What does he know about it? He has only been around here since 1965. In 1955 a change in the rules was brought in to effect a limitation on the throne speech debate and on the budget debate for the first time in history. I think that should be noted. This was done by negotiation. It was done by a conciliatory approach by all parties. This was the approach that was felt to be proper by all members of the committee of that day. When members of the government today suggest that allocation of time is new they are talking utter nonsense. They do not know what they are talking about. This particular change was brought in by negotiation, by agreement and by good common bargaining and consent. It is true the members had their differences at times, but they got together.
At this point, Mr. Speaker I should like to place on the record one or two quotations from the debates in 1955. I believe they are very interesting. Here is one quotation.
29180-733i
Procedure and Organization (12 midnight)
I want to make it very clear that we appreciate the attitude taken by the minister-
He was referring to Walter Harris, at that time the house leader of the government. The quotation continues:
-in the subcommittee and carried forward by him into the main committee after the subcommittee had completed its negotiations.
That quotation can be found at page 5564 of Hansard for July 1, 1955. The statement was made by the hon. E. Davie Fulton who was in the opposition at that time. I am sure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would be pleased if he could find himself able to make that statement at the beginning of this particular debate after reasonable negotiation and the application of simple good common sense by everyone.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member for Peace River is a very reasonable man. Everybody knows that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must also have nostalgia when reading Hansard for July 1, 1955. I am sure he would like to have been able to repeat today what he said on that occasion.


An hon. Member:: He certainly has
neuralgia.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member said this:
I too wish to add my expression of pleasure at the way in which the Minister of Finance dealt with us. Not only did he spend a great deal of time in connection with this matter, not only did he bring to bear the results of a great deal of study, but when it got down to the hard business of compromise and bargaining the four of us who met together found that as a result of collective bargaining in good faith-something which I support wholeheartedly-we have been able to come up with a report which is unanimous so far as the committee is concerned.
That quotation can be found at page 5568 of Hansard for July 1, 1955, and those are the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Times have changed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Times have changed drastically, as the hon. member suggests. This is the way it was, and members from both sides of the house worked toward a common sense end for the good of this institution.
I should like to refer to one other quotation. I will not quote it but it is a reference to

11608	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization the debate at that time in 1955. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) delivered a short and friendly speech in which he recalled the tradition set forth by Macdonald, McGee, Laurier and Burke. Contrast that speech or approach with the speech he delivered here last week in which that right hon. member felt obliged to launch a vigorous attack on the decision of the government as embodied in the report of the committee. He said the privileges and prerogatives of the house and its members were at stake, and there is no doubt about that. This is the result of the intransigency and ill will caused by this government and its approach to these rule changes.
I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of the house should compare the approach to the 1955 rule changes to the present one. I neglected to mention this earlier, but at that time the rule changes were discussed in his chamber for exactly two half days; one half day on July 1-we worked in those days when I first came here on all holidays, and the house sat on July 1-and another half day.
In 1955, the actual motion for adoption was moved by the Hon. Walter Harris and seconded by the Hon. E. Davie Fulton. This indicates co-operation, and what can be done if the determination is there to get together and work out a common sense solution. That is not what has been done by this government today. This government is trying to shove everything down the throats of the opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: DeGaullism, that's what it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Cooperation, that was a very important factor.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was a very important factor. I have referred only to two of what I thought were the major changes in respect of limitation, one in respect of the throne speech debate and the other on the budget debate. There has never, in 88 years of our history, been any limitation on the time of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I must bring to his attention that his time has expired. He can continue with the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: No.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I would not deign to continue any longer as a result of the "no" I heard from across the chamber in this

