1969-07-09

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Post Office in dealing with its employees until these important and delicate negotiations have been completed.
I would therefore ask that the house grant unanimous consent that this motion go forward in order that these reports and the important matters with which they deal may receive the immediate attention of a committee of this house.



GOVERNMENT HOUSE OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 9th of July, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler,
Secretary to the Governor General.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to ask the unanimous consent of the house, seconded by my hon. friend from Oxford, to move the following motion pursuant to standing order 43:
That the reports of W. S. Martin of the grievances by postal workers against the Post Office be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Under the terms of the standing order, I am entitled to explain the urgency of this motion. In the coming weeks the Post Office will be entering into negotiations with the postal workers, and unless some extremely pressing situation arises it appears unlikely that the house will have an opportunity to discuss this matter before adjourning for the summer recess. Consequently, we shall have no opportunity to consider the attitude of the
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, had there been advance consultation it might perhaps have been possible to give unanimous consent; but there was none. Consequently the government is unable to agree to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that unless hon. members have a point of order to raise we should not allow debate of a motion moved under Standing Order 43. The hon. member is quite right to present a motion in this way under Standing Order 43, but he does require unanimous consent. If unanimous agreement is not given, then the matter cannot be proceeded with and there should not be a debate. However I do not wish to preclude other hon. members from raising other questions by way of a point of order.



REQUEST FOR CONSENT UNDER S.O. 43 TO DEBATE MOTION RESPECTING MOVEMENT OF FEED GRAIN

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order. I also have a matter with respect to which I am sure the house will grant unanimous consent, since the question relates to a very urgent situation. The motion to which I am asking the house to give unanimous consent is as follows:
That this house recommends that the government take immediate steps to alleviate the particularly distressing and urgent agricultural situation prevailing in the area of Peace River, by expediting the delivery and transportation of large quantities of feed grain in the hands of farmers, including the appointment of a person or persons to take charge of the expediting of this feed grain movement.

July 9, 1969
Movement of Feed Grain
I should like to make five brief points which I am sure will persuade the government to consent to the motion.
First, farmers in the Peace River country have experienced unusually difficult conditions in five out of the last seven years which have aggravated their position.
Second, there is in the Peace River country, and in the district of Falher in particular, between five and six million bushels of feed grain including barley, oats, and low grade wheat, for which there is an immediate market for sale in British Columbia and eastern Canada.
Third, so few box cars have come into Peace River country that some farmers have not even had a one bushel quota and most are still limited to the two and three bushel quotas and may well not achieve the five bushels promised by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Farmers will be able to sell feed grain to the British Columbia part of the Peace River country where buyers are willing and available to purchase it.
Fourth, a meeting of farm representatives was held on Sunday morning at the town of Falher which I attended and to which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) were invited but were unable to attend.
Fifth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid I have suffered as long as I can. I suggest to the hon. member that the rules do not allow a lengthy statement at this point. In attempting to use standing order 43 in this way, the hon. member is circumventing the provisions of standing order 26. I think that standing order 43 was never intended to be used in the way hon. members are attempting to use it today. If I am wrong about this the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization ought to take a look at standing order 43.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your Honour is quite right, but I have only one more sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gerald William Baldwin: At this meeting it was made perfectly clear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member might be allowed to finish his statement.
IMr. Baldwin.]


Gerald William Baldwin: At this meeting it was made perfectly clear that the situation was urgent and difficult, but that great help would be provided by moving this feed grain, particularly as it could be immediately used in other parts of Canada and the box cars would only be required for a short time. I hope that the house will give unanimous consent, in light of this statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member having put the question under Standing Order 43 I have to ask the house whether the hon. member has unanimous agreement to proceed as suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that he does not have unanimous consent.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government studying, has it studied or will it study the desirability of passing a law dealing with the publication of official documents?
2.	Will the government examine the Swedish legislation in this respect?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: 1. and 2.
The government's policy concerning access to public records was announced in the House of Commons on May 1, 1969. In the formulation of that policy, due account was taken of the methods of publication of official documents in a number of other countries, including Sweden.


RECEIPT OF FUNDS BY U.S. COMPANY UNDER DEPARTMENTAL VOTE
Mr. Saltsman: What is the name of the Canadian company referred to in the 1968 Auditor General's Report, on page 60, paragraph 107, whose United States' parent company received $552,000 under the Department of Industry, Vote 10?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The name of the Canadian company referred to in the 1968 Auditor General's Report, on page 60, paragraph 107, is FMC Beloit Sorel Limited.
July 9, 1969


OVERPAYMENT TO CANADIAN COMPANY
Mr. Salisman: 1.	What is the name of the Canadian company, referred to in the 1968 Auditor General's Report, page 61, paragraph 109, which received an overpayment from the Canadian Government of $86,000?
2.	Is the Government of Canada presently attempting to obtain this overpayment from the above company?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The project referred to in the Auditor General's Report, page 61, paragraph 109, is still current and the interests of more than one allied country are involved. It is not considered in the public interest to disclose the name of the company at this time.
2.	The Auditor General and the Justice Department differ as to whether an overpayment situation exists. The Justice Department is of the opinion, relating to this specific agreement, that no distribution of the proceeds of sale can be effected until the sale is concluded. When the sale is concluded the government will receive all monies due under the contract.


TREATY RIGHTS RESEARCH BY INDIANS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Is the Minister committed to granting the Indian people the resources they need to undertake their own research into treaty rights and related matters as was requested by Indians at the April 28-May 2 National Indian Conference in Ottawa?
2.	Did the Minister take the opportunity on the weekend of May 2, 1969 for a preliminary meeting with the Committee of six designated by the National Indian Conference to deal with him on this matter?
3.	When will the first formal meeting of that group occur, and when will the Minister announce a firm decision regarding financial assistance to Indian research?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. At a
meeting with the Indians during the National Indian Consultation Conference April 28-May 2 it was stated, as in December 1968, that the Canadian government was ready to help them form into an association and take advantage of the most modern means of operation; these statements are still valid today.
2.	An opportunity has not yet arisen to meet officially with the members of the Committee of six designated by the national Indian delegation.
3.	The Committee has not yet informed the department when their first formal meeting will occur. An announcement will be
Questions
made in the near future as to the form of financial assistance which will be made available for Indian research.


CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATORY BOARD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government considering, has it considered or will it consider, establishing a crime victims compensation board?
2.	Will these studies be tabled in the House?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1 and 2. On May 15 and again on May 21,
I stated, as recorded in Hansard, that I shall defer this matter to the commissioners of legislation uniformity and to the representatives of the provinces' Attorneys General.


CREATION OF POST OF OMBUDSMAN
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government considering the advisability of presenting a Bill which would create the post of ombudsman to ensure better protection for citizens?
2.	At what stage are the studies on the protection of the citizen vis-d-vis the government and bureaucracy?
3.	Who is carrying out these studies and will they be tabled in Parliament?


John Napier Turner: 1.	The government has not announced any policy with regard to the advisability of creating an office of ombudsman.
2.	The protection of the citizen vis-a-vis the government and bureaucracy is a matter which is under continuous study by the government.
3.	Such study is done in particular in relation to the formulation of policies by the various departments concerned and the preparation of legislation by the Department of Justice.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE PRE-OPENING ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total cost of the pre-opening entertainment provided to guests of the directorate of the National Arts Centre?
2.	How many groups were invited to attend preopening ceremonies?
3. What was the estimated total number of individuals involved and what was the reason for the pre-opening entertainment?
4.	What are the names of the individuals given the responsibility for selecting and entertaining the individuals and groups invited?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: 1. $4,036.54.

July 9, 1969
Questions
2.	National Press Club; National Press Gallery; prospective support organizations; local, national and international critics.
3.	The purpose of pre-opening entertainment was to show the Centre to those who wished to organize community support, and to attract local, national and international news coverage-800 people.
4.	G. Hamilton Southam, Director General.
the question of proficiency in deciding whether to issue a permit.


ROADS IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Sulalycky: 1.	How many miles of public road are there in each of Canada's National Parks?
2.	How many miles of public road have been built in each of the National Parks in each year since 1960?


PROFICIENCY OF FIRE ARMS APPLICANTS
Mr. Beaudoin: Is it the federal government's intention to require of applicants for fire-arms permits the same proof of proficiency required of applicants for driving permits?


John Napier Turner: No specific test of proficiency is laid down in Bill C-150 but the persons authorized to issue firearms permits are entitled to consider


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Banff, 177.0; Cape Breton Highlands, 53.0; Elk Island, 17.1; Fundy, 44.0; Georgian Bay Islands, Nil; Glacier and Mount Revelstoke, 58.0; Jasper, 231.0; Kejimkujik, 10; Kootenay, 66.5; Point Pelee, 14.9; Prince Edward Island, 20.0; Prince Albert, 158.5; Riding Mountain, 93.6; St. Lawrence Islands, Nil; Terra Nova, 48.0; Waterton, 42.7; Yoho, 52.0; Wood Buffalo, 266.0.
1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-692. Banff	.4	2.9	5.0C.B.H	. Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilElk Island	-	-	-	5.5	1.8	Fundy	. 	-	-	Georgian Bay Is	. Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilGlacier & Mt. Rev...	. 	-	36.2	.1	5.4	14.5	Jasper	. 14	25.1	22.7	9.7	14.5	15.9	27.8	2.8 5	Kejimkujik	-	-	5Kootenay	. 	-	7.7	1.0	1.5	Point Pelee	. Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilPrince Albert	. 	-	-	12.66	.4P.E.I	. 1	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilRiding Mountain	. Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilSt. Lawrence Is	. Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	NilTerra Nova	. Nil	1.6	4.1	2.4	3.0	1.1	Nil	Nil	0.2Waterton	-	-	8.0	6.2	Yoho	-	-	1.2	Wood Buffalo	. 	35.0	-	-	-	71.0	-	-
N.B. Public roads are defined as roads which are used by the public and do not include fire roads, etc.


TIMBER BERTHS IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	How many timber berths are at present held in National Parks?
2.	How many mining claims exist at present in the National Parks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Twelve timber berths.
2.	Two mining claims exist.


READJUSTMENT OF CRIMINAL CODE FINANCIAL PENALTIES
Mr. Fortin: With regard to the financial penalties provided for in the Criminal Code, does the government 
intend to adjust these penalties to reflect the capacity of those concerned to pay, in order that the poor may not be penalized more severely than the rich and, if not, for what reason?


John Napier Turner: Sections 622 and 694 of the Criminal Code make special provision for allowing time for payment of a fine if the court is satisfied that a convicted person is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay forthwith.


COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIMINAL ACTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,448
Mr. Fortin:: 1.	Is the government studying, will it study or has it studied the problem of compensating the victims of criminal acts?
July 9, 1969

2.	Will a report on such a study be laid before the House and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?
3.	Will the government introduce a bill to provide for compensation for the victims of criminal acts?


John Napier Turner: 1,	2 and 3. On May 15 and again on May 21,
I stated, as recorded in Hansard, that I shall defer this matter to the commissioners of legislation uniformity and to the representatives of the provinces' Attorneys General.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES INFORMATION SERVICE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: 1, 2 and 3. The Public Relations and Information Services Branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has a total staff of 42, which include 15 people working at public information on a full time basis. The remaining staff is concerned exclusively with the editing and production of scores of scientific and semi-technical reports intended for scientific and specialized audiences.
The information requested is not immediately available from departmental records, as it is not recorded separately. To obtain such information would require an extensive search of departmental files, in various branch distribution centres and many man hours of clerical work. It would also require the hiring of additional casual staff.


COST OF AIR CANADA MACHINISTS STRIKE
Mr. Robinson: 1 What was the total cost to Canada of the recent Air Canada strike of machinists?
2.	Has the government any knowledge of the total cost to the Union of the recent Air Canada strike and, if so, what was such total?
3.	How many Air Canada employees were unemployed as a result of the recent Air Canada strike and how many of them were strikers?
4.	What was the total loss in wages and other benefits to Air Canada employees other than strikers, as a result of the recent Air Canada strike?
Questions
5.	Has the government any knowledge of the amount of strike pay a striker received per week from (a) Canadian Union or Union Headquarters (b) International Union or International Union Headquarters (c) income from any other source and, if so, what amount or amounts?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by Air Canada and the Department of Labour as follows: 1. Air Canada has no information available on this.
2.	It is assumed this question refers to the International Association of Machinists, and could only be procured from them directly.
3.	6,300 strikers were removed from the payroll and 5,000 other employees were placed on off-duty status without pay. In addition approximately 1,300 employees had their work week reduced in varying degrees; i.e. were put on part-time duty.
4.	$3,750,000.
5.	(a) The government has no confirmed knowledge on amounts of strike pay received by strikers. Indications are, however, that all strikers, who were IAM members for six months or more, were eligible for strike pay of $25 per week after a two-week waiting period. The strike pay is reputed to be paid out of an international strike fund to which all U.S. and Canadian IAM members contribute $0.50 per month; (b) As in item (a) above; (c) The government has no knowledge of income strikers received from sources other than the strike fund.


ACTION TO WIND UP POWER AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES
Mr. Foriin: 1.	Has any action been taken upon the recommendations contained in paragraph 288 of the Auditor General's Report for 1968 that the Dawson City Water and Power Co. Ltd., the Davison Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. and the Yukon Telephone Syndicate Ltd. be wound up and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the government intend to alter the membership of the Northern Canada Power Commission, of which the above companies are subsidiaries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Action was commenced in the fiscal year 1968-69, through the Department of Justice, to wind up the Dawson City Water and Power Company Limited, the Dawson Electric Light and Power Company Limited, and the Yukon Telephone Syndicate Ltd. It is expected this action will be completed in the current fiscal year.
2. No.

July 9, 1969
Questions


PUBLICATION OP REVISED STATUTES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How much progress has been made in the revision of the Statutes of Canada and when will the Revised Statutes be published?
2.	Will the expression "Crown" be replaced by the words "Government" and/or "State" in the Statutes and, if not, for what reason?
3 In the French version, will the expression "statuts revises" be replaced by the expression "lois revisees" and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Are the French and English versions written independently or is one version a translation of the other?


John Napier Turner: 1.	Manuscript for the revision is going to printers for composition; new legislative matter from this session is being incorporated into the manuscript when received from parliament. The printing schedule still calls for completion of copy by October 31st, 1969. Publication would follow acceptance of revisors' report by Governor in Council and the fixing of an appropriate promulgation date.
2.	No. There is neither statutory nor constitutional authority for a change of this kind.
3.	No. The Commission is not authorized to do so under the Act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, c. 48.
4.	Neither version is "written". Each version is reviewed and revised independently and adjusted to each other as far as possible under the authority provided by 1964-65, c. 48. In this sense, there is no "translation" of versions.


&quot;WILDERNESS WHO'S WHO&quot;
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many times has the Canadian Wildlife Service advertisement "Wilderness Who's Who" appeared on any CBC TV station in Canada (a) in the fiscal year 1968-69 (b) from April 1, 1969 to date, and (c) the number of times for each station, each year (d) how many times has the same or similar type advertisement been broadcast on any private TV stations?
2.	What is the number of requests for Wildlife pamphlets for each animal described, received and
Single round, 9 holes Single round, 18 holes Season, man and wife, 9 holes Season, man and wife, 18 holes
sent (a) in the fiscal year 1968-69 (b) from April 1, 1969 to date?
3.	What was the number of employees in the Canadian Wildlife Information Branch for the fiscal years (a) 1966-67 (b) 1967-68 (c) 1968-69 (d) 1969 to date?
4.	What was the cost of printing, mailing and distribution of Canadian Wildlife Service pamphlets on animals covered by these advertisements for each of the last four years and to date this year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. As
mentioned in the answer to Question No. 545, tabled November 6, 1968, the one-minute TV clips produced by the Canadian Wildlife Service are telecast as a public service without charge by C.B.C. and C.T.V. stations across Canada. Accordingly the stations are under no obligation to report their use of the films, therefore, no complete data of the number of uses are available.
2.	During the fiscal year 1968-69 the branch serviced 46,743 requests for information about wildlife. From April 1 until this date the total has been about 10,000. Records of individual species requested are not kept.
3.	Two permanent employees handled the wildlife information program from 1966-67 to 1968-69; for 1969-70-3 employees. The duties involved in handling the wildlife information program constitute approximately 5 per cent of the employees' time.
4.	1965-66, $4,812.00; 1966-67, $534.60; 196768, $6,267.00; 1968-69, $2,566.00.


