1969-07-22

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Andre Forlin (Lolbiniere):: Pursuant to Standing Order 17 (2), I have given notice to the Chair of a question of privilege I intended to raise at the beginning of the sitting, following the extremely serious statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night on the C.B.C.'s French radio and television network, that is that members of the House of Commons are rather old fogies.
He stated moreover that parliament is an antiquated institution and on the whole, his statement suggested that he feels nothing good is done by parliament and that it is only a waste of time for which the members of the opposition are responsible.
To make it worse, the injustice results from the fact that the C.B.C.'s French network was not fair enough to ask for an account from a member of the opposition to counteract the Prime Minister's gratuitous and extremely serious statements.
In my opinion it is sheer dishonesty, a breach of the members' privileges and of the right to information of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of my question of privilege.
In view of the implications of the application of closure in accordance with standing order 33, considering that closure is seldom resorted to and that most often its application is odious, considering that those who resort to it must, from a parliamentary standpoint, be held responsible for the consequences, and considering that the people of Canada have a right to get accurate information, I say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole matter affects the right of the people of Canada to such accurate and fair information.
Indeed, Canadians must be informed of the fact that the opposition members are doing an honest job, not as dotards or simpletons but as responsible men. I suggest that the privileges of the people are being dangerously affected. It is the responsibility of every member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to cast some light on this subject in order to bring the Right Hon. Prime Minister to express his opinions more specifically in respect of the disparagement campaign he has undertaken against the supreme, democratic institution which is parliament.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the rights and privileges of the representatives of Canadians in the House of Commons are not properly respected by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, we will have to conclude that this is a pure and simple belittling of parliament, made deliberately and with full awareness by the government, and I suggest this situation should not be tolerated by any parliamentarian worthy of the name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lot-biniere will appreciate that, even if the question of privilege were well taken-which I doubt-I must take into account the fact that no motion has been introduced in the house. The question is not debatable and I cannot rule in the circumstances on whether or not the question of privilege was in order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I willingly abide by your ruling which I think is sensible. But my purpose was to call the attention of the house to some unfortunate statements.
I should like however to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that every time a member of the Ralliement Creditiste rises to speak, the members on the other side, and particularly those immediately opposite, keep making a lot of noise, thus proving the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is right-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If this is any comfort to the hon. member, I can assure him that I am actually listening to him rather than to the interruption he just mentioned.
11500	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canadians must have special permission before they can take their horses into New York state to race. Of course, the additional assistance United States owners receive from the government of New York state for the purpose of improving their stock means that we stand small chance of competing with them favourably at the race tracks in that state.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to look upon this one per cent tax that is being charged on parimutuel betting in Canada as a subsidy to be allotted to an all-Canadian standard Bred Breeders Association to enable the owners in our Canadian racing stables to improve their stock. It is interesting to note that there are as many horses or stables, I am not sure which, at the moment in New York state alone as there are in the entire Dominion of Canada.
I have spoken to many standard bred breeders who are interested in this problem. They have a great deal invested in what is becoming a very popular Canadian sport. These people are interested in having an all-Canadian standard bred breeders association instead of having a Standard Bred Breeders Association along provincial lines. It is only in this way that they can become a large enough
DEBATES	July 22, 1969
organization to compete with the stables in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order,
please. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) called the attention of the minister to some discrimination that appeared to exist within the Canadian Trotting Association-we must not forget that this is a strictly private and independent association- the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) got in touch with the officials of that association in order to know if discrimination really existed. The minister asked that measures be taken in order to stop this as soon as possible and that an elaborate inquiry be made.
I think that the minister will receive before long an answer to his request. He will then be pleased, as well as I, to communicate to the hon. member for Renfrew North any decision that might be reached.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
July 22, 1969	COMMONS
imports are not the only reason why the prices of eggs fluctuate. As a matter of fact, every year similar fluctuations occur depending on the time when the chickens that will become laying-hens get to the farmers.
This year, imports were equal to only 1 per cent of Canada's total egg production. On the other hand, 65 per cent of that 1 per cent was used for dehydration, for the freezing of eggs employed in food by-products which, if they were not manufactured here in Canada, would have to be imported.
For the information of the hon. member for Bellechasse, I should say that imports are slowly tapering off. In fact, during the month of June imports were as follows: first week, 9800 crates; second week: 4600 crates; third week, 3750 crates; last week, 1500 crates only. Moreover, in July, not a single dozen eggs was imported into Canada.
The department does not foresee other imports at the present time.
Besides, when prices climb a little too high, the manufacturers themselves buy in foreign countries. Production, in the province of Quebec, represents only from 65 to 70 per cent of consumption. Therefore if production is not large enough to meet the needs of consumption, we have to go elsewhere.
Since the farmers organization has now divided the province of Quebec in 16 areas, that indicates a tendency towards planning on the part of farmers-