DEBATES	July 24, 1969
House of Commons. I was only pointing out certain truths which I hope members on the government benches will appreciate and realize to be truths.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is coming to a close and, indeed, to a forced closure. I am not so certain, on the basis of my persuasive powers, that I expect at this witching hour of midnight to persuade any members opposite to change their minds and vote against this illiberal and iniquitous measure before us. I want to say that my conviction is that this has been a very sad week for the Canadian parliament. It has been sad because the spirit of free co-operation which is essential to the successful operation of any institution such as a parliament has suffered a severe blow. It has been over-ridden and crushed down by a government decision to impose its own version of parliamentary procedure by the arbitrary means of closure. The government has deliberately preferred the bulldozer, the bludgeon, and the parliamentary knout to the principle of consultation among reasonable men.
I suspect that this will turn out to be a sad week for a party which calls itself Liberal.
Liberalism at its historic best, as I understand it, involves responsibility toward minorities, respect for the process of debate and discussion among equals and willingness to give oppositions and minorities their fair share in decision making and debate. I am distressed that in a party which calls itself Liberal not a single person has stood up during this debate and propounded genuine Liberal principles. I fear that within a few minutes we will vote on this motion to limit the debates of this parliament, and not one Liberal will have the courage to vote for the amendment and against the motion before us. That flouts every principle of Liberalism.
I do not believe that a party which has so clearly demonstrated its contempt for parliament will long enjoy the confidence of the Canadian people who are, I believe profoundly committed by a sense of fair play to democratic principles and practices. Another melancholy feature of this whole matter is that it has been totally unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the reason for the prolonging of this debate and the imposition of closure to conclude it have both been caused by the insistence of the government to put through rule 75c. This rule is as unnecessary for its stated purpose, a reasonable allocation of time, as it is arbitrary. I do not say this because I do not believe in the reform of our
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
parliamentary procedure, nor because I do not believe in the necessity of time allocation. On the contrary, 1 have been a zealous advocate of both parliamentary reform and time allocation.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
I have been appalled at times by what seemed to be the inefficiency and dilatoriness of house procedure. I think that if parliament is to do an effective job, it is necessary to streamline parliamentary procedure. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal party have no monopoly on the desire to streamline parliamentary procedure. I have always advocated that our procedure needs streamlining, and I do so now. We should have a greater limitation on the time allowed for speeches. I believe it would be better if more members spoke and the time limit for speeches were reduced. I think most of us can do better in 20 minutes than we can in 40 minutes. I agree that there is a necessity for getting through the house in an orderly way an extensive legislative program. Legislation has been promised year after year and not introduced at all. I have personally listened to ten different ministers of immigration promise a new Indian Act, which I assure the house is badly needed; but it has never been introduced.
We have heard successive Speeches from the Throne promising a Canada Development Corporation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has brought forward a long awaited revision of our expropriation statutes, which are much outdated and unjust, but we have not found time to enact it into law. Problems of pollution are grave; they have found their way into the forefront of the public conscience, and rightly so. The water act, which is to set up machinery to enable full federal participation in dealing with water pollution, languishes in some ministerial filing cabinet.
I believe that members of parliament can, through the committees system, become the originators of much needed legislation. I am quite sure that when the party I represent becomes the government, which I think may be sooner than some hon. members anticipate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -it will want to present, and will present, a varied and vigorous program of legislative action. For all these reasons I welcome, as I believe this party does, steps toward an orderly allocation of time and the
Procedure and Organization planning of the business of the house. It is for this very reason that I regret the government has chosen a method of time allocation and a means of imposing it which could not help but rouse the firm opposition of any self-respecting member of the house who is not silenced by obligatory support of the government.
I regret that the government brought this measure into the house at a time when perhaps it hoped the weariness of the opposition after a long session would enable it to ram through something unacceptable. I think the government was mistaken in believing that the opposition could be bludgeoned or cajoled by the deprivation of a summer vacation into abandoning its duties and what it believes in, which is parliamentary rather than governmental control of parliamentary business.
I regret that the government has seen fit to ram through the house this unconstitutional and improper rule change through the process of the guillotine or closure, which should be used only in an emergency. There has been no emergency. The Prime Minister, in his superior manner, spoke of the stupid filibuster. I distrust the judgment of those who accuse their opponents of stupidity and hypocrisy. To do so smacks of the spirit of blindness, if not arrogance. Whether or not the battle put up in this house by the opposition parties has been stupid depends upon the purpose of the operation. I think this operation, call it filibuster if you will, was to preserve a balance between the rights of the executive on one hand, and the rights of opposition members, representing as they do the people of Canada, on the other.
We are not being stupid. We are only doing our clear duty in resisting a change in procedure which would put the balance too far in favour of an executive-dominated house. If there is stupidity in connection with this debate, may it not more reasonably be charged against those who have made the debate necessary and who have to resort to closure to end it? The government insists on the passage of 75c, but 75c is not necessary to the effective conduct of legislative business.
The root question which we are deciding in this debate is whether as a general rule the business of parliament is to be based on consultation or consensus on the one hand, or coercion and dictation on the other. I am absolutely convinced, as a believer in time allocation, that the former method is more effective. However, the government has deliberately chosen the latter.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization
Without 75c, and indeed without 75a and 75b, the government has received from the opposition parties, through the process of consultation among the house leaders, all the co-operation required to run the business of parliament in an orderly fashion. There has been no evidence of obstruction in this parliament. I think the criticism of the government by opposition members has been constructive. We have tried to urge the government forward rather than to hobble it. Good politics as well as common sense, not to mention ordinary patriotism, means that with 75a and 75b an orderly allocation of time could have been effected.
The government seems to be basing its insistence on 75c on the fears of the past rather than the realities of the present. It is one of the ironies of history that those who would be responsible for making time allocation work under 75a and 75b are all men of responsibility and moderation, men who believe as much as any government member in making parliament work. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre ( Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) are all of course, responsible to their respective parties; but it would be hard to imagine individual members more conscious of the importance of a working and functioning parliamentary system. I would have been prepared to add to that group of reasonable men the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). He is a man with a reputation of being an able, cool-headed lawyer. To my mind one of the mysteries of this debate has been the part he has taken in the proceedings. I personally thought he would have had more sense than to ram this measure through the house. Perhaps it is because he is not his own master.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I repeat that 75c is not necessary and never has been. A reasonable time allocation could be achieved by 75a and 75b which the opposition parties were ready to accept, without any question of closure or any need to rely upon Standing Order 33 which should be used only as a last resort. Supposing I am wrong? Why not proceed by steps? Why not try rules 75a and 75b which the opposition parties accept? Why not try to work out a reasonable and agreed system of time allocation, and if that does not work, obstruction occurs and the government's timetable is disrupted, then would be the time to press for