GOLF IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Diefenbaker: What were the golf fees in 1967 and 1968 and what are they during the current year for (a) single rounds of play (b) season tickets for man and wife in the National Parks in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The fees shown below apply to all National Parks in Canada:
1967	1968	1969$ 1.50	$ 1.50	$ 2.00$ 2.50	$ 2.50	Discontinued*$ 90.00	$ 90.00	$105.00$ 96.00	$ 96.00	$115.00
* A daily fee of $4 is now being charged.

July 9, 1969


GRANTS TO IMPERIAL OIL, ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: What is the location, and what are the facilities constructed by Imperial Oil Ltd., in Alberta, as referred to in Question 2,437, which qualified for two grants of $5 million, under the Area Development Agency?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The two facilities are located near Redwater, Alberta and provide for the manufacture, by different processes, of phos-phatic fertilizer and nitrogenous fertilizer.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND CROWN CORPORATION PERSONNEL
Mr. Trudel: 1.	How many people were employed by the Public Service Commission and Crown corporations in Canada in 1968?
2.	How many employees of the Public Service Commission were employed in Quebec during the same year and what was their total salary?
3.	How many employees of Crown corporations were employed in Quebec during the same year and what was their total salary?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the following information is supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics: 1. As at Sept. 30, 1968 the total number of persons employed was as follows: Departments and departmental corporations, 234,394; Crown corporations, 144,871; Total, 379,265.
2.	Total number employed in Quebec by departments and departmental corporations as at Sept. 30, 1968, 38,976; Total salary for the period Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 1968, $161,907,000.
3.	Total number employed in Quebec by Crown corporations as at Sept. 30, 1968 was 35,132; Total salary for the period Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 1968 was $186,481,000.


UKRAINIAN CANADIAN COMMITTEE BRIEF ON LANGUAGES BILL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,573
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Did the Ukrainian Canadian Committee present a brief to the Prime Minister on the subject of the languages Bill on the 14th of December, 1968?
2.	What reply, if any, was given by him to the Committee in regard to the representations made in the said brief?
Questions


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this starred question is, yes. The answer to the second part is: The committee was thanked for the concern which it had shown in matters of constitutional reform and was promised that its thoughtful brief would be studied with care by the government.


GRANTS TO CANADA EXECUTIVE SERVICES OVERSEAS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Does Canada Executive Services Overseas receive any grants or assistance from the federal government?
2.	If so, what has been the total amount advanced to date?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2. As of July 2, 1969, grants to Canadian Executive Service Overseas (CESO) have amounted to:
$123,310.62-1967-68-(paid in 1968-69)


$175,000.00-1968-69 $175,000.00-1969-70 $473,310.62 CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS TO &quot;TAMARACK REVIEW&quot;
Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the total amount of the Canada Council grants paid to the publication entitled Tamarack Review in each of the last 10 years?
2.	What was the date and amount of the last grant?
3.	Is the Tamarack Review still published and, if not, on what date did it cease publication?
4.	Will the Canada Council make any effort to reclaim all or part of its last grant?
5.	Was Mr. Naim Kattan a member of the Tamarack Review Editorial Board and a staff member of the Canada Council when these grants were made?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Answered in reply to


Mr. Yewchuk-June 13.: 2.	As above.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	No.

July 9, 1969
Questions


YEARLY INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING INDEX
Mr. Robinson: What was the increase per year in the cost of living index since its inception?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: The yearly percentage change in the Consumer Price Index since 1913, is shown in the attached table. An explanation of the linking of the indexes to produce a continuous series is given below. The All-Items Consumer Price Index for Canada (1949=100)
The primary purpose of a consumer price index is the measurement of current price movements. Therefore, the items and their weights in the index should reflect the full range and relative importance of commodities and services bought by the population group to which the index relates. As the spending habits of the population change over time, the index based on a particular pattern of expenditure becomes a less and less reliable measure of price movement. For this reason major revisions of the index "basket" are made periodically. Such revisions break the continuity of the index and the separate indexes must be linked to provide an historical index.
The All-Items Consumer Price Index, from 1913 to date expressed in terms of 1949=100, incorporates five distinct series each covering part of the entire period. In each index the items and their weights are appropriate to the period covered by the specific index; i.e. each index relates to a particular "basket" of commodities and services.
The five indexes "linked" to produce one continuous series from 1913 to date are designated in the following table in terms of the period for which each constitutes the measure of price movement. The successive weight base periods are also indicated. The beginning and ending months of each index are specific link dates.
Base Weight
Index	Period
1913, January 1914-January	1926	1913January 1926-January	1935	1926January 1935-January	1949	1937-38January 1949-January	1961	1947-48
January 1961 forward


CANADA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
[Stage Direction]
Percentage Change Since the Preceding Year1
1914	+	0.6	1943	+	1.81915	+	1.8	1944	+	0.51916	+	8.3	1945	+	0.51917	+	18.4	1946	+	3.31918	+	13.1	1947	+	9.41919	+	9.9	1948	+	14.41920	+	15.8	1949	+	3.11921	-	12.0	1950	+	2.91922	-	8.5	1951	+	10.51923	+	0.3	1952	+	2.51924	-	1.7	1953	0.91925	+	0.9	1954	+	0.61926	+	1.1	1955	+	0.21927	-	1.7	1956	+	1.51928	+	0.4	1957	+	3.21929	+	1.2	1958	+	2.61930	-	0.7	1959	+	1.11931	-	9.8	1960	+	1.21932	-	9.1	1961	+	0.91933	-	4.7	1962	+	1.21934	+	1.4	1963	+	1.81935	+	0.7	1964	+	1.81936	+	2.0	1965	+	2.41937	+	3.1	1966	+	3.71938	+	1.1	1967	+	3.51939	-	0.8	1968	+	4.21940	+	4.0	"Average	1941	+	5.9	Change	+	2.21942	+	4.7	1	Data derived from Consumer Price Index for Canada (1949 = 100). See explanation for details.2	Simple average of the fifty-five annual percentage changes listed.

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a speciific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.

Because of the urgency and importance of this matter and this motion, may I be permitted to explain in the second official language.
July 9, 1969

I wish, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the serious situation facing the milk producers of Canada as indicated in the release of the B.F.S. of July 17, 1969. There is an urgent need for this matter to be discussed in parliament, so that hon. members can make known the needs of their constituents and so that the government may make a statement of policy without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I think that under standing order 26 of the House of Commons, this motion to adjourn the business of the house is extremely important because the house could give its full attention to a more than alarming situation since there is every indication that a very serious agricultural crisis is impending.
The situation has fallen upon us very suddenly. It is new in that it could not be foreseen. In fact, specialists had at best underestimated it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that under the rules, he can only indicate the subject of his motion. He cannot make any points to prove the urgency of the debate, the decision being left to the Speaker. The hon. member should conclude his statement as soon as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your helpful remarks and your kindness.
The famous report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics dated July 7 states that in 1968 the farmers' net income accruing from the agricultural industry was 8.7 per cent lower than for the worst year since 1961.
Now, this same document states that this is due to higher operating and amortizing costs.
As such a situation could not be foreseen and will certainly not come up for debate, judging from the orders of the day, I ask, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse, for the consent of the house to study this matter, to put forward the views of our electors and to find out the government's policy on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given notice to the Chair of the question he intended to ask pursuant to Standing Order 26. Even by bending over backward and even if his argument was put to the house in what he terms the second official language of this country, I am not fully satisfied that his motion is in order and can now be considered by the house.
Motions for Papers
I feel that the subject that the hon. member wants to discuss refers to a lasting situation and not to one of sudden urgency. May I be allowed to refer the hon. member to Citation 100 (8) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, and I quote:
-what I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated-if the House will allow me to state my views-that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
To my mind, the relevant part of that quotation is that the motion is acceptable only if it concerns a matter that has unexpectedly become urgent, to a certain extent, and not if it concerns a situation that has prevailed for some time.
If I understood correctly the hon. member's comments, the question is no doubt both important and urgent, but it has prevailed for some time. To that extent, I do not believe that it would be in order to adjourn the business of the house to allow the hon. member to make known his views on the matter.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I willingly accept your comments but, in all kindness, if you would allow me to show that there is a new set of circumstances-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In all kindness, I might allow you to do this, but the rules do not allow it.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 146, 211, 218 and 229 are acceptable to the government.


TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL DUTIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and organizations of Native Indian people regarding the transfer of duties of the Minister without Portfolio (Port Arthur)-from Indian Affairs to Housing responsibilities.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 9, 1969
Motions for Papers
GRANTS FOR STUDENT PILOT TRAINING Motion No. 211-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all agreements or arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Royal Canadian Flying Club Association, flying instructors and private flying clubs and schools regarding the payment of grants towards the training of student pilots.
Motion agreed to.
TORONTO INTERCITY JETPORT Motion No. 218-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports or studies undertaken by the Depart-nent of Transport regarding an intercity jetport 'or Toronto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 229-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Order in Council allowing Canadian National Telecommunications to purchase an interest in Computer Sciences Canada Limited.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 109, 140 and 158?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


TAXATION OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and Canadian life insurance companies regarding the Budget proposals on taxation of life insurance companies.
Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: This motion is acceptable to the government with the customary proviso that any such correspondence containing information which if disclosed would prejudice the competitive position of an individual life insurance company would be excluded.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 109 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Mr. Howard (Skeena).l

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 158-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Preliminary Report of the OECD submitted to the government after its assessment of Canada's Science Policy in 1968.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the report, the tabling
of which is being sought, was received in draft form and is to be revised and published in the fall of this year. The Organization of European Co-operation and Development has asked that this document not be released pending publication of the final report. In view of this the hon. member might wish to withdraw the notice of motion.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I am in a congenial mood today, and SO' I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, more than two months ago the house agreed to a motion calling for the tabling of the research documents prepared for the Woods committee. I have not yet received them and I wonder when we will get some action on this?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I recall the discussions which took place at the time and I will make an inquiry right away.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, two months isn't too bad. It is about six or seven months ago that some notices of motions in my name were adopted asking for the production of correspondence between the government and various provinces relating to the education of native Indian children, and an order made then has not yet totally been fulfilled.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall make inquiries about that as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 9, 1969


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Roberi L. Slanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Secretary General of the United Nations that warfare has been resumed throughout the Suez Canal ceasefire zone, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can assure the house that Canada is responding to the Secretary General's plea that all members of the United Nations exert all possible influence in promoting peace in that area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can associate myself fully with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. We fully support the Secretary General's appeal to the parties to put an immediate end to all military actions, and to ohserve the ceasefire.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate to the house what he is doing, in addition to agreeing with the Secretary General of the United Nations, and in particular will he say whether Canada has called upon the countries that are the chief suppliers of arms to the belligerents to impose an embargo on arms shipments to that area?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not supplying arms to either side. We have expressed ourselves as opposed to this. I do not think we can exercise any more influence than by publicly supporting these pleas that are being made by the Secretary General and by others for a cessation of the arms shipments.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather from what the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that in fact the government of Canada is doing nothing, except endorsing the position taken by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Perhaps he would say what position the government of Canada is taking with regard to the possibility of a Middle East settlement being imposed by the great powers. Can he indicate to the house what positive movements, what activities the government of Canada is engaged in, with regard to helping out in this area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been working as effectively as we can with the
Inquiries of the Ministry governments of the area concerned to get them to support the efforts being made by the Security Council through the aegis of Ambassador Jarring to reach a peaceful settlement of this dispute. When we were on the Security Council we helped in drafting that resolution, and since then we have been supporting it very strongly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs considering visiting the area himself, to see what he can do directly?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman for his confidence in me, which I accept with gratitude. I trust he will continue to have supreme confidence in my ability to handle these matters. It had been my intention at some time to visit that area, and I hope it can be done soon.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Finance. Since the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, David Kennedy, had a meeting with the 24 leading bankers of the United States at which he asked them to hold the line on interest rates and use selective lending rather than raise interest rates any higher, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether in the meetings he held recently with the bankers of this country he made similar representations, and whether or not he received any assurances to the effect that an attempt would be made to hold the line on bank interest rates.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the question of interest rates is presently undergoing a public inquiry before a committee of this house. I should say to my hon. friend that I did urge the banks, when their credit was tight, to lend money in areas of lesser development in the country, and also to small businesses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister secured any assurances from the representatives of the chartered banks of Canada that an attempt would be made to hold the line on bank interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: I think the matter of interest rates and how they are formulated and determined was pretty fully explained just a day

July 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry or two ago by the governor of the Bank of Canada before a committee of this house. The banks themselves, as my hon. friend knows, do not determine over-all interest rates in Canada, as was ably expressed by the governor of the Bank of Canada. For me to forecast what interest rates will be in the future is rather impossible because so much depends on what happens in the United States and in Canada, and on whether we succeed in our battle against inflation in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to forecast anything and I am not asking for a dissertation on bank rates. I am asking the minister whether he made representations to the chartered banks of Canada and whether he has received any assurance from them that they will attempt to follow the same course the bankers in the United States agreed to follow, namely to hold the line and to use selective lending rather than to raise interest rates.


Edgar John Benson: No one in this country would like less to see interest rates increase than I would. The government of Canada is the major borrower in the country and would not want to see interest rates go any higher.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance has chosen to hide behind the fact that a public inquiry is going on by a committee of the house, will the minister undertake to carry out the recommendations of the committee of the house when it reports?


Edgar John Benson: I will await with interest the recommendations of the committee of the house. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition I am not trying to hide behind a committee of the house. I simply suggested to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, as I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, that he read the very able evidence given by the governor of the Bank of Canada before that committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that not only did I read the evidence of the governor of the Bank of Canada but also the evidence of the minister, and I am still rather confused.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I have not appeared to date before the committee.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance with regard to the committee that is studying interest rates. Can he give the house any guarantee that the recommendations of that committee will not be written by the house leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Would he tell the house for what considerations Mr. Justice J. A. Archambault's decision has been reversed in the Borg case, when it was a matter of implementing the law enacted by parliament on capital punishment to the effect that any person found guilty of the murder of a police officer or a prison guard must be put to death? Why does the law say one thing and the people responsible for the administration of justice do the contrary?
Mr. Speaker, a death sentence has just been commuted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member's question is put to the house in the form of an argument and is therefore out of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: It is not an argument, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of justice, a social matter, and justice must follow its course. Justice rather than injustice must prevail. As for me, Mr. Speaker, that represents-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that when the Chair suggests that a question is not in order, he can of course rephrase it differently or, if he so wishes, he can give the Chair notice for its consideration at the time of adjournment. It is always possible to do that. I am sure the hon. member would have the chance at that time to consider the problem.
I am not suggesting to the hon. member that his question is not important or urgent, but I am telling him that in my humble opinion, it is raised under the form of an argument and as such, is out of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
July 9. 1969


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the President of the Treasury Board a question which appears at page 10753 of Hansard concerning the discontinuance of employer contribution by the government of Canada in provinces implementing the medicare plan. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to reply to that question today.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in provinces which are implementing federal medicare programs the basic Government Services Medical Insurance plan is being discontinued since, in large measure, the benefits under this plan are provided by the medicare program in the province. Accordingly, neither employer nor employee contributions are now required for this basic G.S.M.I. plan in such provinces. Of course the hon. member is aware that the government contributes a substantial portion of the cost of the medicare program.
A supplementary G.S.M.I.P. is being introduced in these provinces coincident with the changeover to medicare to provide those benefits which were provided under the government plan but which are not provided by the medicare program and thus at least maintain the level of benefits which had existed previously. The cost of the supplementary G.S.M.I. plan is being shared by the government and the employees on a 50-50 basis.
I may say to the hon. member that in his own province where we sought the agreement of the minister of health of that province to making available a reduced contribution rate under the provincial medicare plan for members of the armed forces that was not agreed as it has been in the other provinces.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence because I believe there are variations in respect of the services. Is the Minister of National Defence [DOT]prepared to outline just what is happening with regard to the federal government's contribution for basic medical care programs for servicemen serving in a province?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Treasury Board has indicated that in all provinces which have implemented medicare, except Alberta, the provincial government has reduced premiums for the armed forces personnel in recognition of the fact that they already receive medical services from the armed forces themselves.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but in respect of this problem federal employees of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. are in a turmoil.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering whether the hon. member thinks the question should be asked about all the services.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the last. The question is whether the R.C.M.P. are dealt with in the same way and whether the policy of the government is the same with regard to them.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and bring forward a reply.