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



SPORTS-TROTTING RACES-REFUSAL TO LICENCE LADY DRIVERS

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I am pleased to continue expanding the question which I asked on July 10 concerning the Canadian Trotting Association and the particular regulation which they have laid down in their by-laws.
The Canadian Trotting Association holds a federal charter and they report to the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I wish to repeat the question I asked at that time. It is as follows:
Would he ask the minister to investigate whether or not Rule 17, section 1, of the Canadian Trotting Association rules and regulations, 1969, is contrary to the Bill of Rights, in that it declares the association's refusal to licence lady drivers for extended meets, who have not previously held such a licence-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I had a particular person in mind, Mr. Speaker. She is Miss Sandra Clouthier of R. R. 6, Pembroke, in my constituency. This young lady, who is 18 years of age, is reported to be able to handle horses as well as any man. She comes from a large family. Her father owns between 90 and 100 race horses and she participates in the training of many of those horses.
As hon. members know, many of our young people are becoming more and more interested in all kinds of sports in this country. I think it is rather obnoxious that a by-law should be laid down to prevent them from participating in racing. Nevertheless, Miss Sandra Clouthier has been refused the privilege of racing on race tracks in Canada.
I wish to read Rule 17, section 1 found on page 69 of the by-laws of the Canadian Trotting Association. The preamble reads as follows:
No driver's licence valid for extended meetings will be granted to women drivers who have not held previously such a licence valid for extended meetings.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
There is no reference to fall fairs because fall fairs are not considered to be extended meetings. The fact remains that previously lady drivers were allowed to race in Canada, but recently it was decided that those ladies who held licences can renew their licences while those who have come into the field lately cannot. I feel this is a great disadvantage to young people in Canada such as Miss Clouthier. I should like to have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) make a deep survey into this situation to find out exactly on what legal basis, and on the basis of the Bill of Rights, an association can bring in such a discriminatory bylaw.
Another item connected with this question deals with the one half per cent tax placed on parimutuel betting at our race tracks which now has been raised to one per cent. I understand that originally this tax was supposed to go to the Standard Bred Breeders Associations throughout this country to help the various breeders improve their stock. I also understand that in New York State the tax is two per cent on parimutuel betting and that it goes to the racing stables by way of subsidy to assist the owners to improve their racing stock.
The people from New York state can bring their horses over here to Ontario tracks or to Montreal tracks. They can race here and take home Canadian purses, but I am told that
11498	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion month of April, 1,222,609 dozens were imported. In fact, during the first four months of 1969, 2,744,139 dozen eggs were imported.
On the other hand, we exported 140,204 dozens, which leaves a deficit of 2,603,908 dozens. The weighted average price obtained by the Canadian producer, which was 44 cents per dozen at the beginning of January 1969 has kept decreasing steadily and according to the federal statistics, it was less than 34 cents in May. The real situation is still more serious than is indicated by statistics.
Mr. Speaker, several producers have built quite modern henroosts with adequate equipment. They have invested rather large amounts and yet they see, month after month, their profits decreasing and the producer's profit margin is dwindling constantly.
I have here a comparative table on grade A eggs. In 1949, for instance, marketing costs amounted to 18.5 per cent and the producer's share to 81.5 per cent, while in 1966, marketing costs reached 30 per cent, and the producer's share was 70 per cent. It is estimated that in 1969, the situation is even worse.
A study was made to determine as exactly as possible the production cost of eggs on the farm, and this study-Cornwell'-has shown that the average cost of one dozen eggs for the farmer was 35.7 cents.
So, Mr. Speaker, it may be inferred from the study I just mentioned, that the hourly salary of the main producer has been established at 67 cents for an adult, and at 57 cents for the others.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
During our visit in the Maritime provinces, various briefs submitted to the committee on agriculture deal with this disastrous situation.
I think it is our duty to say that in the circumstances, but for reasons I am unaware of, the committee was unable to present a report to the house.
The producers' grievances are very serious, and they are right to complain because in the province of Quebec, for example, egg producers set up cooperatives to market their product. But regardless of the efforts of the directors, Mr. Speaker, successful production planning is impossible for them if the government does not protect them from massive imports.
I explained a minute ago the nature of those imports. The profits of certain categories of businesses increase continually, while the profits in agriculture decrease steadily,
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
DEBATES	July 22, 1969
whether in the field of farming, poultry farming, truck gardening or dairy production.
For instance, I have here a statement published on May 12, 1969, to substantiate that there are increases in profits in areas other than agriculture.
Gulf Canada: 7 per cent Increase in net profits in 1968.
For example, insofar as Bell Canada is concerned:
Operating profits have increased by 10 per cent at Bell Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if operating profits could increase at the same rate in the field of agriculture, I think that Canada would only feel better and we would be able to see that unemployment is less acute, because agriculture creates employment in related industries, for the benefit of the people.
I should like to ask the government, on behalf of those producers who rightly urge the government to take whatever steps are necessary to exert a more effective control over egg imports into Canada, to protect those businesses which really deserve its full attention, so that we may preserve a most essential industry.
The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction on imports. In his letter dated June 25, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture and Colonization informed the president of the C.F.U. that he had spoken to the federal Minister of Agriculture about the problem of egg imports into Canada during the last federal provincial conference of the Agriculture ministers held in Ottawa. The provincial Minister of Agriculture was answering the telegram of June 20 from the C.F.U., which was asking for the provincial government to make representations to the federal government, and stating he had discussed this problem with other provincial ministers.
As we said, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Bellechasse, may I tell him that I also am deeply concerned with the problem of egg production and imports in Canada.
When the question was brought up, I got together with a few members of the committee on agriculture in order to look into the matter more fully. It must be pointed out that
July 22, 1969