some such rule as 75c. One can only conclude that the insistance-in pressing on with 75c is evidence of an attitude of mind which prefers to impose its will rather than to persuade.
I prophesy that future historians will see in the events of this week the seeds of the disintegration of the Liberal party. The ultimate judges under our system are the sovereign people of Canada, whose servants we are. I believe the people of Canada will condemn in no uncertain manner the government for what it has done this week as soon as they can. I believe this will be a salutary lesson of the vitality of Canadian democracy and the parliamentary system as it is known in Canada. I believe that the people of Canada will restore the balance between the government and parliament which has been seriously upset by the procedures we are asked to approve tonight.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, as a backbencher I rise to speak in this debate near the end of a thrilling, difficult and exciting series of speeches, points of order and motions. I believe that there is one point that can be made from all parts of this house in unanimity, that is that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the speaker have conducted this debate on the highest plane and have set an example for all parliaments throughout the world by conducting this debate with distinction and decorum. I think I can speak for all members of the house in thanking you for the magnificent manner in which you conducted our deliberations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin David Gibson: May I say as a backbencher that the performance of the Speaker in the Chair is one of the most important facets of our life in parliament, and we all appreciate this.
It seems to me that the debate which we have been conducting here is very much like the situation where an irresistible force meets an immovable object. Someone has to give, and the majority party in this house is not going to give; it cannot give or we will have no government at all, we will have chaos.
Our parliamentary colleagues opposite in the New Democratic party, who profess to be the main repository of parliamentary principle, who adorn themselves in the unstained raiment of virtue, and who profess an undying allegiance to the right to free speech,
July 24, 1969

have provided the House of Commons with another example of why so many people in Canada have become disenchanted with this great institution. Two nights ago, in a virtuoso performance of invective, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) went on a rampage of character assassination of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), festooned with solemn appeals to principle.
The speech of the hon. member for Skeena was a great insult to the greatest contemporary Canadian, namely the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Colin David Gibson: In reply to his poetry of sarcasm, I have only this to say:
There once was a member from Skeena,
Who bayed like a wounded hyena,
The force of his words fell flat on the floor,
And he left for a smaller arena.


An hon. Member:: Such as Manitoba.


Colin David Gibson: I was saddened by the television antics of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who, on a T.V. program, in discussing the conduct of the Prime Minister before a group of students at the centennial fountain, by means of the most reprehensible demagoguery, misled these young Canadians by implying that the Prime Minister is a dictator.


An hon. Member:: Fascist.

Procedure and Organization opposition members would only realize that we are moving toward more freedom and not less freedom, then parliament would be a stronger place.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


Colin David Gibson: The charter of civil liberties and the bill of rights, as well as the language bill and all the other measures, coupled with our rules reform in the whole context are unfolding a new democracy for Canada that is freer than ever before in our history. We are all on this side of the house bound and determined to make parliament work more effectively in co-operation with the opposition parties. We on this side of the house have learned, participated and constructively strengthened parliament with existing reforms of committees and rule changes. We have also learned through the course of this debate that there are many very valuable members of the opposition who have contributed a great deal to this debate, and we have much to learn from many of them, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned me by name. I wonder if he would permit a gesture?


John Napier Turner: He is taking a bow.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member could identify for us the document from which he is reading.