CONSUMER CREDIT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement yesterday by the governor of the Bank of Canada that consumer credit restrictions would probably have been imposed during the past two years if federal authorities had possessed the power to impose them, does the government intend to approach the provinces with a view to obtaining these powers in order to obtain an effective means of controlling inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Not at this particular moment, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Is it the intention of the government to completely disregard this effective means of controlling inflation and do nothing about it?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Well, what in the world do you intend to do to control inflation? Let the house know what you intend to do, for heavens sake.

July 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


BIOLOGICAL WARFARE-TRANSFER OF MATERIALS ACROSS CANADIAN TERRITORY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on June 23 and again last Thursday on July 3, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to inform the house as to how materials used for research at Shirleys Bay and Suffield, Alberta, in connection with biological and chemical warfare get to either or boih of these laboratory grounds from one point in Canada to another, or from the United States to points in Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said the Minister of National Defence would answer the question. May we now have an answer?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think I should preface my answer by saying that all activities of the Department of National Defence pertaining to these materials are only of a defensive nature. As far as the particular question is concerned, 1 am informed that the Defence Research Board does not ship toxic materials by commercial aircraft, and has never at any time shipped disease producing organisms by commercial carriers of any kind. Canadian Forces motor vehicles and cargo aircraft have been used to transport small quantities of toxic materials to Suffield for testing purposes.
Small laboratory samples of chemical materials have been shipped by rail in accordance with Board of Transport regulations. These shipments are in the same category as those made by a hospital or laboratory to another such institution. The samples have been about the equivalent of a tablespoonful, carried in specially designed containers, and the shipments occur very infrequently-on the basis of about one or two a year.


David Lewis: The minister has not stated whether these shipments come from the United States to these points in Canada. May I have an answer as to where they originate?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have one example I can give my hon. friend, involving the last shipment of these organisms. They came from the United States in 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the information given by the minister in reply to the supplementary question asked by the hon. member is the type of information that should normally appear on the order paper.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the governor of the Bank of Canada, who appeared yesterday before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, stated that the steps to be taken to check inflation will cause the number of unemployed to increase, would the Prime Minister tell us whether he shares that opinion, and also how many jobless he needs to govern the country properly?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might put this question on the order paper.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of resources. Several weeks ago, in answering a question concerning a water act, the minister advised the house that it would probably not be reached until mid-July. At that time it was believed the house would not be sitting in July. Will the minister now be presenting the proposed water act during the current session of parliament, so that we may know what he proposes concerning water pollution.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my words to which the hon. member refers indicated I would present the water act in July, and that is still my expectation.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to advise the house whether Mr. Douglas Fullerton, chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has resigned and, if so, will he provide the house with the reason for his resignation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that he has sent a letter to the Prime Minister.
July 9, 1969


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is in charge of the department responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, can he tell the house whether this resignation is going to be accepted, whether it was given voluntarily to the government and whether a reason was asked for by the minister?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the office of the Prime Minister that the resignation was accepted.


Robert Muir: While I am on my feet may I ask in relation to this particular development corporation whether the minister is in a position to reply to the question I posed to him on Thursday?


Jean Marchand: This matter was discussed by the standing committee of this house, particularly on April 22 and there has been nothing new since.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, was this resignation
voluntary or was it asked for by the government?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in light of unusual developments and things that have taken place, will the minister present to parliament its long term plans so members of this house will not be accused of discriminating against the miners of Cape Breton and these miners will have a choice to decide for themselves to come within these plans?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no discrimination at all in respect of these plans.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he does not consider it discrimination in respect of a man who, after 49 years service, is arbitrarily dismissed?


Jean Marchand: These are isolated cases.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister reply to my last question?


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question regarding traffic safety-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member for Surrey would defer his question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the fact that I asked the minister a question to which he gave an answer, but for some reason the answer did not come across. Would he repeat it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure the question should have been allowed or that the minister should have been allowed to reply. He did reply, but in my opinion the simple answer would be for the hon. member to put his answer on the order paper. The supplementary question was allowed and perhaps the minister now may wish to reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what in the hon. member's question is really a question and what is a statement. However, if I am asked whether we are ready to disclose information about the early retirement plan and whether it is a public plan, I will answer that one can easily get such information and I do not object at all to its being given to hon. members in the house.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in the future will the minister listen to the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will now listen to the hon. member for Surrey.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with traffic safety and I should like to direct it to the Minister of Transport. Will he consider taking similar action to that taken last week by his counterpart in the United States, who at that time told car manufacturers that they are going to be required to instal on their new automobiles an automatic inflatable device which, at the instant of a car crash, expands and cushions the shock to the occupants of the car? Will the minister consider taking this or similar action?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation to the minister in respect of an assumption he may take into account.


PEST CONTROL
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: My question is directed to the Minister of

July 9, 1963
Inquiries of the Ministry National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the Food and Drug Directorate to issue new standards reducing the amount of d.d.t. allowed in the cultivation of crops used for food? If so, when will these new standards be issued?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The matter is under review by the Food and Drug Directorate. No decision has been made as yet.


Randolph Harding: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the constantly increasing mass of evidence that d.d.t. and other toxic pesticides are reaching unsafe proportions in many areas of Canada, will the minister, in conjunction with other government departments, initiate a full study of the effects on our environment of d.d.t. and other toxic pesticides, and in particular on the source of our food supply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked by the hon. member comes close to being an argument. However, perhaps the minister might want to reply.


John Carr Munro: The most recent surveys we have had from the department indicate that they are not at levels such as to constitute a danger in the terms described by the hon. member.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he is now in a position to explain why the reports of Mr. Martin relating to the Post Office were released only last Friday, seven to nine weeks after the decisions were made. I direct this question to the President of the Privy Council because the Postmaster General indicated last week that it was the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is not my responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I believe that one of my colleagues is ready to answer the question.
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply
and Services): The three reports, which are inter-related, of the chief adjudicator of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and which pertain to the grievances of the Council of Postal Unions were received by the

Public Service Staff Relations Board on June 16, 1969. These reports were distributed on July 4, 1969. The thirteen working days between the date of receipt of the reports and the date of distribution were spent in printing, proof reading, final printing and distribution. That period of time is normal and there was no evidence of delay in these procedures.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The time may be normal, but if so it requires further explanation.
However, I should like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether he has any explanation to give of the fact that Mr. Martin's decisions were dated in one case April 30 and in the other case May 15. Are the mail services in this country that slow?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder if the minister can assure the Canadian people that he will investigate the difference in the cost of U.S. fir plywood, which is approximately $40 per thousand cheaper than Canadian fir plywood, and would he also investigate the possibility that the B.C. Plywood Association is not maintaining prices for the manufacturers, thus milking the Canadian public?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to look into this matter, although I understand that Canadian, and particularly B.C. plywood, is far superior to U.S. plywood.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I realize that some grades of U.S. fir plywood are inferior to our Canadian plywood, but their waterproof plywood, I should like to point out to the minister, is of far better quality.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State. Has Miss Mary Jolliffe resigned as public relations director of the Performing Arts Centre because of the provision of inadequate
July 9, 1969

funds from his department, and if so, what action does the government contemplate to deal with this problem?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been able to confirm the news published in some newspapers this morning. I myself learned about it through the newspapers and the radio, but I have asked the authorities of the National Arts Centre for a report on the incident, and I will gladly communicate to the house any information I receive.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State been advised of the intention of the Performing Arts Centre to request a supplementary grant of $300,000 to cover its financial problems?


Gérard Pelletier: I have received no official no ice, Mr. Speaker. It was mentioned casually in a conversation with the director and the president of the Centre.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a further supplementary question. Is it the opinion of the government that the present administrative structure of the Performing Arts Centre is adequate, or does the minister contemplate a reorganization?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a statement of opinion. We have reached the point at which, according to practice, I should remind hon. members that we are running short of time. I still see a large number of members who are anxious to ask questions and who have risen from the first moment. May I say that the time I took to make this announcement to the house will not be charged to the question period.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO MEET PANAMERICAN GAMES DEFICIT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On June 10 I asked him the following question:
In view of the government's action in writing off the Expo deficit of $125 million, will it consider making similar arrangements in respect of the Pan-Am games, also a 1967 national event?
Inquiries of the Ministry
There was a supplementary question and then the minister said he would look into the matter. I wonder if he has anything further to report at this time.


Edgar John Benson: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was in his seat earlier, but in his absence, the President of the Privy Council could perhaps answer my question.
Could the minister tell us whether the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which must normally be submitted to the house and which has been prepared following a trip in eastern Canada, could be considered by the house before the recess?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I doubt it, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising from the one put by the hon. member for Bellechasse a moment ago to the President of the Privy Council.
In view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council stated that it is unlikely that the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, just back from its visit in eastern Canada, will be published to enlighten hon. members, would the President of the Privy Council tell us if he is willing to meet with the Minister of Agriculture in this respect and perhaps change his decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire on this matter and give an answer to the house.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Is he in a position to outline the program he intends to

July 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry carry out with regard to the Canadian penitentiary service in the maritime provinces which will result in the closure of the minimum security penal institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that if the minister were to make such an announcement it would have to be made by way of a statement on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wonder if the minister would make such a statement on motions at an early date.


George James McIlraith: would be very glad to do so but I do not think it would require a great length of time. The Springhill minimum security institution was set up in 1959 to meet an emergency situation on a temporary basis. Since that time the new medium security penitentiary has been built at Springhill and two new minimum security institutions have been built in the maritimes and there is no longer any need for the minimum security institution at Springhill.


Robert Carman Coates: Is the minister in a position to give us an assurance that the 43 members of the staff of the minimum security penal institution will be integrated in the operations of the penitentiary service?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader. Has he given any consideration to my question of Monday requesting his initiative in taking steps to have the newly discovered reports of the chief adjudicator, Mr. Martin, referred to the standing committee before our summer or autumn adjournment, and before the conclusion of the employer-employee negotiations in the Post Office?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have been giving certain other things consideration, but I thank the hon. member for his reminder and I will give this matter further consideration.


FISHERIES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether he intends to ban fishing for cohoe salmon in the Straits of Georgia to commercial fishermen during July and August?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: This matter is under active consideration because of the concurrent demand by the sports fishermen, but I am not prepared at this moment to say what decision will ultimately be made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister considering applying any such closure to the sports fishermen or is it to be applied only to commercial fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Consideration will be given to both sides and to the claims of both parties.


DOGFISH-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN AND JAPANESE OFFICIALS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister any report to make on his recent visit to British Columbia and especially on his proposal that the Japanese be permitted to harvest dogfish in British Columbia waters to protect our salmon from this predator?


John (Jack) Davis: The visitors from Japan are men from the technical level. They were not prepared to discuss policy but we have some hope we can develop a trade with the Japanese in this surplus fish.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: In
view of the interest taken in this matter by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, would the minister consider changing the name of this species from the bigmouthed dogfish to the Burnaby cod?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would he consider entering into negotiations with his opposite numbers in the various provinces with a view to
July 9, 1969

making arrangements to provide free drugs to senior citizens who are receiving old age supplements? I ask this question in view of the fact that all provinces are not able to participate in the arrangements under the Canada Assistance Act, which are not working out too well.


John Carr Munro: I do not believe that information to be correct. To the best of my knowledge all the provinces are participating in the Canada Assistance Plan under which provision is made to meet these payments on the basis of need. This includes medical charges and drugs.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: My
question is for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. Is the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in co-operation with the Ontario department of energy and resources actively involved in the planning of a proposed massive water diversion program to take water from the Hudson and James Bays watershed in northwestern Ontario and divert it into Lake Superior?


An hon. Member:: Ten years old.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure to what degree the hon. member's question is urgent. It might very well be discussed at the time of adjournment. If there is urgency, I will be pleased to see that his question is given priority at ten o'clock.


B. Keith Penner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, there is a great deal of urgency attached to this question. I have just returned from this region.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


B. Keith Penner: A great many of the Indian population as well as the tourist camp operators have heard there may be such a plan for massive water diversion. They are fearful and uncertain-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister may wish to reply-at ten o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of public disquiet in connection with the reprieve in the Borg case,
I put this question very seriously: Does the right hon. gentleman not think it would help toward a public understanding of the reasoning behind reprieves if some kind of statement could be issued giving the background? For example, could we be told whether there was a recommendation from the jury, or whether psychological or psychiatric considerations were involved?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am prepared to raise the matter with the Solicitor General. I thank the hon. member for his question. I think the reasoning might be more apparent if the house were to remind itself that at the time the present law concerning capital punishment was passed there was a clear statement on behalf of the government by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General then in office that this in no way interfered with the use of the royal prerogative by the cabinet.
It was pointed out that cases in which it might be used were cases where, for instance, the jury recommended clemency, as they did in the instance to which the hon. member has referred.



ELIGIBILITY OF BORG FOR PAROLE

Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Have any instructions been given to the National Parole Board concerning Borg's eligibility for parole in approximately ten years time?


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



MARIJUANA-TRANSFER IN CONTROL METHOD

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister indicate to the house whether he is giving favourable consideration to the resolution passed yesterday by the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation requesting the federal government to remove regulation of marijuana from the Narcotic Control Act and place it under the Food and Drugs Act?

July 9, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be aware that there was recently an amendment to the law which provided that a first offence for possession of marijuana could be dealt with by summary proceeding rather than by indictment. As for extending this principle to deal with any offence of this nature in accordance with the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, I imagine that this subject will be very pertinent to the study now being undertaken by those conducting the drug inquiry which has been instituted. This inquiry has been asked to let us have a report in approximately six months time.


Donald MacInnis: Is it the intention of the minister to introduce legislation this fall with regard to changing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps that question might be asked when we resume the session.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand there have been discussions among those involved in the work of the Transport and Communications Committee with respect to government order 65, the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act. There is some urgency in this matter. I understand that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is prepared to withdraw the amendment which appears in his name on the notice paper, and that there is general agreement that all stages of this bill would be completed at this sitting without debate or amendment. If my statement of that matter is correct, perhaps an order to that effect can be made, and we could call order No. 65 before returning to the debate on the procedure motion.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: That is correct as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. I operate on the premise that half a good loaf is better than no loaf at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to the proposition that has been advanced by the President of the Privy Council?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree. I think this is an example of what can be accomplished through agreement and consulation.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the kind of subject matter now before us I see no reason that there should be any agreement on anything.