situation will now develop into a permanent $1 charge on welfare recipients. May I point out also that the 20 per cent drop in usage simply means in plain English that patients cannot afford now to pay that $1 charge so that the use of the drugs they need is dropping.
On its side, the provincial government appears to be quite happy to sit back and do nothing except advertise to social assistance people that the drugs listed in the drug benefit list, that is drugs available to welfare recipients at commercial drug stores, are also available at the provincial pharmacy without charge to such patients. That this does not solve the whole problem is evident. There is only one such provincial pharmacy to serve the whole province,, and it is in East Vancouver. To visit it, many Vancouver residents would have to spend several hours going and coming and use two bus fares. These are simple drawbacks unless one is elderly, sick and poor, which so many of these people are. People outside Vancouver must rely on the mails. In many cases they would possibly be dead of old age before the medicine arrived, so they have to give in and pay the $1 fee to get their prescriptions filled locally.
In this age of moon landings it just is not good enough for the pharmacists' society or the provincial government or the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which is supposed to protect consumers, to wash their hands and say: Well, the welfare recipients are now paying the shot, or going without, so why should we nor-ry? Action is needed now. Again I ask the minister: Has he now received a report on this matter from the combines branch, and if so, has the pharmacists' society the legal right to fix this $1 charge on the prescriptions paid by welfare recipients throughout British Columbia?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I recall that the hon. member, during the adjournment debate on April 28, raised the same question of the $1 surcharge by the members of the B.C. Professional Pharmacists Society to welfare recipients for prescription drugs. At that time I assured the hon. member that I shared her concern with respect to the high cost of drugs and also proper medical care for people who need it most. I went on to remind the house of the government's five point program designed to reduce the cost of drugs to Canadians, an
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion important feature of which was Bill C-102 which received Royal Assent on June 27.
With respect to the $1 surcharge, I also confirmed on April 28 that the minister received a letter from the Honourable Dan Campbell, Minister of Social Welfare in British Columbia, asking for a combines investigation. I also stated that the matter had been referred to the combines branch. I explained that the director then had the matter under review to ascertain whether there was reason to believe the Combines Investigation Act had been violated.
As the house is aware, it is not the practice to disclose whether formal inquiry under the act into a particular firm or industry has been undertaken. However, since that time it has become public knowledge, through sources outside our department, that a senior officer of the director's staff attended at the department of social welfare in Victoria and Vancouver early in May. In accordance with the usual practice, however, no information is given about inquiries in progress, unless and until a report is published or some other public proceeding has been taken pursuant to the act. It can be safely stated now, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is properly in hand in accordance with the provisions of the statute.