Colin David Gibson: I am reading my speech from notes.
No party in Canadian history was ever permitted more freedom of speech, suggestion and action than the present Liberal party under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. I submit that this house is the freest house in the world. The entire rules debate reveals how powerless the majority is when faced by obstruction and how necessary it is for Canada to return to majority rule. The Prime Minister has successfully contributed more in the process of uniting the people of this country from any threat of tyranny and fascism than any other Canadian. The proof is in his record when he actively helped to defeat the Duplessis machine in Quebec. His writings demonstrate his belief in federalism and the Canadian constitution. His actions prove the validity of his words. If


Colin David Gibson: It is more than a coincidence that in the past few months parliament has successfully passed over 50 statutes, including the omnibus Criminal Code amendments and the languages bill. So progress is on the way, and we have demonstrated in this debate the necessity to complete reform of the rules, as we were given a mandate in 1968 to do.


An hon. Member:: Go on to page three.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has taken a very active part in this debate. If we adopt the suggestion of the hon. member to remove closure from rule 75c at the report stage, it would make a real mockery of the closure rule for it would permit unlimited debate at the report stage.


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


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member knows that this would not work.
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
Since the hon. member has mentioned my name, would he permit a question?


Colin David Gibson: No, Mr. Speaker. To pretend otherwise is sheer hypocrisy, and that fact is well known to all of us in the house.


An hon. Member:: The answer to the question is not in his notes.


Colin David Gibson: The entire structure of rules reform would collapse because, as hon. members well know, and particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, any number of amendments would be debated at the report stage and no reform would be passed. There would be no restraint on a filibuster which has been and would be conducted by frustrated opposition parties.
I condemn the shoddy tactics of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to invoke "work to rule" tactics in the House of Commons. Such a sloppy, unCanadian idea was resented by all good Canadians during the recent Air Canada strike, and it is resented now. We do not advocate such a course.
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)


David Lewis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Colin David Gibson: We in the government party are sincerely dedicated to making parliament work well-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member-


John Napier Turner: Keep going.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt this interesting speech, but I cannot hear whether the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is rising on a point of order or to ask a question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that since the hon. member did not mention my name-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: -may I ask him a question?


Colin David Gibson: I might entertain it, if the hon. member could get it out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Yes, or no!