Mr, Speaker:: There is no unanimous
consent.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the President of the Privy Council give in some detail the business of the house for the balance of this month?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope we may be finished before the end of the month but I will consider making a statement not only in respect of this month but in respect of the following month as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: What about September?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: In view of the fact that the Committee on Procedure and Organization may be sitting again to consider those parts of standing order 43 to which Your Honour has referred, would the leader of the house give every assurance that he will not attempt to interfere with the ability of that committee to report honestly to the house, and not treat the chairman like a puppet?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
Mr. Bernard Dumonl (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, when we interrupted the business of the house last night at ten o'clock, I was saying that we, of the Ralliement creditiste, were not opposed to the adoption of orders
July 9, 1969	COMMONS
75a and 75b, but that under no consideration could we accept order 75c, which says among other things, and I quote:
A Minister of the Crown ... may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage;-
Mr. Speaker, when we read that, we can realize that it amounts to closure, and since such a rule already exists, the government should have the courage to apply it when they are not satisfied with the course of events. As for us, we will fight all summer long if necessary this measure which, in our view, would be nothing more than a permanent and automatic rule of closure.
All hon. members know that we have collaborated with the government, as for instance in the case of a motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), to change the hours of sitting to expedite the business of the house.
Yesterday, I also pointed out that Bill C-202 had been passed quickly, even if it was not perfect.
It seems to me that proves our co-operation, and now the government alone is responsible for the fact that the house sits on and on, because it will insist on having a rule of closure adopted when one already exists.
Besides, we all wonder what the government wants to hide in the next three years of administration. Every time an attempt has been made to muzzle the opposition, it was done to camouflage something fishy.
Let us assume, for one moment, that this parliament is living situations similar to those of 1963 and 1964, namely the furniture deal, that of the hon. Yvon Dupuis, whose friends deserted him, the escape of the prisoner who was to water a skating rink in the middle of May. Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that similar situations should occur. We would then see the majority government apply Standing Order 75c, in order to prevent the Canadian people from finding out the truth.
We are also wondering whether the government intends to do away with the family allowances as it indicated some time ago. Does it intend to restrict credit or to let the interest rates increase? What new tax does it intend to levy? Finally, does the government intend to muzzle the provinces in deciding what it wants? We wonder about all these things and that is why we ask that Standing Order 75c be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, when I was young, my father who had an orchard, used to forbid us to 29180-697
Procedure and Organization place a rotten apple in a barrel. The role of the opposition, today, is to prevent the bad apples from spoiling the others. Our role wants that we should adopt the good laws and reject the others, that rot should not invade the whole barrel.
Last night, at the time of adjournment, at ten o'clock, I was quoting a statement by a very well known journalist, Mr. Claude Ryan, who wrote in Le Devoir on October 30 an article on "The true face of the new federalism".
In my opinion, such an attitude must be exposed because the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is doing the Prime Minister's bidding. In the past, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) fought articles such as this, but today, the President of the Privy Council, because of the orders he gets from the Prime Minister, is compelled to act.
I subscribe to this statement by Mr. Claude Ryan and I quote:
Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau had the extraordinary luck to be elected leader of his party, then brought back to power without having to reveal to the Canadian public the real nature of his political ideas.
He was able for months to say the most outrageous things in the euphoria created by the advent of the Messiah.
No criticism could seriously reach public opinion. Even beforehand, confidence was placed in the hands of the wonder child of Canadian politics: every reasonable discussion was, as it were, interrupted during the time of the epiphany of Mr. Trudeau.
Four months after the election of June 25, things began to get back to normal. Fancy must give way to fact. Now, what we have been given to see for some time bodes no good-
When such a statement is made, we come to the conclusion, because of the orders that are given to the President of the Privy Council, in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), that the Prime Minister gives orders and that all the government members obey them.
Besides I have in hand another statement published in the June last issue of L'Action nationale, where one can read:
In resolving to oppose constantly that opinion, to deny it the right to be heard at the negotiating table, on the false pretence of having to ignore its existence in favour of a Canadian prejudice, Mr. Trudeau obviously tramples a whole sector of the French Canadian nation perhaps even the whole of it, gives insult to the dignity of those who believe in it and directly and immediately incites the extremes of such an opinion to violence which in any event rumbles in the heart of those who have not been spoiled by partisanship.
Besides it is in that manner that statesmen become oppressors, by justifying themselves of the violence
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization they provoke in order to establish the police state, it was attempted to force them on the opposition and crush the opposition instead of allowing it to are far more arbitrary and hypocrit than anything dialogue.	bad that has ever been done in the parliament of
Canada. The Prime Minister first protested his good [DOT] (3:20 p.m.)	faith and that of the government.
It is obvious that, by refusing to face facts and to make a real try at consultation, Mr. Trudeau is progressing from the violence of a refusal to co-operate to the violence found in a police state.
We agree with him that we are now under the threat of tyranny. We beg of him to give thought to the responsibilities that will be his if he persists in closing his mind to the real problems through plain arrogance and ideological intransigence.
Everything will come to a standstill in Canada. In the face of such statements, the only possible conclusion, with regard to what we have before us, is that it is precisely because of his arrogance that the Prime Minister wishes through permanent and automatic rule of closure, as I was saying a short while ago, to impose or prevent possible debates that could take place so that the Canadian people could at least be aware of what is going on in the Canadian parliament.
In support of my contention, I have here some quotations and, in particular an article entitled La liberte des debats et de la discussion publique, written by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Members on the government side who have known Sir Wilfrid Laurier are no doubt in a position to state that he wanted liberty to prevail in this parliament. I shall read an article that was published in 1913. It is customary in this parliament to refer to facts already belonging to the past. Therefore, it should be normal that I read in full what Mr. Borden, prime minister at the time, had to say on the matter and what was the reply of the Liberal members sitting in the opposition.
We realize that Tories or Grits always feel the same way. When one party is in office, the other one feels that the government is too arrogant, and if the latter is in power, the other party feels that a dictatorship is being established.
But let us rather read the reported facts and I quote:
On April 9, the right hon. R. L. Borden, M.P., brought before the House of Commons some amendments to the standing orders, the purpose of which was to limit the freedom of the proceedings and of the public discussion through a procedure generally known under the names of "closure" and "guillotine".
If this is not similar to standing order 75c, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what it is.
And Mr. Borden went on:
The excessive strictness of his amendments were already blameworthy, but the methods by which

What the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said yesterday: If the opposition parties are reasonable, we shall never use rule 75c, was stated in 1913.
At that time, a Conservative prime minister told the Liberals: Be quiet, there are only two parties. There is no minority party, as has been said. We shall get along very well and when you leave, you will be appointed to other places, lucrative positions and there will be no problem. That happened in 1913.
Let us examine the statement made by Borden to strengthen his position. He declared, and I quote:
No one is more ready than I to acknowledge that freedom of speech and of debate must be preserved.
It is with those words that the prime minister began his speech on the amendments which he was moving for concurrence.
And to further eliminate any doubts he had raised, he added:
My hon. friends are very suspicious; I think they should be prepared to accept my word in the matter.
And Sir Wilfrid Laurier pointed out, on behalf of the opposition, that as a result of those amendments, a constant threat was hanging over them. Borden protested so candidly and with such frankness that one can hardly recognize the same man in the person who was talking that way and the one who, a few minutes later, was to become guilty of such a shameful treason.
He replied to Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the following words:
Not at all; that is not the way in which I would desire to exercise a power of this kind. I would think that if this rule passes, things might go on in future just as they have in the past.
That is the same statement as the one we heard yesterday. We are assured that everything will go well, that no problem will arise. Yet, as I said a while ago, except for the consideration of the omnibus bill, we have fully co-operated. During the debate on the omnibus bill, it was a matter of principle. We had the duty, as Christians, to oppose it, but except for that bill, many other pieces of legislation have been introduced.
We have agreed to longer working hours, as proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), and not satisfied
July 9, 1969	COMMONS
with that, he comes back at us with a closure rule to which we cannot agree and as I said earlier, we are ready to fight all summer if we have to, to prevent its passing.
I continue quoting Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said:
All through that speech the right hon. gentleman stated-
Speaking of Mr. Borden.
-and reiterated that the object of the Government in proposing this new resolution was not to impede in any way the freedom of debate or to prevent free discussion, but simply to avoid the abuse of it. My right hon. friend was profuse of declarations that the minority, when these rules have been adopted, can always rely upon fair play; but the words were scarcely out of his lips when we were brought to realize how much fair play we may expect at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. By the unwritten law of Parliament, not to speak of the courtesy which generally prevails between the two sides of the House, it is expected that when the Prime Minister brings an important measure to the consideration of the House, the Opposition, by its leader shall be allowed to present the views which are entertained on the other side.
These statements were made in 1913 and today a majority government would once again have us accept rules which are unacceptable. And I quote again from the statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
The task which he set himself to accomplish, and which the majority will accomplish, I have no doubt, was simply to put a gag upon the rules which we, in this House, have looked upon almost as sacred and which have come to us from the Mother of Parliaments.
These are the same words as those I heard yesterday from the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest), Sir Wilfrid Laurier went on saying:
These rules were not made in a day; they are the embodiment of the wisdom of many generations of statesmen and the result of the experience of men, whose whole life was devoted to the public welfare, and who brought British institutions to the degree of excellency which they had reached at the time Confederation was established.
We have heard it stated that these rules are antiquated. I do not admit that at all. These rules are not antiquated. They were not made for a day or for a period; they were made for the ages. It can be said of them, as has been said of the maxims of civil law which have come to us from the Roman jurists and which are the basis of the civil law of most of the nations of Europe, and they are reason crystallized into writing.
The maxims of the civil law have been applied to the relations of the people in daily life and the maxims of our parliamentary procedure have been accepted as the duties of the transaction of business in all deliberative assemblies.
29180-697i
Procedure and Organization
Statements such as these were made in 1913, and today those who would always remind us with pleasure that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was one of them-he who made statements such as I have just quoted-would be ready to throw all those things overboard by introducing a rule of closure in Standing Order 75c. We certainly cannot accept Standing Order 75c, but we will accept Standing Order 75a and 75b. In fact, immediately after the withdrawal of 75c we would be prepared to extend the sitting hours.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to quote a few words, of the late Ernest Lapointe, who was also a member of the opposition and who said the following:
The duties of an opposition are to discuss the measures introduced in parliament during the various stages of the bills and certainly not to filibuster.
He said that it would be a crime against the state. I continue the quotation:
But, Mr. Speaker, when a measure is intended to eradicate parliament, to deprive it of all its rights, privileges and powers, it is the duty of the opposition to seek to prevent its adoption, and those who are guilty of a crime against the state are those responsible for the introduction of such legislation-
It is believed, Mr. Speaker, that we should stand at attention and salute when the Prime Minister wishes it. In fact, Parliament should be ready to do the goose-step at the Prime Minister's will.
Czarist methods have given birth to Bolshevism, and that is something we do not want in Canada. It is blameworthy to undermine in this way parliament's authority and to do so, the Prime Minister orders the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Agriculture to muzzle the opposition.
Have no fear, hon. members of this house. If we must-as I said a while ago-spend the whole summer here, we will, because history is written thanks to defenders of liberty and not by hypocritical dictators, who represent the Liberal party.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Furthermore, here is what Mr. Ernest Lapointe had to say in this regard, and I quote:
I have followed the discussion very closely and listening to the supporters of this legislation, I could not help but think of Disraeli's words: "A Tory government is organized hypocrisy".
If that could be said in 1913, why should we on this side of the house not be able to say it today, since an attempt is being made
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization to impose rules of closure on us, as I said a while ago?
I go one with the quotation:
The Secretary of State, to whom this undemocratic legislation was attributed, after having been recognized as the author of the rule of closure and other narrow Tory legislations, was more honest when he cynically admitted that he excepted the Conservative party to obtain the votes of those to whom is given the right to vote on this bill and the Liberal party to lose the votes of those to whom that right is denied.
I hope the Secretary of State was not talking seriously; he did not do himself justice. I have great admiration for his talent, but I do not hesitate to say that a man whose morals and convictions allow him to consider as justifiable the trituration of the elections act just before a general election in order to ensure the return to power of his party, is not morally fit to hold a high administrative position in this country.
Mr. Speaker, this motion constitutes, in my view, an expression of non-confidence on the part of the government, in itself and in the Canadian people. It is an admission that it does not have the support nor the confidence of the country. It is a self-accusation, which proves its weakness as a democratic government.
Parliament is forced by the government to pass a measure which is contrary to the most elementary principles of a democratic government. It breaks the fundamental law without which liberty cannot exist, that is, the equality of all citizens before the law. One of the major clauses of the Magna Charta for which the French people have fought in the past provides that any citizen has an equal right to take part in law-making and in the appointment of his representatives and agents.
A representative parliament must properly and justly reflect the nation, as well as its proportions and characteristics. Any Canadian citizen has a sacred right to have his fair share of the national representation. Those are not German principles, but the tenets of freedom. And it is in order to uphold and preserve such principles throughout the world that Canadian soldiers have fought in Europe.
The rights of the people and the privileges of parliament must be preserved against all comers. But, Mr. Speaker, what can we expect of the present government which sets a bad example and shows absolute contempt for the authority of parliament.
During a trip that I made to Paris last December, I had the opportunity of discussing with French Parliamentarians all the improvements that they wanted to make to the National Assembly. In this connection, I

shall mention only one article which stated that members who wished to have the right to speak in the National Assembly were justified.
England and France, cradles of culture, surely deserve our attention.
What was this new amendment seeking? It reads as follows:
Of course, the representation of the isolated members-that is those not registered with a political group (approximately 3 per cent of the total number) gives rise to a special problem. Special provisions have been approved in June 1967 to allow them to have access to committees; previously, once established the committees could appoint isolated members by means of a vote. The present orders have been worked out so as to allow any isolated member to sit on a committee, although there remains the principle that a member can be appointed to only one standing committee.
While within the Canadian parliament some people try in every way to prevent democracy from making itself heard, in a country as old as France, on the contrary, elected citizens, even though they do not belong to a political party, are allowed to express their views in committees. And it is in the name of that freedom which can express itself in those democratic countries that we ask that democracy be also respected in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, because they were for convenience and efficiency, democratic governments throughout history have collapsed. In the absence of other grounds, hon. members would be well advised to establish the kind of government that now exists in Russia and that existed yesterday in Nazi Germany. Of course, such governments leave nothing to be desired with regard to convenience and efficiency, but they do not put up with certain other things, as hon. members, I am sure, will readily understand.
History offers plenty of pertinent instances. I have some before me. However, I shall not take my time nor that of the other members to quote long excerpts of history books to show how convenience and efficiency have wrecked democratic governments in the past, but I shall merely refer to a few cases.
Let us think, for instance, of Athens, Rome and Venice, which had democratic governments, as well as of England at the time of Oliver Cromwell.
We can make a remarkable comparison between the present situation and the one which cost Athens its democracy. I shall quote a short paragraph of the works of Basil
July 9. 1969

Hammond regarding the conditions prevailing at the time Athens was threatened. Here it is: Alcibiade's contribution to that revolution was only to get it under way by raising the false hope of a Persian alliance. His agents went to Athens, and Pisandre, their leader, said to the citizen's assembly that their only hope of survival was an alliance with the Persians. He declared it possible if Alcibiade were asked to come back, if the democracy which the Persian king did not like were abolished and if in its place an oligarchy on which the king could rely were established. The assembly did not like the idea of losing its democratic constitution but, yielding to the circumstances, it nevertheless approved the suggested change.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, in view of the quick changes the government wants to make on the eve of the adjournment of the 1st Session of the 28th Parliament, we cannot accept the closure rule which it wants to impose upon us and we will fight for the survival of this democracy.
This, Mr. Speaker, was happening in ancient Athens. It was the first step towards the fall of democracy. They received a proposal which it was impossible for them to look into. Its approval had to be hastened so as to conclude the alliance. It was passed in haste without the required consideration and that was the end of the democratic government.
A little later, the same thing happened with the Romans. They were compelled on many occasions to resort to dictatorial powers in order to dispose of certain matters. That was more efficient, as the government seems to tell us in the house. What happened then? The house knows it. The Senate of Rome was so well used to totalitarian methods that it was easy for dictator Julius Caesar to eventually assume full powers.
Well, I can say that today there are Julius Caesars who introduce amendments under another form, such as standing order 75c and who wish to set up in parliament an unacceptable dictatorship. The hon. members might think that could not happen.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Clothes, cars, TV sets, material things can change, but human nature is unalterable from one generation to another. Once the thin edge of the wedge-in the present case it is rather blunt-has penetrated, the destruction of democratic machinery has begun. When opportunism and efficiency are the arguments used to destroy parliamentarian rules, a long step forward has been taken towards the destruction of democracy itself.