AGRICULTURE-EGGS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT CANADIAN PRODUCER FROM IMPORTS

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on July 7th last, I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) concerning a specific problem which Canadian egg producers are now facing.
That industry has become most important and provides employment to a large number of people. It is now going through an increasingly difficult period. The cost of production is going up while the cost of eggs has gone down considerably since January 1st, 1969.
According to the official figures that have been published, grade A large eggs retailed at 67.3 cents in January 1969; today their retail price is 55.7 cents. The price has gone down constantly since the beginning of the year.
Eggs are being imported in increasing quantities. For instance, almost a million dozen eggs were imported from the United States during the weeks of May 11 and May 18 alone. In the first few months in 1969, or rather during the month of December 1968, 268,400 dozens were imparted. During the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Forreslall:: With their six months' experience!


Mr. Thompson:: -to reconsider their position in this respect. They would be well advised to go a little slow in their frivolous approach to this problem, because their party will not always be in government. One day they will be on this side of the house but perhaps even before that they will understand what we are talking about.


Mr. Basford:: Even then we will be a more effective opposition than your party.


Robert Norman Thompson: I regard this debate as fundamental. It has been a privilege to take part in it. I trust that the conscience of members of parliament will begin to work as we approach the final vote which has been forced upon us by the closure action of today, and that hon. members will be very careful to make sure their convictions guide their actions when they vote. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, on June 18 I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) whether he could say when a report was expected from the Combines Investigation branch on a matter recently referred to it by the Minister of Welfare of the Province of British Columbia, namely, the legality of the $1 fee being charged welfare patients for their drug prescriptions by the British Columbia Pharmacists Society.
You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the question might be placed on the order paper and discussed at the time of adjournment. That was over a month ago and this is my first opportunity to raise the question again. Tonight I ask whether the minister has received a report from the combines branch on the matter and, if so, what does the report say as to the legality of the $1 fee being charged welfare patients by the pharmacists society for prescriptions?
It is important and urgent to get this matter cleared up. There appears to be a cold