Colin David Gibson: It is only in exceptional circumstances, when the opposition prevents the 
majority from governing, that closure will ever be used. I am sure all members realize that the government believes this, and we believe it. If this does not happen, I pledge, as a backbencher and as a member of our caucus to see that it is changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin David Gibson: Modern living requires some order in our parliamentary lives. Our mandate in 1968 was to govern Canada, not to be shackled to outmoded procedural barriers in the way of reform. Let us proceed to participatory democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the assurance given by the hon. member that he is going to straighten everything out, I wonder whether the house would agree to our adjourning until three o'clock so that we could reconsider our position?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) who, at such a late hour, with a well prepared speech, has cheered up the house. But, in refusing to answer questions, he certainly did not give the example of participatory democracy as his leader wants it.
In any event, I can forecast a promotion for him for singing the praises of his leader as well as those of the cabinet members. I am convinced the hon. member will be promoted in a very short time.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes in Standing Order 75c, I say to him, this may be the last speech he will deliver in the house because it applies to the backbenchers as well as to the members of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this session, the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) the ministers, and the government members have used the news media to publicize their views. They have stated that in the house of commons nothing was being done, time was being wasted and that, obviously, drastic measures were required to remedy the situation.
The Prime Minister told us tonight, that his government had received a mandate to move this motion of closure known as rule 75c. Had
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
he told the people of Canada that he would introduce rule 75c to muzzle the opposition and to bring it to heel, his government would not be in power today.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, as a young university student, I was deeply interested by the present Prime Minister's statements and writings.
I told myself he was a true defender of freedom and democracy. I was also interested in the fight he carried on to try and protect the asbestos workers' freedom. I considered him a supporter of democracy. I used to read his articles published in Cite libre, where he defined what he meant by "an efficient opposition in a democratic government" and criticized the Union Nationale government, and sometimes he was right. When he became Minister of Justice, I hoped that at last someone in the House of Commons would respect and enforce the principles of true democracy.
But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, since he has said those famous words while Minister of Justice, during the debate of February 1968, when he told the house that the government was master there, the Prime Minister started to disappoint me and I thought that he was not sincere when he referred to real democratic principles.
Mr. Speaker, introduction of standing order 75c means that the Prime Minister wants to put into effect what he said in the House of Commons in February 1968, that the government is master of the House of Commons. All those who took part in the debate, at least the opposition members, have strongly reaffirmed the equality of all hon. members, of their rights and privileges, and it is not the Prime Minister of Canada who is going to change these privileges even with his closure rule standing order 75c.
Mr. Speaker, by using its majority to impose standing order 75c which is in fact, as I said earlier, a permanent measure of closure, the government has shown through such inflexibility that there was no place anymore for the opposition in parliament.
This measure which represents the basic philosophy of totalitarian governments will lead us inevitably to the establishment in this house of a one party system in which the members of the opposition, stifled by the government majority, will not be able to make people hear the complaints and the claims of those who elected them democratically and, as many speakers said today: There is nothing, in he present circumstances, to justify the introduction by the government of rule 75c because in the course of this session-
Procedure and Organization and I think I can say it-no government ever received such sincere and frank co-operation from the official opposition and from the other opposition parties as did the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: The Prime Minister and other members of the government accuse us, through the radio, television, and public statements, of holding up government bills, because repeatedly in the last session, the government was not ready to bring bills before the house, although we were ready to study them, criticize them and approve them. That is the role of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.
Besides, we of the opposition know, as I said a while ago, that the Prime Minister of Canada, when he wrote articles for Cite Libre, studied the concept of opposition in politics. In the May 1960 issue, No. 27 of Cite Libre, the Prime Minister spoke of the opposition but not quite in the same way as he did tonight.
He said and I quote:
In a parliamentary democracy, the opponent is the one who professes to believe that the party in power should not be there; not necessarily because everything the party does is wrong but because another party could often do better. Consequently, whether he sits in parliament or is otherwise active in politics, the opponent must systematically and mercilessly criticize the errors of the government, and use all true arguments and legal means to bring the people to eventually bring another party to power.
That is the definition the Prime Minister gave of the opposition when he wrote in Cite Libre. However, when he introduced 75c, he forget his great democratic principles; he is trying, as I said a while ago, to muzzle the opposition, to destroy it.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we dwelt at length on important measures, such as the amendment to the Criminal Code, the officiel languages bill, but the members of the opposition have not abused their privileges.
[DOT] (12:40 a.m.)
Indeed, rule 75c is going to change drastically the structure of parliament, or the rules. From now on, the executive will no longer be at the service of parliament, but parliament will be at the service of the executive. Such will be the natural outcome of the government's tendency to establish forcibly-as I said before-the one-party rule, that of the majority which will not only rule also impose
11614
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization its will in the drafting of important legislation, which will have serious consequences for every Canadian.
This one-party system that rule 75c aims at establishing, exists in developing countries, in young African countries, for instance. In order to step up their development, those countries have adopted the one-party system, thus wiping out opposition.
Well, under rule 75c, the Prime Minister and the government are indirectly trying to impose on us the one-party system. Mr. Speaker, in a democratic parliament, there is place for an opposition. In a free and democratic country, it has an important part to play.
History has proved repeatedly that freedom dies where criticism is stifled. Opposition maintains a proper balance between freedom and democracy. As a matter of fact, it was Lord Acton who wrote, and I quote:
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men and governments alike fall a prey to the temptation brought by power.
The word "democracy" ensures no protection against tyranny. Without supervision and control, the better disposed people become autocrats.
The favour British parliamentarian Quentin Hogg said, and I quote:
Without an organized opposition, countries cannot be entirely free.
Between the absence of an organized opposition and complete dictatorship, there is not very far to go, Mr. Speaker.
Without an opposition to watch, to scrutinize, to sound the alarm, a government could oppress the people without limit. The opposition is an assurance that the government governs fairly, taking into account individual rights and liberties.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition's role, I repeat, is to scrutinize, to ask questions, to consider, to make suggestions and amendments, so as to obtain in every possible way the necessary information, for the education and guidance of public opinion, in order that electors might make a sensible choice.
The government sometimes begrudges the opposition the time they take to pass legislation. We know-and the government also knows-that weeks and days can go by before the public becomes aware of a measure.
We have found that the government, following an intelligent argument put forward by the opposition and representations on the part of the public, often changed a legislation because they realized that such a measure was not in the public interest.