Procedure and Organization
We are here, we should not forget it, not for ourselves, but to form a Parliament for the Canadian people. Among our duties, we have to facilitate relations between both sides of the house, in order to enable us to contribute, as is suitable, to the affairs of the state.
Without wishing at all to blame someone or express recriminations, I can say that whoever objectively studies the atmosphere in the House of Commons at the present time will admit that we do not have the kind of institution to which the Canadian people are entitled. I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and the whole government to consider the situation from that angle.
I do not want to quote authorities, citations, or the Standing Orders; in a frank and straightforward manner, I tell the government what I think. It is obvious that the present atmosphere in the House of Commons does not allow us to deal with the affairs of the country, because of Rule 75c which, in my opinion, should be removed without more ado.
At the beginning of the debate on the omnibus bill, we said: Remove from the bill the provisions on abortion and homosexuality, and we shall immediately vote for this legislation which, without being perfect, is nonetheless acceptable.
Today, we say: Remove Rule 75c and we shall agree to expedite the business of the house and get on with our jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I read complete official report of the 1913 debate, when they inserted in the Standing Orders, the provision which was merely a rule of closure of which Rule 75c is a replica. I read the report of debates when the closure was applied in 1913, 1917, 1921, 1926 and 1932.
Mr. Speaker, in that vast documentation on the rule of closure, nowhere can we find a definition which would allow the government to impose a limit of time. Rule 75c is precisely a permanent and automatic rule of closure which is unacceptable to us.
Mr. Speaker, how long will justice prevail in our country under such a system? What will happen to order and honesty? That is precisely what happened in the House of Commons.
Those who lived through the events of the last two or three weeks will no longer have for parliament the feeling and the respect they had for that institution. No unbiased
11034	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization observer, Mr. Speaker, can deny that a climate of tension prevails. There is bitterness and resentment on both sides of the house. Because of what happened, has the house the right morally to carry on its business? There will be doubts in that respect, as long as that rule 75c will keep on being brought before us.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that we can say that nobody is overly impressed by efficiency as a means to carry out concrete programs in a democratic parliament.
It has been said that democracy would not even exist were it possible to establish other types even less desirable of government. I think that is true. In spite of all its deficiencies, it is the best system we could find. But in order to retain the respect of the people for it-and that is an important factor-it is therefore essential that the house should do nothing that might lead the people to believe that they are not well represented here, no matter whether they support the government or the opposition.
I have only one more word, Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat. I quote Frank Oliver, another Liberal whom I particularly commend to the house. That man had said that closure is not a blow aimed at the opposition, but at the rights of Canadians. When a provision such as rule 75c is moved, it is a blow aimed straight at the heart of democracy.
The primary duty of a Parliament is to be a sovereign body, not a subordinate institution, of a purely decorative character. Parliament holds an undeniable right, transcending the whims of the Prime Minister, or of the President of the Privy Council, and that is the right to exist. That right, may I suggest, comes before the disappointments of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Agriculture. Parliament has the obligation to prevent any encroachment on its rights and privileges. It is the will of Parliament and not that of the Prime Minister which represents the will of the country. When the Prime Minister suggests that he speaks for the whole country, he is mistaking the echo of his own words for the voice of the Canadian people.
Parliament is and must remain the approved representative of public opinion and public will. The people's sovereignty is delegated to parliament not to the executive, and when I say parliament, I mean the minority as well as the majority.
This parliament, this institution, should be the temple of freedom, not a place where

DEBATES	July 9, 1969
restraint and a false interpretation of the rules are used as a means to brush aside the rights, in order to gain some precarious advantage.
And before concluding my remarks, I can assure the house that I am wondering, in short, I am much concerned about the survival of democracy in Canada. That concern stems from the fact that the government is resorting a little too much to "Castro-type" methods. That is why those Castro-type methods, a concrete example of which can be found in 75c, will never get our support and the generations to come will commend us for having fought against the passage of this order which imposes dictatorship in this country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the debate continues may I say that I understand the discussions about government order No. 65 have been progressing favourably, and I believe there might now be agreement in the house to pass the order which I previously suggested. If that be the case I wonder whether we can temporarily interrupt this debate in order to call order No. 65 and put it through all stages?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this
agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS DEFINING "AIR CUSHION VEHICLE" AND CLARIFYING OTHER PROVISIONS-REPORT STAGE-BILL No. S-23
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Before proceeding to the consideration of this bill, I should like to point out to the house that a notice of amendment appears on the order paper, in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett) and-

I believe that the hon. member wishes to drop his notice of motion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have agreed not to move that amendment.
July 9, 1969	COMMONS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill S-23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: By leave.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill S-23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
see what can be done by consultation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have also been discussions held with regard to a proposal made by the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments for an expansion of its order of reference, and I wonder whether the house might be agreeable to adopting an order in the following form:
That the powers of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, appointed by order of the house on September 30, 1968, be extended by adding the following powers:
To consider and, from time to time, to report on the adequacy of existing statutory authority for the making and publication of statutory instruments and on the adequacy of existing procedures for the drafting, scrutiny, and operational review of such instruments, and to make recommendations with respect thereto.
Perhaps there is general agreement that this could be made an order of the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not objecting, Mr. Speaker, but I know nothing about it, and I would prefer if there were an opportunity for consultation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) was the source of my information. However, if there is not consent I will not put a motion now.

Procedure and Organization



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on Friday, June 20, 1969, be concurred in, and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (p. 10963).
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the matter which is now before us is one of the most important subjects we will debate in this 28th parliament because it has to do with nothing less than the rights of parliament itself and the rights of members in a free assembly to have an adequate opportunity to express the views of those who sent them here. If this matter were not so serious the government's handling of it could be described as a comedy of errors. It began last December when the government endeavoured to ram through the house the iniquitous and abhorrent rule 16a which would have virtually given the government power to cut off discussion in any debate, and even to limit the time of debate before it began.
The government backed down on that proposition because of the united opposition of all the parties on this side of the house. It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tried to save face by telling press and television audiences that he had set a trap for the opposition. He implied that he had never really wanted to put 16a into effect but by drawing the opposition's fire to that clause he had succeeded in getting all the other rule changes accepted by the house. If this is true, Mr. Speaker, then I would like to know why the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has brought in a motion which is almost identical with 16a. By his action the President of the Privy Council has destroyed the Prime Minister's credibility and has exposed his transparent attempt at facesaving.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The second act in this comedy of errors has to do with the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to which the matter of time allocation was referred. The representatives of the opposition parties on that committee not only agreed to but
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization helped to formulate 75a and 75b. I think both those provisions would help bring about a more orderly handling of the business of the house and would provide for an allocation of time on the basis of agreement and consensus. But the President of the Privy Council was not satisfied with that. Noting the approach of the end of the session he rammed 75c through that committee supported only by the government members on the committee. Then he sought to ram it through the house, not in the way it is being done now by discussion of the committee's report, but by introducing a motion.
Yesterday the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) sought to excuse his quiescent inactivity by saying he was waiting until the business of the house had been disposed of before he got up. Well, of course, if it was the intention of the government that the report of this committee would be discussed, why is item 99 on the order paper? Why did the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) find it necessary to file his motion? He did so for the obvious reason that he wanted to make two minor changes in the report of the committee. He knew that if those changes were to be made they could be made only by referring the report back to the committee. Therefore he sought to block the report of the committee and to produce his interpretation and altered version of the committee report.
The government has been caught in its own tangled web of duplicity and subterfuge. Its machinations have backfired and it stands exposed for its blatant attempts to muzzle parliament and denigrate the rights of opposition members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: An arrogant, miserable
bunch.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the government members across the way have now dwindled to three. I see two of them in the rump, which makes five. There are no cabinet members present. They certainly are interested in this subject. I suppose if all the opposition members left we would not have a quorum. I think this is an indication of this government's attitude toward parliament and a-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No respect for parliament at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -complete contempt for a demo-

cratic deliberative assembly. The question which has been asked and which must be answered in this debate is, why has rule 75c been introduced? It was rammed through in committee and now it has been brought in after all the business of the house has been disposed of and normally members would not be here to deal with this rule 75c. The government has given us no valid reason for introducing a streamlined form of the guillotine. The President of the Privy Council, if this rule is passed, will go down in Canadian parliamentary history as "Mac the Gag", because that is the sole purpose of rule 75c. The government cannot claim it is introducing this rule because it has faced obstruction in this session of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There has been no obstruction. The opposition have co-operated fully with the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out first of all that the opposition voluntarily gave up four allotted days during which it would have been the privilege of members of the opposition to criticize the government and raise matters which they thought were of interest to their constituents and the country.


An hon. Member:: So that we could adjourn on June 27.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We gave up those four days in order that government business could be discussed. I wish to point out what may not be generally known. Through the house leaders of the various parties on this side we offered to sit extra hours during the latter part of the month of June so that we could finish up the business of the house by June 27, provided the government would not proceed with rule 75c. The government turned that down. The government's legislative program could have been finished on June 27 as planned. There was no question of obstruction.
When the members of the government complain about the length of debates I should like to say that in no parliament with which I have had any association has there been any government which has had more co-operation than this government has had. When I compare this parliament with the antics of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse-Pearson,
July 9, 1969	COMMONS
Pickersgill, Martin and Chevrier-from 1957 to 1962 when they kept this house in a constant wrangle for weeks on end on constitutional and procedural matters, I say that this government has been very fortunate in the kind of co-operation it has received from this side of the house.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) in his speech yesterday complained that if the debates during this session had been shorter we would have been able to deal with some additional legislation. Let me ask two questions. First, let me ask which debates he thinks were too long. There were only two lengthy debates. The first was the debate on the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code. Of course that took time. It was a very large bill. I for one supported all the provisions of that bill except the provision for a national lottery. But I respect the rights of those who were vigorously opposed to the clauses dealing with abortion and homosexuality. They were not arguing a political question. They were arguing a moral question, a matter of conscience, and nobody in this house has a right to curtail the views of any member who is trying to express his moral opposition and the moral opposition of his constituents to a proposed piece of legislation.
The other piece of legislation which took some time was the official languages bill. It also was an important piece of legislation which has far-reaching implications. Does anyone suggest it could have been curtailed? My complaint was that the government had not done a good enough job in explaining it to the public. I think that the fact it was a fairly lengthy debate helped to disabuse the public's mind and remove some of the fears existing in some parts of Canada in respect of the purport of that legislation, and other legislation that has resulted in extended debate.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The second thing I want to ask is, what legislation that the government wanted could not have been dealt with at this time? If the government had additional pieces of legislation it thought was important, the house could have continued on into July or reconvened after Labour Day. There is nothing sacrosanct about adjourning the house until October. There is no legislation the government really wants that could not be dealt with now. The government has had so much co-operation it has really had no problems. As a matter of fact, members on the government 29180-698
Procedure and Organization side have been making speeches, according to press reports, indicating to their constituents how much fine legislation has been passed this session. The government members cannot have it both ways. They cannot boast about how much legislation has been passed and talk about obstruction by the opposition. The real fact is that the government does not have very much important legislation and is not being prevented from proceeding with anything it deems sufficiently important to place before parliament.
Another reason given for the need for rule 75c was put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on a television program I watched. He said that the rule change was necessary so that parliament could respond more quickly in order to meet changing social and economic needs in Canada. The truth is that it is the government which is failing to respond to the social and economic needs of Canada, not parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Parliament has been prepared for
months to deal with some of the major problems facing this country. It is the government which does not know how to respond. Day after day in the house we have asked the government what it intends to do about rising prices. We asked for months about setting up the commission on incomes and prices. It has taken the government almost a year to get around to naming the personnel. We have talked about high interest rates and the government is still doing nothing. Only after a high degree of prodding was the matter finally sent to a standing committee of the house.
How did the government respond to the problem of housing in Canada? It did absolutely nothing until a minister of the Crown resigned in disgust and disappointment. Only then did it bring in a half-baked commitment that hardly deals with this problem. How has this government responded to the question of pollution?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has created a lot.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Volumes of data are available about the terrible ravages of pollution in this country. Member after member on this side of the house has risen day after day to ask the government to take some steps, but there has been no action. It is not parliament that cannot respond quickly, it is the government which is completely ineffective, inefficient and unresponsive.
11038	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization We have had a report on veterans for which we waited over five years. The government has been sitting on it now for over a year. It was only after a great deal of probing that it was sent to a standing committee, and we are now waiting for a white paper.
We have been waiting for a year for a white paper on the Carter commission report. We have been waiting for some action on old age pensions to compensate the old people for the effect of the rise in the cost of living. It has been increasing at a rate of 4 per cent per year but the old age pensioners cost of living bonus is set at only 2 per cent per year.
Members on this side of the house have been pointing out to the government that the farmers in western Canada are facing bankruptcy. Day after day and month after month we have been pressing the government for some action, for some statement of policy, but nothing has been forthcoming. If anyone thinks this is exaggeration let me refer them to a statement in the Ottawa Citizen on June 25 in an article by Charles King, which he wrote at a place called St. Jean, Manitoba. The article was headed "Peter Trudeau's The Ogre in St. Gene". This is what he said: Because the feeling is deep and genuine, Trudeau is broadly considered to be the greatest disaster that has hit the west since the great drought of the thirties, if it doesn't go back to the Riel rebellion.
The article goes on to state:
It's a bit late now, Peter Trudeau, but you should come out here and check the situation for yourself.
I certainly hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will do that, but if he does not react any more effectively to what he will face in the west than he has in the last eight months I fear the farmers of western Canada will get no relief. To suggest that 75c is needed in order that parliament can respond quickly to an emergency situation is a farce. This government's response to the social and economic needs of the country has been continual reviews, the appointment of task forces and the setting up of commissions. It has done absolutely nothing about the major problems facing the country which are causing such widespread dismay and disaffection.
There is only one reason we have 75c before us. The government is contemptuous of parliament and is going to use its majority to muzzle dissent in the name of efficiency. The Prime Minister's statement last year in the house when he said, "We are the masters of the house", is now taking tangible form in 
DEBATES	July 9, 1969
an amendment to the rules. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has never been able to conceal his complete disregard and contempt for parliament. He has never been able to make up his mind whether he wants to be a reincarnation of Joan of Arc or Louis XIV. "L'etat, c'est moi" has become the attitude of the Prime Minister in respect of parliament. He has shown contempt for parliament first of all by blocking the report of the committee on transportation, then by attempting to block the discussion of the report now before us through the motion introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). He is now seeking to reduce debate on any measure to a minimum of four days, and where a bill is sent to a standing committee, to only three days in the house.
The President of the Privy Council, in his address to the house, suggested we should remember that this will only be done after consultation. I laughed and he rebuked me for laughing. I apologize for that burst of laughter, but I want to point out that such laughter was almost inevitable. Consultation with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is not an easy thing in any case because he has the diplomatic finesse of a piledriver. But just imagine negotiating with the President of the Privy Council when he has a meat axe in one hand and rule 75c in the other. It would be like going to a poker game to play against a fellow who had a loaded gun pointed at your head.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: And a loaded deck as well.