July 22. 1969
war between the government of British Columbia and the pharmacists society, with the welfare patients in the role of helpless victims. On its side, the pharmacists society claims that the profession has the right to fix the price of its services and that the British Columbia government is not paying enough to meet those charges in respect of patients on welfare.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The society put its case succinctly in an advertisement appearing in the press in early June. The notice, under the caption "Notice to Welfare Recipients", reads:
On April 15th, B.C. pharmacists reluctantly began charging $1 fee to partially offset their average $1.14 loss on each welfare prescription dispensed.
Since that time, the B.C. government's social welfare department has done nothing toward a mutually acceptable contract agreement with pharmacists which would cause the removal of this surcharge.
Welfare minister Campbell's referral of this matter to the Combines Investigation Branch has only "side stepped" the issue with no result as yet.
The government has refused to meet with the pharmacists to negotiate an agreement to replace the outdated 1954 payment schedule.
Pharmacists must continue unfortunately to charge the $1 fee until such time as the government will assume its proper responsibilities and reach an agreement with the pharmacists so that welfare recipients may again conveniently receive necessary medication from the pharmacy of their choice without charge.
The British Columbia Professional Pharmacists Society.
Evidently this method of trying to get the government of British Columbia to the bargaining table failed to work. On June 26 we find a leading pharmacist quoted in the Vancouver Sun as follows:
Pressure which B.C. pharmacists hoped to bring on the provincial government by charging $1 on prescriptions for social welfare recipients has failed to materialise.
At the annual meeting of Cunningham Drug Stores Wednesday, Ralph Cunningham, chairman of the board, said that when the government had refused to do anything toward meeting the increased costs of the prescriptions, the costs had been passed on to the consumer.
"We had hoped that this would result in an outcry and would force the government to do something" Cunningham said. "But people have been paying the $1 charge quite happily and there has been little discontent. What's more, there has been at least a 20 per cent drop in usage".
Cunningham said the government has escaped both ways-there has been no pressure and there is less expense.
The wording of this statement is quite significant. In simple English it means that the

July 22, 1969	COMMONS
Petition forms have been sent to all Canadian university campuses and signatures can be mailed to the University of Ottawa Students Council,-


An hon. Member:: They are outside right now.


J. Michael Forrestall: And these are the students we were accused of bribing to do this.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a bit of advice to hon. members on the other side of the chamber. I know they cannot always be in the house to listen to debate, and probably do not have time to read all of Hansard. However, they would be well advised to read Hansard of July 18 and the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). The hon. member for Hillsborough is not considered to be a partisan member of parliament; in fact, he is one of the more amiable, easy to get along with members of the house. His contribution to the debate that day was profound. In order to give hon. members an idea of the kind of logic he was using I shall quote two paragraphs from the hon. member's speech. He said:
This debate is more than a discussion of the rules. It is not just a narrow discussion of a law, a regulation or a rule, but of the spirit behind it. This is what we are reflecting upon in this debate. There is more involved than the mere words of rule 75a, 75b and 75c. I think it is the essence of representative government that we are evaluating and appreciating at this time.
How very true! The hon. member went on to say:
What we, the people's representatives, are dealing with today could mark a great watershed between a parliament which, with all its imperfections, was and is a meaningful instrument of democratic action and something that is much less valuable, much less significant and much less expressive of the popular will. As I say, we are dealing today not with the routine, but rather with the essence of parliament.
What is the fundamental difference between a democracy and a dictatorship? It is the position parliament holds in the governmental process of a democratic country that keeps a country free. Democracy has preserved our way of life and made this country strong. The basic fact behind democracy is that parliament is supreme and that the executive arm, the government, must always be subservient to parliament. That is a fundamental concept of democracy. It is what Magna Carta was all about. I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to take note of this.
Procedure and Organization


An hon. Member:: He does not understand.


Robert Norman Thompson: In a dictatorship the government superimposes itself on parliament and makes parliament subservient to it. This is the danger we face at the present time.
I was interested the other day to read a community, weekly newspaper published in the capital area. An article in the newspaper was written by the member of parliament who is chairman of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization. The article reads in part as follows:
Basic Problem.
"Too little time and too much talk" are the basic problems of parliament. The scandal of parliament today is that it has not been able to tackle all the important problems it should.
So said the chairman of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization.


An hon. Member:: He is right.