Parliament, Mr. Speaker, is a place where in the heat of debate, freedom is preserved, arguments are put forward and considered and decisions are made. An opposition, which properly fulfills its responsibilities, becomes, for the purpose of sound critic, the public's instrument.
I compare section 75c to compulsory arbitration and I know that the minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), who is not here tonight, has always fought against the imposition of compulsory arbitration on unions by the provincial government. Maybe he was right. At that time, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion stood up, as a union leader, for the collective freedom of workers.
I wonder today why he approves that legislation that smacks of compulsory arbitration, in my opinion, because according to standing orders 75a and 75b, if the house leaders agree, the debates might be restricted. However, rule 75c states that the government, on its own initiative, through a minister, will arbitrarily decide to apply standing orders without consulting the other house leaders. This compulsory arbitration goes still much farther than the one existing in labour circles, because there an unbiased arbitrator is selected, while under 75c, the government house leader will be arbitrator and party at the same time.
I maintain that under those circumstances standing order 75c, being close to compulsory arbitration, is not only unacceptable to parliament, but also to all Canadian democratic organizations.
The opposition is not alone in its fight against rule 75c. Almost all Canadian newspapers opposed it.
Tonight, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) quoted the Montreal Star as a newspaper supporting the government for introducing rule 75c. I would advise the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to be very careful because it was the only newspaper, in 1956, to support the government for imposing closure during the pipe-line debate. We remember that the government was defeated then Mr. Speaker. Therefore, if the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has the backing of no other newspaper than the Montreal Star, I can tell him that he is due for some surprises at the next election, if history repeats itself, as it often does.
[DOT] (12:50 a.m.)
Mr. Speaker, several newspapers have supported our stand in this connection. I have
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
here an article published in Le Devoir of July 15, 1969, where it is said:
Therefore, the government did not have any serious grounds for complaining about filibustering tactics by opposition parties. They were actually resorted to on one occasion only, in the debate on the omnibus bill, the passage of which was unduly delayed by the Creditiste group. But that case alone did not justify the introduction of such a rule as 75c.
The government should have made better use of the friendly atmosphere that prevailed to extend further the co-operation between the free men who make up parliament. Instead, they preferred to put forward a rule which would amount to converting parliament into a college. Such an attitude, unacceptable in principle, actually points to an unfortunate lack of understanding of the human element without which the finest technocratic plans are doomed to failure.
I could also read certain articles published in La Presse and Montreal Matin that matter. After having called on the good will and good faith of the government house leader and of the government members, concerning the possibility of negotiating on rule 75c, it seems strange that those people should think that all the members of the opposition are wrong and that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) alone possesses the truth. Apart from that, in this house all the members of the opposition were absolutely wrong when they opposed rule 75c.
Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes we will be casting the fateful vote which I think will toll the bell for parliamentary freedom. That does not mean, that we of the opposition should give up fighting here tonight. We will continue in the months ahead to fight against rule 75c, even if it is adopted tonight, so that the government cannot apply it abusively. Otherwise, a dictatorial system will be established in the house, which is unacceptable to the opposition, and which will be rejected, I am sure, at the proper time by the majority of sensible Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore say that the opposition will keep on watching-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time seems to have expired. Unless he has the consent of the house, the hon. member will not be able to finish his speech. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Martial Asselin: I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of my party (Mr. Stanfield) has put up a brave, courageous and gallant 29180-7345
Procedure and Organization fight against the way the government has presented and wishes to implement rule 75c.
I wonder if the Prime Minister was sincere when he stated this afternoon that it will perhaps be possible to revise rule 75c.
I am still willing to give the Prime Minister credit for the good faith he deserves. However, I would have preferred that the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), before introducing a rule as serious and significant as rule 75c, had consulted the leaders of the minor parties and the Leader of the Official Opposition, and tried to come to a compromise in an effort to correct this rule. Here we have the Prime Minister putting us before a fait accompli. Rule 75c will be passed and will become part of the Standing Orders of this house. But we may be able to correct it later if we find that it is too rigid.
Beforehand, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that rule 75c will perhaps be useful to the government, but at the same time it will destroy the freedom of speech that has existed for a century in this house.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of rule 75c, we will carry on the fight because we feel that ours is a just cause, that the majority of Canadians support it and that in due course will be able to see that the government was mistaken in putting into effect rule 75c.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I speak in the house. I was reluctant to inject myself into this debate. I thought as one of the new members that perhaps I should leave it to some of the more experienced members. However the fact was brought home dramatically two days ago yesterday and today, that experience is a far cry from wisdom.
I was astonished to hear what some hon. members, such as the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), had to say. I thought it was uncharacteristic of her and the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) to taunt the new members of this house by saying they did not have sufficient experience to judge this question.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You don't.


John (Moody) Roberts: They tried to discredit these new members because of a lack of experience. We are all equal in this house. We do
July 24, 1969