An hon. Member:: And an olive branch in the other hand.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This contempt for parliament and for parliamentary tradition always seems to assail the Liberal party whenever it gets into office with a large majority. It is true that power sometimes corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Many of us remember the statement made in 1956 by the Right Hon. C.
D.	Howe, who was a great Canadian. Few men made a greater contribution to Canada's war effort than Mr. Howe. But long years of power brought him to the point at which in 1956 he said, "Who is going to stop us" and "what is a million bucks?". The pipeline bill was pushed through parliament by closure before members could open their mouths and it was applied on every clause of the bill. But a day of reckoning came. The people of Canada are patient and slow to anger but when
July 9, 1969	COMMONS
they are aroused their wrath is something to behold, and in 1957 and 1958 that wrath was aroused.
I remind the members of the government that the Canadian people cherish the right of dissent and they will not sit idly by if this government tries to ride roughshod over the rights of private members, particularly the members of the opposition. I am not thinking only in terms of those of us who sit in the house. A letter which I thought was very significant came in my mail this morning. It was written by a young man from the province of Ontario whom I have never met. This is what he wrote:
I am a student in grade 10. At this time I would like to express to you my views on the government's proposed rule change which would limit debating time in the House of Commons.
I cannot see how such a measure has a place in Mr. Trudeau's "Just Society".
By adopting such a measure legislation could be railroaded through before it could be fully debated. The opinions of many members and those of their numerous constituents would not be heard if debating time was so limited. And this seems out of place in a democratic country such as Canada. With mail service as slow as it is, some members would not receive letters from concerned constituents commenting on legislation before it is given third reading.
I sincerely hope that such a measure is not adopted and the opposition parties will work against its adoption.
Sincerely and with all best wishes.


An hon. Member:: What is the postmark?


Mr. Morison:: Have you a son in grade 10?


An hon. Member:: Go back to sleep.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the hon. member has recovered from his afternoon nap may I tell him that, as I just said, I do not know the young man and have never met him but I would be very proud to have a son like him. I would be surprised if the hon. member had a son as intelligent as that young man. Here is a boy who I think represents thousands of young people across this country who believe that dissent and the right to express one's views and, even more important, to express the views of the people one represents in parliament, is an inalienable part of our democratic system.
I urge the house, before we come to a final vote on this matter, to stop and realize that the measure of our democracy is the extent to which we recognize the rights of minorities. After all, a free parliament is the basis of all our freedoms. Destroy it and our democracy will begin to crumble before our eyes.
DEBATES	H039
Procedure and Organization
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) argued in his speech yesterday that the small parties have too much power.
I can understand his impatience with the small parties that keep trying to prod the government out of its lethargy. But I want to say that we are not here by virtue of the good graces of the President of the Privy Council or of the government. The New Democratic party is here because nearly 1,400,000 Canadian voters voted for us last June. Our party and the Ralliement Creditiste represent 1,875,000 voters, and much has happened since then. On June 25 a Gallup poll was published which showed the New Democratic party at 22 per cent, the Creditistes and others at 7 per cent, making a total of 29 per cent, and the government at 41 per cent. These small parties at which the President of the Privy Council sneers are not a miniscule body.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You may have overtaken the government by this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They represent nearly a third of the voters of this country, and if the government keeps on in this way we will soon represent more than the government in the Gallup poll.
I want to tell the government that the minor parties will not disappear if the government resorts to measures of repression and curtailment of free speech. I want to tell the gentlemen opposite that the representatives of this party will be here long after some of those who are seeking to destroy them have disappeared from the political scene.
In a free parliament what we have to do is to find the fine balance between the right of dissent and the right of the government to get on with the business of the country. Everyone recognizes that no member or group of members should have the power to prevent important decisions being made by the parliament of Canada. I believe that rules 75a and 75b go a long way toward finding that balance. After all, the government is not dealing in this parliament with obstructionists. They are dealing with reasonable and responsible men who are answerable to their constituents. I want to ask the government members, when they rise to speak, to point out any instances in this parliament during this session when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the Leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) or myself have acted irresponsibly and held up the business of the house or tried to prevent the government from getting measures before the house and reaching decisions with respect to them. They have been dealing
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization with reasonable and responsible people. If they come to the point where they are faced with obstruction and filibuster, then of course it is a different matter. They then have the right, if they want to, to use Standing Order 33, to use the power of closure, and let the public decide whether they are justified in using it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
What the government seems to forget is that we are answerable on both sides of the house to the public. If we on this side obstruct needlessly, if we waste time, if we facetiously prevent decisions from being reached, our constituents will deal with us. The voters will react against any party which conducts itself irresponsibly and the public will support a government bringing in closure if it finds it necessary to do so after a prolonged debate has taken place. But the public will not support the idea of imposing closure virtually in advance; the public will not support any government which makes rules so that a minister can introduce a measure and after speaking we would be allowed two hours of debate, then one day on the bill for the first stage, two hours and another day of debate on the second stage, one day on third reading and one day in committee-three days in all.
The Ot.awa Citizen, which has always been very friendly to the Liberal party, carried an editorial on Wednesday, June 25 with the heading: "Hidden Closure. Proposed Rule Violates Rights." I shall not read the whole of the editorial, though it is an excellent one. I shall read the last two paragraphs:
A minority has more than a right to debate legislation. It has a right to try to rally public opinion to its side. Especially should it be able to exercise this right when examining legislation dealing with matters of conscience. Only when the minority has had a full opportunity to do this should debate be cut off.
Some form of closure is necessary if parliament is to do business but it should be applied after exhaustive debate, not before.
This is not what the government is proposing to do. We believe that 90 per cent of the business of the house could be allocated on the basis of orders as to time through 75a and that probably the rest could be dealt with through 75b. If there is one per cent which cannot be arranged through either 75a or 75b, the government always has the right after protracted debate to resort to Standing Order 33.
By ramming 75c through the house the government is doing violence to parliament 
and is weakening the democratic process. I remind hon. members that when we demean parliament we demean ourselves. As Members of Parliament the only power we have is derived from the fact that we are Members of Parliament. We are here by virtue of the fact that the people in our constituencies sent us here. If we belittle this house, if we make it irrelevant, if we make it a mere rubberstamp for a dictatorial government, we make ourselves mere puppets and will be so judged by the people we represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we are muzzled, if dissent cannot be expressed in this assembly, I warn the government that dissent will take to the streets. If democracy is to survive it must survive in this place of all places. If dissent cannot express itself in words it will inevitably express itself in violence. I remind supporters of the government, particularly the younger members who sit on the back benches, that rule 75c is a two-edged sword and that it can cut both ways. Governments come and governments go. I have seen five different prime ministers sit in that seat. I have seen scores of cabinet ministers come and go. Political fortune is a fickle goddess.


An hon. Member:: Who knows better?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. gentleman will learn it.


An hon. Member:: The people will decide.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. And may I point out to the hon. member that when they decide it is quite possible that many of those who sit opposite today will be sitting on this side of the house. Not all of them, of course. Some of them will not be back at all; they came in for one term on the coat tails of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But there are some who will sit on this side of the house. I wonder what they will think then about rule 75c. What will they think, for instance, about a bill to rescind the Official Languages Act to be passed in three days of debate-one day on second reading, one on the report stage and one on third reading? What will they think of a bill to discontinue family allowances, to be passed by parliament in a total of four days? Or what about a resolution to amend the British North America Act to take away some of the privileges of French-speaking Canadians?
July 9, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is your program you are setting out?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A great sense of humour.


An hon. Member:: A great sense of
stupidity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is showing just how much regard he has for parliamentary tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He couldn't care less about parliamentary tradition. He sits where he does because he happened to back the right man at a political convention and because he is an obedient and supine hatchet-man.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He is being pretty funny so I hope he will continue.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am almost through, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have been through for some time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Has the
hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


An hon. Member:: By all means.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not intend to waste any more time on the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) because that is not the important question. The important thing is that whoever may sit in the seats of government- it may be the Liberal party today, it may be another party four years from now-ought to remember that the day may come when it will be on the other side of the house and that it has a duty to ensure that members of the house will always have the inalienable right to be heard and to express the views of the people they represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what the present debate is all about-the right to be heard. I believe in the democratic process. I have always said throughout my adult life that if ideas can be argued and debated in the marketplace of ideas the truth will ultimately prevail.

Procedure and Organization


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have great faith in the common sense of the ordinary man and woman. I believe that if they are given the opportunity to listen to both sides, in most cases they will make the right decision. But they can only make that decision if adequate opportunity is given for discussion, if there is a proper dialogue. I refer not to a dialogue in this chamber alone but to a dialogue that is carried on across the country as a result of the debates in this chamber. That is what makes this chamber important; not the fact that we argue here back and forth but that we express ideas which are reproduced in the press and propagated on radio and television. Out of this comes public discussion in various communities, and there is a feedback to members of parliament. Little by little a consensus is developed. That is what democracy is all about.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If discussion is curtailed and we reach the point where one day is allotted to the report stage, for instance, and the house is facing five or ten amendments, I ask private members who is going to do the talking? The talking will be done by the minister in charge of the bill, the Leader of the Opposition, the leaders of the other parties, and then time will just about be gone. When will the backbenchers be given a chance to say anything? They will have no chance at all. Rule 75c will choke off private members and in most instances will deny them the oppostunity to express the views of their constituents.
I say that this situation will be very dangerous. The very essence of democracy is the right to speak and to be heard, to argue and to debate. Whether we agree among ourselves is not important; what is important is that we all have the right to express our views. Voltaire said this a long time ago but it is still true. Writing to a man with whom he violently disagreed, he said: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That is what we are fighting for here-the right for people to speak. We may not agree with what they say, but their right to express themselves is an inalienable part of our democracy.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my growing experience in this house continues to be very rewarding, but perhaps the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Doug-
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization las), demonstrate best of all the theatrical skill that can be developed after many years' experience in this chamber. One could scarcely detect, in light of the pontifical attitude that he displayed in his remarks about good will and co-operation among the members of the house, that he came fresh from having to rap on the wrist one member of his party, the obstreperous member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who only a few moments ago on his own initiative and in that "spirit of good will and co-operation" that the last speaker was boasting about, frustrated what had apparently been an agreement reached by all parties in the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, it was not frustrated at all.


James Alexander Jerome: I say to the leader of that party-


William Arnold Peters: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming is rising on a question of privilege.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, at no time was I instructed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to make any retraction; neither did he suggest in the first place that I should give my agreement. I believe, and I have always believed, that members of parliament should make up their own minds. When certain matters were brought to my attention I withdrew my objection, and if the hon. member had been in this chamber he would have known that this matter was taken care of in another manner.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine what it is that I am supposed to have witnessed since I have been here all afternoon.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: The measure was passed, that is all.


James Alexander Jerome: The hon. member who just raised a question of privilege stood in his place and frustrated an agreement that had been reached. He withdrew and entered later, the party having somehow managed to control him. This is why we are discussing this subject at this time.
Other experiences as a member of the standing committee have taught me that when members of the house speak of good will and co-operation among members it is proper to heed the advice of one of the senior members of the committee given to me at the

beginning of the deliberations, first, of the special committee on procedure and, latterly, of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. The advice was that good will that is spoken of in that way rapidly vanishes when the prize of political advantage looms on the horizon.
If there is any doubt about that let me quickly move to a discussion of the attitude of all members of that committee to the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in regard to rule 75b. I was pleased and delighted to hear his answer to a question that was put yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who asked whether or not it was the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it was necessary to include in rule 75b a specific reference to the presence of the government house leader among the majority that the rule anticipates. I submit that his answer, to be found in yesterday's Hansard, gives a clear indication of the thought that was in the mind of every committee member when his proposal was discussed and then passed by the committee.
However, when the members of the opposition parties saw that there was a potential trap, that it looked as though, in the absence of that specific phrase, there might be an opportunity for three opposition members to try to gang up on the government house leader and to use the rule in this way, how quickly did they rise to the occasion! I might even quote the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who in his remarks welcomed back the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the ground, he said, that the right hon. gentleman was here to bail out the government house leader from the trap he had walked into. "Trap" was the word he used.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It was the Prime Minister who
used the word first.


James Alexander Jerome: I hasten to say that I do not give hon. members opposite credit for setting that trap. I do not think they even saw any difficulty until it was pointed out to them. But as soon as it was pointed out to them they descended upon it and are now cherishing the point to the death. That shows how fast good will and co-operation in this house, at least in the eyes of a fledgling member, can dissolve in the face of political advantage. This is precisely what was taking place-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?
July 9, 1969


James Alexander Jerome: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member say whether he thinks there is any possibility of rule 75b being brought into play, worded as it now is, unless the minister representing the government is part of the majority?


James Alexander Jerome: No. I agree with that
interpretation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then what is all the talking about?


James Alexander Jerome: We are talking about the fact that the house leader for the official opposition took precisely the opposite view from that just stated by the hon. member. I completely agree with the hon. member's view. I think his is a proper and sensible interpretation of the rule.
That was the atmosphere in which the rule was discussed in the committee. The rule was inserted into the committee's report. But the minute the difficulty to which I have referred became apparent, all opposition members who have spoken, as did the hon. member, of good will and co-operation dropped the expression like a hot potato because they thought they had an opportunity to gain political advantage over the government. This is what happens to this kind of good will and co-operation in the face of political advantage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit one more question? If the hon. member is satisfied that there is no difficulty about the rule, then why all the panic?


James Alexander Jerome: The reason I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, is that what we are dealing with here is whether or not it is necessary to leave in the hands of the government an instrument for resolving our difficulties when good will and co-operation break down. If anyone thinks that good will and co-operation do not break down quickly, then I suggest they are being totally unrealistic. That is why we need rule 75c: where good will and co-operation break down, the situation must be resolved.
To highlight this aspect of the discussion and to put the matter in its proper perspective, I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the last speaker said that we are talking here about one per cent of our business. In giving examples of the kind of difficulties that could be encountered, the hon. member listed three or four items that I think
Procedure and Organization are so ridiculous as to be absurd. However, it was the nature of his argument, and when you do not have a strong argument, Mr. Speaker, the best thing to do is to try to reduce it to absurd and ridiculous terms. The same can be said of last Christmas, when instead of facing the real issues we talked about one-man meetings of the house leaders-a reduction to absurdity.
In order to maintain a proper perspective, we are talking about the application of rule 75c to about one per cent of the business of the house. If I have misquoted the hon. member who last spoke, then I stand to be corrected.


An hon. Member:: Then why do you need
the rule?


James Alexander Jerome: May I explain why I believe the government needs precisely this power. One of the difficulties about debate and discussion in this chamber is that all hon. members have a tendency to look inward, and they fail to step back and look at the entire problem before them in perspective. Certainly when we concentrate our attention on one subsection of one rule we tend not to see the ramifications of the entire picture.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
One manifestation of our concentration is that we fail to appreciate that we have in this matter a long-standing impasse. We are not talking about the elimination of obstruction by opposition parties and anyone who says we are is simply confusing the issue. We are not talking here about something that is designed to eliminate obstruction. We are not trying to whip members of the opposition into line. We have come to the point of realizing that it is a good idea to have meetings of house leaders and that it is a good idea for them to agree on how debates should be limited. Let us remember, therefore, that substantially we agree that proposed rules 75a and 75b are a good idea. These rules do say that there must be time allocation before the debate has begun. They contain good ideas and there is nothing reprehensible about them. When the hon. member stands up and says with tears in his eyes that the nation will never stand for the allocation of time in advance of a debate he is losing sight of the fact that his party promoted and supported the provisions of proposed rules 75a and 75b.
[DOT] (4:40 pjn.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
July 9. 1969

Procedure and Organization


James Alexander Jerome: The nub of the situation is this. Having started on the road of allocation of time for debate, the opposition feels that the ultimate control of how time shall be allocated ought to rest with it. Our simple position is that we think that control ought to rest with the government. If we have arrived at an impasse because of our positions, by all means let us conclude our discussion, cast our ballots and suffer the political consequences or rewards that may flow from our decisions, as the case may be.
When members of the opposition speak about resolving these matters by consent they surely cannot deny that the withholding of such consent amounts to a veto. If one looks at the proceedings of the United Nations Security Council, one will see that that body proceeds on the basis of consent. Where that consent is withheld, that is tantamount to a veto. We hear little about consent operating in the United Nations and we hear much more about the veto. The nub of this issue, therefore, is not obstruction.
Where is the ultimate control here going to rest, Mr. Speaker? Is it to rest with the opposition, which is what it wants and all it will tolerate, or is it going to rest with the government, which has been given a majority by the people of this nation and which, I submit, should be entitled to submit its program, have it considered and rest on its majority strength, and if that is not the right thing for it to do it can face the voters at the next election. That is the way the country is supposed to be run.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not recall that when the hon. member for Nanalmo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was discussing the one per cent he was talking about cases with respect to closure? Has the hon. member forgotten the existence of Standing Order 33?