Robert Norman Thompson: That is not true, because every piece of legislation the government wanted to pass has been passed. The Prime Minister himself has admitted this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) for interrupting him, but I wanted to invite a little more silence on the part of hon. members. However, when I rose, silence reigned. Therefore, I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting and I shall give him an extra minute after ten o'clock.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The very roots of the word "parliament" is that we, as representatives of the people, have a basic responsibility to express what we believe to be the thinking of our constituents and to give leadership through our comments here to individual, component constituencies as far as the nation is concerned. Anyone who talks the way the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) did in his article does not understand the basic purpose and value of this institution.
I am discouraged tonight because I am convinced that the action the government has taken makes this one of the dark days of our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: Procedure and Organization issue upon us at this time? I do not know the answer but I have my own suspicions. I am sure there are members on the other side of the house who also have their own thoughts regarding this question. I am concerned about this situation.
I have another simple question. Why have none of the great Prime Ministers in the past resorted to this type of action? Why is it that in times of difficulty, and they had their problems, filibusters and disagreements-the records of this institution are full of them since its beginning in 1867-they would sooner take a longer time than they thought necessary? Why is it that they respected the opposition, whatever party was in power? I am convinced that it was because they had an appreciation of the value of parliament in a free, democratic society.
There are those who say the debate on the Criminal Code was a useless filibuster and a waste of time. I do not believe it was.


Mr. Woolliams:: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) does not think so.