Procedure and Organization not speak by virtue of the fact that we have five, ten or 20 years' experience. We speak by virtue of the fact we have been sent here by our constituents to represent them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: I do not deny those with experience and who know this house have a legitimate point of view to present, but those who have just come to this house have a fresh point of view. They also have something of interest and value to say because they do not look at this house with the coloured and distorted spectacles that some members who have been here many years sometimes inherit.
Some of the experienced members, especially on the opposition side, spoke of their love for this place and their love of democracy. I wish to assure these members that new members on both sides also love this house and democracy. Over the past few days we have been called Nazis and fascists by the opposition. This impasse has been described as good guys versus the bad guys. It has been described as stopping evil men. That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker.
I do not charge the members of the opposition with insincerity, nor should they charge us with wicked intentions. Both sides of this house are motivated by a sincere concern for parliament. Members of the opposition have no monopoly on these qualities. Before us are the differences of honest men with divergent views concerning a basic problem in parliamentary organization.
This is not a new problem, although it takes a new form today. It is a concern for that tension which has always existed in parliament, that tension between the right of the government and the public, to have legislation passed in this house; and the right of the opposition, and the public, to scrutinize that legislation.
I think it was the leader of the New Democratic Party who quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as if the Prime Minister were on his side of the debate. The Prime Minister was dealing with exactly that balance I am describing, the balance between the right to govern and legislate and the balance on the other side to criticize.
[DOT] (1:00 a.m.)
The history of parliament, at least over the past century, has been a history of a steady

increase of government control in the House of Commons. Why? Not because of imperialistic government but because parliament does not exist in a vacuum. The rules of parliament correspond to social needs. We cannot freeze our procedures so that they become irrelevant. We cannot look simply to the legacy of the past. We must look at the function of parliament in the context of the society in which it operates. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), in a speech which I thought was one of the best and one of the most learned speeches in this house, referred to Burke. I do not quote Burke often because he is not one of my favourite philosophers, but what Burke emphasized above all else was that political institutions, and society itself, were growing organisms which were developing through time, that they were moulded by time and that they must meet the changing interests of the society in which they exist. That is true in this parliament as well. The old rules of the past simply are not sufficient for the new era. That is the mistake which I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made in this debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre focussed completely on what has happened in the past, a point of view governed by his rear view mirror. I have been enormously interested, amused and delighted by the whole pageantry of characters that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has presented in this debate. There was first St. Stanley of St. Stanley and the Dragon riding to the rescue of a beseiged democracy plaintively crying for help. But, of course, the outrage and distress in democracy was more in his mind than anywhere else. Members of the opposition have spoken of the outraged public but I did not need to fight my way through outraged mobs of citizenry to get into the house today. The newspapers have been split on the issue; some have been for and some against. Some of the columnists have been for and some have been against. I have received two letters on the issue and two telephone calls, one for, one against.
After the image of St. Stanley we had the member for Winnipeg North Centre as Horatio at the bridge valiantly battling back the forces of tyranny. That was replaced by his kind of King Canute-like stance bidding the waves to recede. After that we drop to perhaps a little less attractive image. It was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as a little boy with the marble game-"If you
July 24, 1969	COMMONS
don't play by my rules I will break it up". What did he say? He said there would be confrontation, there would be no more participatory democracy, there would be no more co-operation. That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be one of the most remarkable things a member of the opposition could say. I could understand him saying, "Look, when you bring in bad legislation we will oppose it vigorously" but when he says they are going to oppose to the death all legislation, are going to oppose everything whether it is good for the public or not and are going to punish the public of Canada for what he considers to be the sins of the government, that seems to me to be going too far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I do not mind the pleasure the hon. member is having with these characterizations he is making of me, but I ask him not to say things which I did not say. I gave no indication that we would oppose good legislation.


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to put words into the mouth of the member. What he said was there will be confrontation, there will be frustration, there will be work to rule and there will be no participatory democracy. If he says he is not going to do it, who does he expect to do it? Does he expect the government is going to do it? Where is the obstruction and confrontation going to come from? Well, that takes me to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his last role. I hope he will not mind a slightly light comment. In the end he really came to remind me of that lovable old codger who used to inhabit Allen's Alley on the Fred Allen show, Digby O'Dell, the friendly undertaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: -because what he keeps emphasizing is the desire to preserve the traditions of parliament. What Digby O'Dell arrived at was embalming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising for the purpose of asking a question, if the member will allow a question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will allow a question.
Procedure and Organization


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been referred to as an undertaker I wonder who the hon. member considers is buried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of talk on the part of the opposition on the right to scrutiny and the right to debate. I suggest in all sincerity-and I am speaking more I think of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre than the official opposition-what they are really concerned with is not the right to scrutinize and not the right to debate; they are concerned with the right to obstruct and the right to blockade.
They have discovered that procedure can be used-as it was used by the Irish members in the mid 19th century in Great Britain-to blockade the government. If that had not been so, if they were concerned simply with debate and a full discussion of the issues, why did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not accept the suggestion of the government house leader for unlimited debate and discussion in the committees? That would have given time for a full discussion of the issue and would have given time to arouse the press and the public. I suggest the reason he did not want the debate in committee and wanted unlimited debate in the house instead was because he knew that unlimited debate in the house would block not simply one piece of legislation but the whole government program. That is what he wanted-to blockade the house. He does not want simply to blockade one piece of legislation. He does not want simply to debate it to arouse the country. He wants a pistol at the head of the government. He wants a weapon to use as an exercise in political blackmail, a quid pro quo for the government bending to the opposition.
Our task, Mr. Speaker, I think is not simply to discuss and debate in parliament. Our task is to make parliament pertinent to the needs of the nation. When listening to members of the opposition I was reminded of a statement made only two years ago by a Conservative member in this house-


An hon. Member:: You were not here then.