James Alexander Jerome: I have not forgotten Standing Order 33, but I say it is time we got into something that is a little more sensible-programming our time for debate in advance. This is something entirely different. I cannot help feeling that the opposition is inclined to accept the idea of having programming in advance but is not inclined to let go of old traditions because it feels that difficulties may arise. I cannot help comparing the position of the opposition-and I cannot claim originality for this thought-with that of the Australian who was very pleased with his new boomerang but who could not bring himself to throw his old boomerang away.

I think the second manifestation of the opposition's inability to see the whole picture here stems from its failure to grasp the fact that this particular rule change is part of a composite series of rule changes which will enable the government, as part of its program, to change its way of doing business in this house. Let us make no mistake about this. There are hon. members opposite who said, when the Ralliement Creditiste day after day kept talking about the question of conscience and how that was related to the proposed changes in the Criminal Code, that in debates of that kind this new concept ought to be invoked. I say that we ought to divide here and now, because the kind of parliament I want to see is the kind of parliament to which Canadians can come and instead of saying, "My God, is this the way you have been doing things for 100 years", say, "I am glad to see how efficiently and diligently parliamentary work is being done." That is the kind of parliament I want and I would not hesitate in going to my constituents and saying that is the kind of parliament I want.
We are promoting these rule changes because, as other rule changes have been salutary, so we think these will be. Opposition members welcomed the changes in the standing committee structure which enabled all members of the house in a very real way to take part in the work of the standing committees. Every single member of the house now enjoys the opportunity of participating in a much more meaningful way in the machinations of government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good word.


James Alexander Jerome: The individual member can now question the minister when estimates are being discussed or when legislation is before a committee. He now has the opportunity to examine and cross-examine a wide range of witnesses who may deal with any relevant subject matter before the committee. I think every hon. member will agree that those rule changes enable him to participate in a much belter way in the affairs of this house.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Another aspect which appears to have been forgotten by hon. members opposite is that the funds which were allocated to opposition members for research assistance have given them a better opportunity to anticipate in a very meaningful way the deliberations of this house and its committees. The manifestation
July 9, 1969	COMMONS
of the use of those funds for research assistance is often different with various members. In one case it may take one house leader back to the days of the Colonial Laws Validity Act and in another case it may give assistance in writing a letter to a constituent. One must at the same time realize that these rules are part of an over-all program to try to modernize the way of doing business in this house.
If those hon. members opposite who have participated in this debate say we do not need modernization and programming, they should fire away and say so to the public of this nation. I say we need programming and modernization very badly and we need it now. If hon. members have a role to play in pursuing a given subject matter, a given department, a phase or activity of the house or government and are required to attend a particular committee, when that debate is called in the House of Commons, on estimates or any other aspect of our work, if the time is programmed in advance so the number of speakers from any party who can rise is limited, for example, to one frontbencher and one backbencher from that committee who has become knowledgeable and specialized in that particular field, I have no hesitation in saying that is a step forward.
The stand taken by the Creditiste party on the abortion amendments to the Criminal Code, which was repeated many times, could have been adequately handled by one or two of their members. I have no hesitation in saying we wasted time that could have been used on very important legislation. It is folly to carry out business in that way.


Mr. Benjamin:: What legislation was held up?


William Arnold Peters: We are going to be here for two weeks, so let's get on with it.


James Alexander Jerome: If the time in this chamber is limited, what will happen is that the length of the debate will diminish but the quality will increase. That is what we should strive to do. We should arrange our affairs so that the paramount feature of the debate is its quality and not its length. I personally do not feel this nation is being served by a debate featuring only its length. That is what took place in that filibuster that has been talked about so much. It was a performance that had as its focus of attention one singular point, its length. I cannot feel that the needs of the nation were in any way served by that particular performance. The sooner we move to eliminate that kind of thing and require a
Procedure and Organization debate to be meaningful and to the point, the better off we will be.
The tragic manifestation of our inability to look at the composite picture of this problem is in respect of the youth of our country who have been referred to so frequently. I said this in December when talking about the rule changes proposed at that time and I say it again. It has been mentioned here this afternoon that if democracy does not rest in this institution and if resentment and opposition cannot be expressed in words, they will be expressed in violence. I think that is a very important point. It is capable of many interpretations.
The youth of our country are a tremendously powerful force in our nation. They are protesting and demonstrating in public. There are riots and insurrection-in our universities. When that kind of performance takes place, we must wake up to the fact that the youth of our country have the power to change our society and way of life. In addition to possessing this power, they also possess the inclination.
I believe we all respect this institution. If we do, we must give the youth of our country the sense that change can take place here and that we can keep pace with the needs of our nation. If we do not do that, their expression will be one of protest against this chamber, as well as disinterest and hostility.
We have a solemn duty to encourage the youth of our country to participate in the parliamentary way of life. Before we can do that we must show them that this is a place where they can make a meaningful contribution. This must be a place that will command their respect and attention. This is not a place which simply has roots in the past that will never die, an institution built solely on tradition, but a place where we are striving to do a good job of administering the affairs of the citizens of our country.
We have the opportunity to demonstrate that this is not a parliament that intends at any cost to preserve and cling to those anachronistic traditions which tie our hands and hold us back from carrying out the business of the nation. We have an opportunity to demonstrate the revolutionary spirit present in the youth of our country today. That has been an essential ingredient of every great nation. It is present in the youth of our nation and we do not have to look very far to see it.
That revolutionary spirit has a place here and we are fooling ourselves if we think the youth will not demonstrate this spirit when
July 9. 1969

Procedure and Organization they are dissatisfied with the institutions of our country. We must be prepared to say that the business of the country is being carried out in a proper, meaningful and intelligent way and that the parliamentary process can and will exercise good judgment and control without giving the appearance of senility or petrification from age.
We have the opportunity to demonstrate that this house is not just a haven for orators. We should not insist on operating under the terms and conditions popular in the days of the Colonial Laws Validity Act which, I might say, does not mean a colonial damn to anyone who voted me into this House of Commons.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Why don't you dispose of it then and change the constitution?


James Alexander Jerome: One might anticipate the difficulty we would have in changing the constitution when we are having this kind of difficulty making a change in the rules. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that this House of Commons is not merely something from the past but is and will continue to be the heartbeat of our nation, worthy of the zeal and talent of the young people of our country.
I plead with members opposite to face the real dangers in this regard of their resistance to intelligent change. I plead with them to embrace these changes and look for more. Instead of staying on this point, we should move on to considering whether proceedings in committees should be such that freedom can be exercised to make changes for or against the government. We should discuss whether the people of this country are better served when governments can be defeated and put out of office in a year or two, or whether the government should be allowed to carry out its program in four or five years. These are changes we should be speaking about. We should embrace these present changes and accept them as being the first step. We should look for many more changes so we will always be able to ensure that parliament will remain a source of pride, not just to retrospective historians but to all Canadians, especially the youth of our country who, thank God, do not have their eyes constantly on the past but on the future.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the speech just made by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) cries out for a reply.


An hon. Member:: From you?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: From me, and I am going to tell him a few facts of life. The great plea that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) have made on behalf of proposed rule 75c is that the government wants to program its business. How can it possibly program its legislation when nobody knows what its legislative program is? What kind of programming is it when the government puts an item on the order paper one day and wants it passed the next? What kind of programming is it when bills like the water act are promised for a year and a half but never appear on the order paper? How can parliament support the government in programming its legislation when items are put on the order paper but never proceeded with, when promised bills are never put on the order paper, and when other things which are promised never appear in parliament so that we may consider them?
What kind of programming is it when committees report after due deliberation and their reports lie on the order paper without concurrence being moved in them? What kind of programming is it when government decisions are made and announced in the house even when committees are still in session deliberating the subject matter of those announcements? How on earth can the government say in these circumstances that it wants support for programming its legislation?
There are other circumstances to consider. We have an order paper. What is on it of importance that still remains to be passed? Nothing at all. Everything of importance was duly considered and passed in this parliament. But there were lots of things in the Speech from the Throne that never appeared on the order paper. Is that the kind of programming we want to support? This is nonsense. The whole question of programming is an invalid excuse for putting the opposition out of business.
What the government really wants is programmed disorganization. Members of the government want to be able to do what they want when they want, but they do not want to tell the house anything about it. They do not want us to know what they are planning. They do not want the public to know what they are planning, because they might change their minds before their plan appears in final form.
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization
I cite as an example something I am keenly-interested in, the Canada Water Act, which we have been asking about for three years. I cannot blame this government and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for all the delay. He has been in office a little over a year, and that is the amount of delay he has caused. But the previous Liberal government was responsible for the rest.
I am informed that the water act has been revised two or three times in the departments concerned. Cabinet ministers cannot agree among themselves on what should be in it. There is a feud among the various departments as to which will have authority in administering it. Now the attitude of the government is, "After three years when we have our quarrels all settled you fellows must dispose of this thing in 24 hours." That is the kind of programming the government wants, and that is what we are not going to give it.
Much more can be said about programming but now I wish to deal with something else. It is fairly obvious that planning is the purpose of 75c in the mind of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome). But he destroyed his own argument because he said 75c will be used only one per cent of the time. Then he went on to add, "We want to use it so that we can program our whole legislative program for a year." What can one do with an argument like that? It has no validity. Programming is the poorest excuse for the enactment of rule 75c.
The position we are in now is a pretty fair example of the kind of programming the government has in mind. The procedure committee made a report. That report was substantially the same as the motion put on the order paper by the President of the Privy Council, which he subsequently allowed to stand in priority but for some reason or other has not withdrawn. I wonder whether he intends to withdraw it as soon as we have disposed of this item one way or another. Certainly it has no advantage just in lying on the order paper.
What happened was that the actual wording of the committee report was not just what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) liked. I do not know why he did not like it because he was the one who personally pushed it through the committee. I shall not go into the internal proceedings of the committee as the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) did, but it is quite clear that proposed rule 75b, which the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) said was brought on by the government, was actually proposed by someone else. Those of us who
were on the committee know who that was. It was not a government proposition at all, but the government eventually bought it, put it in and tacked on 75c to go with it. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) then pushed it all through the committee with a majority vote, all the opposition members voting against it. But as I say the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) did not like the exact wording in it and he did not want the bother of referring it back to^the committee for reconsideration. He said, "We have got a majority in the house. Why should we worry about the committee? We will just put an item on the order paper and jam it through."
As I mentioned on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, it is easier and faster to blot out the opposition here in this chamber in one nice little motion than to introduce the committee report, send it back to the committee, and later bring it back into the house again. All I am doing is showing what the government is prepared to do if it has the power. This warns us that if the government gets rule 75c it will use it, properly or improperly. I do not restrict my remarks to the present government. We are putting a rule into our Standing Orders for parliament, not for this government and not for this opposition, and we have to be constantly alert that the government, no matter who it is, and the government house leader, no matter who he is, do not have the authority to wipe out the opposition and have legislative items, that they are particularly concerned about, pass without any discussion.
The hon. member for Sudbury said that what the people of this country want is to participate. That is what we want to do, Mr. Speaker; we want to participate in these legislative matters; we want to take part in the discussions and debates. If the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) wants to talk about the young people, and if he feels so dam happy about them I suggest he had better start looking around the country and see what has happened to young people in the past year, because they are not as great supporters of the Liberal party as they were a year ago. Great promises were made to them, but those promises have been ignored to the point where the young people no longer believe that the government wants them to participate. They no longer believe this. They see examples time after time of the government wanting merely to make its own proposals, go its own way and not care who participates.

Procedure and Organization [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The very simple fact is that this is the place in which the public should participate. Fortunately we have young people in this parliament. There is no one under 21 years of age because that is where the line is drawn. But we have one who is 22 years of age and we have others who are in their twenties. These young people are here to participate. Will the government give them an opportunity to participate or will they be cut off?
I think the whole program that has been put forward by the government in respect of this rule which we are considering is not one that would permit reasonable parliamentary participation by the people of Canada. Fundamentally that is the reason we intend to stay here to oppose it. This is the only power an opposition has. We always lose. We lose every vote when it comes to a division. We might as well be somewhere else because it does not matter what I say, what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) or anybody else says.
We are not likely to change the opinion of any members opposite and even if we do we will not change their vote because they will support the government. So we lose every time there is a vote. The only defence the opposition has is to prevent a vote in cases where it is unjust to proceed with the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I hope we can prevent a vote by carrying on an orderly debate. I think we can do this because we have plenty to talk about. We have plenty of speakers and we have plenty of people in the opposition parties who feel there is a principle involved here which is being downgraded. I refer to the principle that parliament is a place where public opinion should be aired, where discussions should be held and where the public is informed through the medium of the press, radio and television so that they will know what is being said and can form their own conclusions.
On this particular point it was most discouraging last night for anyone who watched the C.B.C. news to find that there was no mention whatever of this debate.


An hon. Member:: What-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) or perhaps some other hon. member said-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman).

DEBATES	juiy g>
jggg


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If he said that, I think it is a disgrace-"What difference does it make' there is nothing worth talking about."


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I believe the record will show I did not make any such remark and have not made any remarks since the hon. member began his speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As my colleague said, perhaps it was the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). If it was not he then perhaps he could stand up and say so.


Mr. Deachman:: I was not even listening to the hon. member.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: He generally talks without thinking anyway. In any case there is something here worth talking about. If the C.B.C. does not know this then they had better make some changes in their news broadcasting system because there is a principle involved here. The feature item last night was the resignation of the publicity director of the National Arts Centre. That was considered to be much more important than the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) backed down in his effort to bulldoze and overrule the Standing Committee on Procedure of this house to the point where parliament was being downgraded. Maybe there are people who do not think this is important. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) did not seem to think it was. He seemed to think our main business is to get the program through. I do not know whether he said what the program is, but I can assure him that there is more involved than that. If the other news media can carry this particular debate as a matter of importance then the C.B.C. ought to wake up. I am not one of those who stand up daily to criticize the C.B.C. It has a tough job to do. I think, however, when a mistake has been made by the C.B.C. it should be pointed out. I think in this instance it has made a mistake. I am not suggesting they should report this speech, but there have been a few good ones today. I believe the C.B.C. could at least mention the fact that a good principle is being debated.
I should like to get down to the matter of rule 75c. There has been a good deal of discussion about what it really means. How many days of debate will be allowed if 75c becomes effective and how many days of elapsed time will be involved? I think this in a sense is an academic question because it is too short a time under any circumstances for
July 9, 1969

debate to be limited on a particular item. I estimate that it could take 11 days from first reading to third reading. It could take 11 days to put a bill through. But as I read the rule, in those 11 days there would be three days of debate on the subject which would be assured. Those days would be the fourth day on which there would be one day allotted on second reading, one day which would be day 10 allotted on the report stage and one day which would be day 11 on the third reading stage. Those are the three days which would be provided for debate on any of the legislation which is so important and so earthshaking that the government wants to put it through without the public finding out what is going on.
The only reason the government wants this provision is so that it will be able to get legislation through which it feels the public will not like. They do not mind stretching out the time spent on bills which they feel are popular. The back-benchers on the government side can get up and talk about the good legislation. It is the bad legislation which the government wants to ram through. It is our business to stop that and we must. There might be a day at the committee stage. A day is allotted but no one knows what might happen in the committee. So we may have three or four days on which there will be debate on a bill on which closure has been used under rule 75c.
There are some immutable laws in this parliament. They are immutable because no matter how many governments try to override them the attempt is never successful. If they are overriden it is only for a short period of time. One immutable law is that there must be co-operation and negotiation on both sides of the house in order to accomplish anything at all. There must be co-operation. Things cannot be done by closure. There is a second one. Undertakings and understandings cannot be broken without adverse consequences. These are the rules I would commend to members on the government side who may feel that perhaps the opposition is dragging its feet.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is impossible to put through legislation immediately if the opposition does not want it to go through. Remember this because it is immutable. If you do not find a loophole in one place you can find one in another. This is where the government is making its greatest mistake, in trying to force rule 75c on us. If it

Procedure and Organization does so against the wish of the opposition it may be assured it will not get any co-operation in respect of other legislation. I am not making a threat; I am merely stating the position of the house. This is a very difficult thing to define or envisage. One must be here a while to be able to recognize a mood. If the mood is bad it does not matter what rules the government may have; it will not get its legislation put through. This is why I urge the government to be reasonable.
The opposition has gone along with rule 75a and 75b with some hesitation, but 75c is much too strong for us to accept.