Robert Norman Thompson: No, the Minister of Justice does not think so either, but there are those who point their fingers over here to my left at the Creditistes and accuse them of a filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was one of those who agreed with them. I did not support the Criminal Code amendments. However, I did not agree with the length of time we were required to take to come to a final vote. To many of them I said that the opposition had gone far enough. But let me say specifically to hon. members on the other side of the house that their protest was not a filibuster. It was rather a substantial protest on behalf of those people they represent. That party had made this issue an elec'ion issue and it stood true to its commitment during the election. They carried out their responsibilities well.
To those members of the government who regard that lengthy debate as futile, I can only say it served a very useful purpose in providing a safety valve for the views of a rather large minority of people in Quebec and elsewhere. Certainly, 75c and the implementation of closure at this time is not justified in light of that debate, not by any measure. If it is, then there is 75b. The Creditistes have given their support to 75b. What then is the use, purpose, motivation or reasoning behind 
those who would force 75c on us at the present time? I beheve that a wise government would gladly endure an occasional filibuster in a representative democracy such as we have, because such as government knows that the throttling of strongly held views leaves a residue of bitterness that can be dangerous.
It is for this reason I sympathize with you, Mr. Speaker, in the responsibilities that will be yours during the rest of this parliament. This is not going to be as pleasant a job as in the past, in spite of those occasional problems you have had with some of us. It is not only the opposition which feels this way. It seems to me that the government ought to be a little sensitive to public opinion. A majority of newspapers across this country have expressed opinions in relation to the views I have expressed. Let me read a short quotation from a recent article in the Ottawa Citizen. I do not always quote the Ottawa Citizen because it is not often regarded as a Conservative newspaper. I quoted it last night because it had something profound and relevant to say about another issue. I quote it again tonight for that same reason.
On July 4, this editorial appeared which reads:
It is no accident that the government decided to wait until the dying hours of the present session to introduce its new closure rule-and that is what rule 75c is.
The editorial then continues:
No parliamentarians can become as intractable, as unwilling to compromise, as those who are tired,' who want to go home, but can't because they feei put upon and must stay to do battle. Much of the good work accomplished in gaining opposition co-operation to speed the work of parliament may be undone if the government keeps to its course.
I have thought that the Prime Minister and the Liberal party have tried to be sensitive to the views of students. They have watched and listened to the youth of this country, yet on July 18 I noticed a news report which stated:
The University of Ottawa Students' Union has challenged Prime Minister Trudeau and any one of his cabinet ministers to a public debate on controversial Rule 75, which would limit debate in the House of Commons.
In a letter delivered to the Prime Minister's office Thursday students council president Allan Rock decries the "apathy" of the public over the debate-limiting measure.
Resolution of the debate, if the Prime Minister accepts, would be "resolved that no government has the right to arbitrarily limit debate in our nation's parliament."
The students council has also mounted a countrywide campaign to collect signatures on a petition protesting the proposed rule change.
July 22, 1969	COMMONS
the new rules, produced a certain oneness in spirit so far as the need to reform the rules of the house was concerned. For the first time this session we operated according to those rules. Most of the things which hindered and blocked progress in the immediate past are no longer possible because the new rules have eliminated those roadblocks and hindrances. If that is so, and I am convinced it is, then why is this closure rule necessary now? I could understand it if there had been a major filibuster such as we had in respect of the pipe line debate in 1956. If this had been the case there might have been some justification for strengthening the closure authority so far as the operation of the rules of the house are concerned. But there is no such circumstance at this time.
All this closure rule, 75c, will do is force on this house a rule which, so far as the practical application and functioning of this house is concerned, is absolutely unnecessary. Perhaps there is an intention in the mind of the Prime Minister or in the will of the government to bring in seriously controversial legislation which they will be able to force through without having to answer to the public, as would be required normally under rule 33 for the application of closure. If that is the case, then we are moving from a parliamentary democracy toward a dictatorship. I do not like to use that word; it bothers me. I do not like some of the remarks which have been tossed back and forth here tonight because I do not think they are really becoming of men and women in our position. I want to say, however, that there is a genuine fear and alarm among the members of the opposition which justifies what is taking place. I did not condone, and publicly said that I did not condone, some of the things which happened and which were said to the Prime Minister when he was out west. However, by his very action and by the very flippant remarks he so often flings out, he invites that kind of action.
That is the reason what I say tonight is correct. I am not a prophet of doom, but this kind of thing is inevitable. The house leader, by his very attitude and by his very irritating offhand remarks, invites the reaction that has been evidenced here tonight. This is not just another debate. This is not a stupid filibuster. This is not hypocrisy. So far as we on this side of the house are concerned, this is a struggle toward the preservation of freedom of speech of the representatives of the people. It applies to members on the other side of the house as well because they will not always form the government.
Procedure and Organization
I should like to give a bit of advice to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) who is now making so much noise. He would be well advised to keep his mouth shut and listen a little more-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Norman Thompson: -because his depth of experience in the house does not, in my opinion, give him the ability to understand and assess what is actually taking place.
I have another very important question which I should like to ask. Why, just two days before this house was to recess for the summer on completion of its second semester, which is the terminology which has been adopted in defining the sections of our different sessions, was it necessary for the house leader to re-introduce into this house the closure rule, 75a, 75b and 75c? Rule 75c is the equivalent of rule 16a which was so ignominously tucked in the drawer some months ago. I now understand the Prime Minister, in explaining the withdrawal of 16a to the public of Canada on a national network, said this was just a trap in order to force through some of the less agreeable rules he had in mind.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Why was it necessary to bring in closure? We were all getting along well. Was there any hold-up in respect of any piece of legislation? Was there any major piece of legislation on the order paper that had not been dealt with in so far as the obvious intent of the government was discernible? There has been none in so far as I am aware. Again, I would say that the new rules have worked well. They represent many basic improvements, although they are not yet adequately proven in practice. At this time they represent a tremendous change for the good.
May I also remind the new members of the house, particularly those on the government side, that these rules did not result from any partisan decision or politics, but were the result of years, months and hours of working together in an all party committee. A great deal of study and careful consideration was given, and finally an all party agreement was reached in respect of these rules. It is because of these rules we have been able to make good progress.
What is it that is motivating the Prime Minister, the house leader and those who are working closely with them in forcing this
Procedure and Organization filibuster". There is no better way of describing the Prime Minister's attitude toward this institution of parliament than by that expression, "stupid filibuster".
A few minutes later, the Prime Minister imputed the motives to the opposition by describing the question period as hypocritical. This is further confirmation of the disdain and disregard in which the Prime Minister of this country holds this institution. I am concerned about this. This is why I said earlier that I regard this as a black day for Canada.
Great patriots of the governments of the past, not just common members of parliament like the majority of us, have said that the opposition in a democratic parliament is just as important and vital to the function of a parliamentary democracy as the government. There have been great prime ministers in the past such as Laurier, Mackenzie King, St. Laurent, Borden and Diefenbaker. These men have unanimously, over and again, proved in their lives of service to this house and the democracy of Canada that they regarded this institution as being something well nigh sacred.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The question which keeps coming back to my mind at this time is why the Prime Minister of this country, with his very short years of experience in this house, now seeks to bring about a basic reform of the rules and procedures of this house for which none of his predecessors ever thought of asking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: There are many statements by the Prime Minister which I could use tonight. Some of them were made during the debate which centred around rule 16a, which we discussed earlier in this session. They reveal the basic, inner attitude of the Prime Minister.
I have a few questions I should like to ask members on the other side of the house. I ask them with sincerity. I do not expect an answer directly, but I would ask them to answer these few simple questions to themselves. Why is it at this time that every single member on the opposition side is united unequivo-cably against this closure rule which is now being forced on us by the use of closure? In my years in this house I have never before seen the opposition in complete unanimity. Can we all be wrong?