John (Moody) Roberts: That is right; I was not here then, Mr. Speaker. I had the pleasure of listening to the debates of the house from the balcony. I remember very well the hon. member, Mr. Heward Grafftey, rising in this
July 24, 1969

(1:10 a.m.)
Procedure and Organization house and saying during the debate-and it [DOT] was a statement which was acclaimed spontaneously from the galleries of the house- that everybody who sits here knows that this establishment, particularly for the young generation, is becoming meaningless. He continued and said that the people of Canada were becoming sick and tired of seeing parliament fritter away its time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Moody) Roberts: I say that is still true. I say the people of Canada are sick and tired of parliamentary tricks and treats as played by so many members of the opposition. The basic question is how much time for debate is reasonable and who should decide this. I admit freely to the house, and I said so at the time, that the provision called 16a presented by the government last December was not a provision I could support. I would not because I did not think the balance it presented was fair. I am convinced, however, that the present allocation is a fair one which corresponds to our age of telecommunications. It may be that one day in the past, in the horse and buggy days, it required weeks and months of debate so that members could go back to their constituents and bring home to them the matters of concern. That is not true in an age when you can send in seconds a signal to the moon. It is not true when we have, as we do now, television, radio and newspapers nation-wide and responsive in bringing home to the public issues of public concern. Ten days delay and four days debate are sufficient in communicating to the public if the issue is one of genuine, serious and important concern.
Some of the best debates-those on urgent matters-are short. They take only one day.
But they capture more press and public attention than long winded efforts.
I suggest that the people of Canada do not want simply a debate; they do not want repetitious, time wasting, sterile, fractious, carping. They want action. What the opposition wants is the ability to close off action and to obtain indirectly the power which the voters denied them directly. They want to be able to talk forever-to talk legislation to death. I have some news, for members of the opposition. There are many people in this country who are not as fond of hearing members of this house as some of the members are of hearing themselves.

The public want a House of Commons which will wallow less and do more. They do not want a web of words, a cocoon of parliamentary technicalities from which no butterflies of legislation fly.
In closing, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to mention the Leader of the Opposition who has been rising periodically in this house with a voice of doom, stretching out his wavering hand and saying, "In all honesty can you as a member of this house support this measure?" I will save the Leader of the Opposition that dramatic gesture. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good. Nothing under God's sun is perfect. But this is a good proposal and I support it unreservedly.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


John (Moody) Roberts: I will sit down shortly, but I have one more comment which I think hon. members might find interesting and useful. It relates to the Leader of the Opposition. He and those people behind him have been charging the Prime Minister with arrogance and a disrespect for members of parliament, no responsibility or respect for backbenchers, no respect for traditions and no respect for the rights of this house. They have charged him with having no respect for democracy with being a computerized technocrat and so on.
There is another hon. gentleman of this house who was once the leader of a government. What was his reaction when crossed during debate? I refer to the Leader of the Opposition who was crossed in a debate once in the Nova Scotia legislature. What he said was I am giving serious consideration to the idea of introducing a bill that would remove that hon. member's legislative immunity retroactively.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Moody) Roberts: That was his instinctive reaction. That is what he did say; and if that is what his instinct was as the leader of a government I suggest it is better that he and members of the opposition do not trot out charges of arrogance against our Prime Minister. It lacks credibility.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The incident to which my hon. friend refers involved a matter of possible slander against someone outside the
July 24, 1969

house. This was a case of the abuse of the privileges of the house by an hon. member. The circumstances were totally different.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to prolong things at this hour, but I simply say this was a case of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This was simply a case of bringing the attention of the legislative assembly in Nova Scotia to an abuse of the house rules and privileges, the same sort of thing I have been accusing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of here.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 33 and in accordance with an order made this day and the provisions thereof, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions which may be necessary to dispose of the amendment and the motion now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I declare the amendment lost. I also bring it to the notice of hon. members that they should not come into the house or leave the house before the vote is completed. This would be the time to come in.
The question is now on the main motion. Is it the wish of hon. members that we put the division of the house without the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. It being after ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock this morning.
It being ten minutes to two, Friday, July 25, the house adjourned, without question put.

Friday, July 25, 1969