Robert Muir: It is
dictatorial.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to point out as an example to hon. members who have come to this house in the last year what can really happen when an opposition sets out to stop a legislative program. There was a legislative program on the order paper between the years 1958 and 1962. I was sitting on the opposite side of the house when the government had a majority of 208 members, yet there were four or five members sitting on this side on the front benches, all now departed from this place, who held up the legislative program and brought the government down at the expense of the country. This indicates how short our term here is, and I have in mind Messrs. Pearson, Pickers-gill, Martin and Chevrier. They managed to hold up that legislative program.
I am not citing this as the most terrible example I have ever had the misfortune to sit and watch, but I do know this can happen and has happened in the past. I quote this example to show hon. members on the other side that it would be well to remember that an opposition has a duty to let pass in parliament what it considers valid and oppose legislation that it considers bad. This does not necessarily mean there are more members who agree with the legislation than disagree.
I have had the good fortune to sit on both sides of the house, and know that most of the government's legislation comes from within the depths of the government services. It comes to the ministers, then to cabinet and hon. members on the government side go along with it or complain. Occasionally they are successful in changing the legislation. The legislative program itself is not necessarily supported by a majority merely because it comes from that side of the house. It may be
July 9, 1969

Procedure and Organization that in many cases the majority of members in the house feel a legislative measure is wrong.
Very often we on this side of the house must defend members on the government side who do not agree with a certain legislative measure because they must sit mute in their places. We have seen a terrible example of this during the past week. An hon. member who was chairman of a committee was being compromised daily but had to sit mute in his seat because he was a member of the government party. It was only because the opposition on a united basis managed to get the government to change its attitude that he was relieved of a duty to resign his seat.
Let me mention some of the things which have happened during this session in proof of what I suggest can happen on a co-operative basis, and in proof of my suggestion that rule 75c will be of no particular benefit in the over-all picture and very damaging in the narrow picture. I have here today's order paper in which is listed the government orders adopted during this session. This is issue No. 185, so presumably we have been sitting for 185 days. Listed on pages 8 to 17 are those government orders adopted at this session of parliament. There are 116, and that does not include various items referred to committees as shown on pages 12 to 15. The opposition permitted, if I may use that word-perhaps allowed is a better word-116 government orders, to go through with debate in some cases and without debate in other cases. What will the government do if it puts through this closure measure in an attempt to jam everything through parliament? Under rule 75c I suggest we will have to multiply the number of days to put through as many legislative measures by four. This would increase our sitting days to approximately 450, or approximately two years of continuous sitting.
I am merely trying to prove that you cannot successfully proceed with a legislative program, even if you know what it is, by pressure. If an opposition takes it upon itself to force the government into using a rule such as 75c on each of its legislative items a government could not get through a quarter of what we have accomplished so far this session. What I am trying to point out is that you do not successfully pass legislative items in parliament by using a heavy hand. This has never been the case and I have seen this on several occasions.

Let me close my remarks by pointing out that the proposed rule 75c is too severe for the opposition to accept. We are prepared to co-operate in respect of any legislative program. We have co-operated to a great extent during this session. Hon. members might ask what we intend to do next session. They will have to wait to find out, and a good deal will depend on what happens with this proposed rule 75c.
We have had a good legislative session and we have done a great deal of work. We in the opposition are prepared to co-operate if we know what the legislative program is, but how can the house leaders sit down and decide what they are going to do at certain times without letting us know about the government's intention? We now have a reasonably programmed timetable. New rules were brought in last December, and other rules have evolved over the last ten years. This has assisted us somewhat in dealing with certain legislative matters including the debate in reply to the throne speech, our consideration of the estimates, legislation and so forth. In this regard the opposition has co-operated. It is up to the government to decide what legislation it intends to bring in, and it is up to the government to persuade the opposition from time to time that this legislation is necessary.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We are prepared to accept a reasonable arrangement for the orderly conduct of business. Rule 75a is reasonable. Rule 75b, if the majority of the parties of this house agree, can be acted upon. But I am going to call on the government now to have its spokesman stand up and advise us whether it is prepared to withdraw the limitation on the committee stage, for example. There was an intimation in what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said yesterday that perhaps the one day in committee stage was unreasonable, that perhaps the time could be extended. All right, that is a good place to start because the committees need time to consider these matters.
Is the government prepared to increase the minimum number of days spent in debating a bill? If so, I would like to hear them say so. Is the government prepared to set an over-all time during which any piece of legislation may be passed? I think it is reasonable to expect them to say what it is because yesterday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said that the way things go in the house, it will take three to four weeks to get
July 9. 1969
through any bill under rule 75c. If that is what he believes, is he prepared to accept an amendment that no bill shall pass in less than four weeks from the time it is first introduced? Many measures go through here in a day and many go through in two days, but if it is a piece of legislation to which we object, surely the government should be prepared to give us a month in which to debate it. These are the sort of things that could perhaps get us out of here some time before we are due to come back.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before the hon. member takes his seat I should like to ask him to clarify his last point. He said that the opposition would like a month in which to debate a piece of legislation. I take it he means a month of elapsed time, not debating time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Oh, yes, the proposal which I understood the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to make yesterday was that it should take at least a month of elapsed time. I do not think we would ever suggest that we want to debate any item for a month.


Mr. Nowlan:: Except this rule.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There are always exceptions. But certainly the suggestion I am making is not that we should have a month's debate. I am suggesting that we should have a reasonable number of days on any item and a month of elapsed time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How many days would the hon. member consider reasonable, bearing in mind that there must be a general rule relating to the time for debate of bills?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The house leader has three opposite numbers here with whom he can consult and I am sure they are anxious to consult with him. I do not happen to be one of them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would find it interesting to hear the hon. member's views on this question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You have heard them.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, debates on matters such as this always bring out interesting aspects of the house during the process of debate. Even if members do take a rather long time in debate sometimes because of a lack of will to co-operate and make arrangements, perhaps it may be a good thing-every cloud has a silver lining-
Procedure and Organization because we at times learn some quite unexpected things from debates.
I noted with some interest as, I have observed, a number of hon. members did this afternoon, the remarks of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome). He is a new member of the house and apparently a very promising one. I take it he is expressing the views of the new bright young men in the Liberal party who are represented in the house. If not, perhaps members on the other side would correct me in that regard. But I was certainly most interested in his theories regarding parliamentary government and how it should be run. For a while I thought I was listening to a speech which I had heard before. I tried to search my memory to discover where I had heard it. It was not a speech of Joseph Goebbels or Benito Mussolini, but after a while I realized where I had heard it and I was quite surprised. It was a speech I heard as quite a young man in the days when I was attending university. The speech was made over the radio-we did not have television at that time-by Ann Morrow Lindbergh in the late 1930's. It was called "The Wave of the Future". She spoke about what the young people must look forward to and what they must expect from the government.
People of my generation listened to that speech with interest because the Lindbergh-family was very famous. Charles Lindbergh had achieved many things in the field of aviation, they had an unfortunate family tragedy, and they were also mixed up in political theories regarding the German-American Bund in the 1930's. That speech made by a member of the Lindbergh family was the closest thing I could recall to what I heard from the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), except that it was more moderate than the views he expressed. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I will have an opportunity to read Hansard tomorrow, but I would be rather upset, as I think other hon. members might be, if he was in fact expressing the views of the bright new members of the Liberal party.
So far as the motion before us now is concerned, may I say that one should never impute motives to others for a very good reason, because no one really knows what goes on in the skulls of hon. members opposite or indeed of anyone else. So one can only draw conclusions from evidence and facts. It seems to be a reasonable conclusion to most people that in view of the timing of this debate there was not much good faith exercised in bringing up this matter at this time.



Procedure and Organization As has been pointed out by the other hon. members, we ran into the same situation last Christmas. This matter was brought up just when everybody was getting ready to go home for Christmas. I hesitate to use the word "vacation" because all hon. members know very well that when they return home it is not much of a vacation since so many people wait to see one with requests, but at least all members were getting ready to change the locale of their work.
What was brought in was called rule 16a. After a few days' discussion some arrangement was made to refer the matter back for further discussion. I am not a member of the particular committee but I understand that there was discussion off and on during the winter and spring and then, just before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that parliament would adjourn for the summer months on June 27, the matter was brought up again. Everything else that the government wished to be done was cleared off the order paper and only this was left. It is like putting a carrot in front of a horse and telling it "you eat it and then you will get out to pas ure for the summer". This is the gimmick. They tried it at Christmas but it did not work. Again they are trying it now. Many people are on vacation. The press gallery is empty, and that is important to the government. Nevertheless, they are trying to see if this ruse will work again. This bit of gamesmanship is all right, I suppose.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There is another aspect I should like to bring before Your Honour, and it is one which I believe to be important. Under 75c as now proposed, the length of time during which a bill may be discussed in a standing committee can be laid down by the leader of the house. But suppose a complicated bill dealing with transport, the Criminal Code, finance or taxation is before a committee. Witnesses are, of course, asked to give their views. The other day in the Finance Committee the President of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Rasminsky, gave evidence. He was asked a very simple question, or at least it was a very short question. Being an eminent man in his field, Mr. Rasminsky attempted to give a complete answer, which took him 20 to 25 minutes. How can the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) or anyone else for that matter possibly figure out in advance how long it would take to examine adequately a complicated bill on taxation, justice, or what have you? Witnesses are invited to express

July 9, 1969
their opinions, and to say in advance that they should be limited to an hour or an hour and a half is utter nonsense. I do not know whether the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has thought of this aspect or not, but if he has not he should have done so.
There is another area which has been well dealt with by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), among other hon. members. What are we here for? One of the purposes of this place is to allow opportunities for elected members to express their views and those of their constituents. It does not matter whether they are from Montreal or Toronto or Prince Edward Island or British Columbia. Every member here has a right to express himself on matters which concern his conscience, his constituents, and so on. This may not be very interesting to members from Montreal or Toronto who dominate the government party, but members from western Canada, a region which is now facing problems in connection with the sale of grain, or members from Cape Breton, which is having trouble with the coal industry, have a right to make those difficulties known. It may not be of much interest to members from Toronto or Montreal, but it is of great interest to people in the parts of Canada which are directly concerned. It should not be necessary to remind people of this, but obviously it is.
Everyone agrees that the government must not be unnecessarily impeded in the discharge of its business. The leader of the N.D.P. put it very well this afternoon, I thought. The whole question here is now to strike a balance between a reasonably expeditious conduct of the government's program on the one hand, and opportunities for members who are really interested in these things to express themselves. As several hon. members have said this afternoon, this is best done by agreement. In parliament as everywhere else, you cannot do business by forcing people or by threatening them at gunpoint or by using rules such as 75c. You can bring in all the rules you like but if there is not agreement to get things done, ways can be found of frustrating them.
I have not seen much evidence of business being held up in the present session. Some have suggested that members of the Credi-tiste party did so. That is not my opinion. They felt very deeply about some of the matters dealt with in the Criminal Code, perhaps more deeply than did others, but they were matters of conscience and it is understandable
July 9, 1969	COMMONS
they should have taken advantage of the opportunity to express their views.
In any event, why should there be such haste all of a sudden? When parliament is dealing with moral questions such as abortion, homosexuality or gambling, or with income tax matters which will be around in one form or another in years to come, what difference does it make whether a debate takes three days or five days? Really, there is none at all except that some members on the government side are anxious to get things done, or to get measures passed so that they can build up their image. As one old fellow is supposed to have said when he saw people hurrying to get things done in a rush: Why the hurry; it will all be the same in a hundred years? It will not make much difference in the end if a debate takes five days or six days or seven days, especially if it provides an opportunity for someone from some part of the country to express a viewpoint which he believes to be important. I know this is annoying to people from the Montreal and Toronto areas. They do not particularly want to hear from people outside those areas. I know. I see those members laughing and scratching over there. That shows the regard they have for this house.
We might ask ourselves exactly why the government has seen fit to bring in the present motion at this time. The question has been asked by other hon. members and I do not wish to be repetitious. Why was it thought necessary? Under Standing Order 33 they have power to institute closure if there is unnecessary obstruction. In my view there has been pretty good co-operation from this side of the house in getting things arranged with regard to the government's program, whatever that may be. The only reason I can think of is that there must be a genuine desire on the part of the government to emasculate parliament. I do not think the triumvirate which runs this country-I mean the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier)-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The troika.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), to judge from their writings and speeches, have any great regard for the parliamentary system of government.
They appear to have a much greater regard for the presidential system, either that of

Procedure and Organization France or of the United States, whose system derives from that of France. It is a matter of viewpoint. It might be that the presidential system is the better one. I do not happen to think so, but it is a legitimate point of view. I can understand why those three gentlemen, who are of French cultural background, would prefer it. After all, the parliamentary system of Canada is an Anglo-Saxon institution and it has never worked very well in areas of French culture-in France, for example. Perhaps this is why they would be in favour of changing to a presidential system of the kind established in the United States. But in that case, why not tell us so and let the matter be debated openly?
The Anglo-Saxon parliamentary system operates on a pragmatic, ad hoc basis. Of course it does. It is intended to deal with human beings, not to run in accordance with strict rules or with computerlike precision. I can understand rule 75c being put forward by the leader of the house; it is the kind of rule which would fit into an application of the presidential theory. Everything must fit into its little slot. The government must be able to tell how long everything will take-half an hour for this, an hour for that, and so on. It is just the kind of thing which would fit into a cabinet system of government. I think it should be made clear to us whether this is what is being sought to be done. I think, on the other hand, one can assume that it is not part of an over-all plan that the triumvirate wishes to impose upon Canada. Perhaps one can express the less charitable view that the house leader is plain greedy for power. I would not want to think that for one moment, of course, but that view has been expressed by others.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
What makes me curious about this is that the house leader has suggested that rule 75c is necessary, though it may only be brought into use in about one per cent of the cases, in order to arrange the government program. If that is the case, it would not be needed very often. This makes me very suspicious. Perhaps one should not be suspicious, but in view of what has been happening in the house during the first session of this new parliament one cannot help but be suspicious.
The remainder of my remarks will be devoted to some of the reasons why I think members on this side of the house, regardless of to which opposition party they belong,

July 9, 1969
The Royal Assent
have every reason to be exceedingly suspi- to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal cious. At this point may I adjourn the debate, assent to the following bills:



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased
An Act to provide incentives for the development of productive employment opportunities in regions of Canada determined to require special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment.
An Act to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic Region.
An Act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada.
An Act respecting The Canada North-west Land Company (Limited).
An Act respecting Boy Scouts of Canada and to incorporate L'Association des Scouts du Canada.
An Act to amend the Patent Act.
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
It being ten minutes after six the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 10, 1969