J. Michael Forrestall: They say we are.

July 22, 1969


Robert Norman Thompson: They say they have a mandate to govern. They insist on the right to force through future legislation which might be controversial. I want to say to the government that this minority on this side of the house, unanimously united in our own free will, represents 55 per cent of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: There is no political pressure on any member on this side of the house to vote or take a stand on this issue. This means we are united not only in action but in spirit. If some of those on the other side who are my personal friends are telling me the truth, and I believe they are, I do not think the same situation exists over there. There was the direction which went out to the caucus and to the backbenchers a few months ago, as one of the members on the other side of the house informed his own constituents, ordering them to support government policy in committees. Tonight a telegram has gone out under the name of the Prime Minister ordering every Liberal member of parliament to come back to vote as he directs.
I want to say to the members of the government that over on this side of the house there is a strong unanimity, a firm conviction, that the issue which we are discussing at the present time is the most vital issue we have ever faced in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: I should also like to ask hon. members on the other side why this rule is necessary at this time. The press and Hansard all tell us that the record of this parliament in this session has been a good one. Yes, we were hung up for a while on the Criminal Code amendments, and I shall have a few remarks to make about that. As a whole, however, this session has been a profitable one. Furthermore, and more so than in any session in my experience in this house, there has been a remarkable degree of good will and willingness to co-operate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not think that same willingness will be there in the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is no way.


Robert Norman Thompson: This has been substantiated by the fact that an all party committee of the house, which took at least five years to draft

July 22, 1969

very hub of this democracy, sank in despair. The throb and vitality of democracy, in a world where democracy is often threatened, was never stronger than it was last Sunday. To this end, the astronauts performed a great service to the free world. Tonight in Canada the strength of democracy has dropped to its lowest ebb in history. This is a black day for this country.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I feel sorry for you this evening, Mr. Speaker. We have had some excellent Speakers in this house, but I doubt if there has been a Speaker who has had the support and unanimous goodwill that Your Honour has had. I respect Your Honour's judgment and fairness. We do not always agree with Your Honour, but there is not a member on either side who does not have affectionate regard for the manner in which Your Honour maintains decorum in this house.
It is going to be a difficult job for Your Honour in the years ahead. The goodwill, frankness and willingness to get along that has characterized this session is not going to continue. I must confess that I am emotionally disturbed tonight. This is not usual for me. I have watched the antics and listened to the remarks of some hon. members opposite. I am very concerned about the closure that has been introduced to-day. I am afraid that what has been the characteristic feature of this session is not going to be here when we return in the fall. It is going to be a drag-out struggle and I can understand why. The majority in a democracy is never stronger than when the rights of the minority are also strong. Today, the rights of the minority in this house are being jeopardized.
I can understand that in the future there will not be the same willingness and desire to get along. It will be difficult for Your Honour. This is unfortunate because at this time, when turmoil and violence seem to be the order of the day and when there is so little respect for law and order in many parts of the world, we need every bit of respect and decorum that we can get in order to hold the good ship stable. I know Your Honour understands what I am trying to say at this time.
As I watch the members on the other side of the house, I cannot help but be confused. Many of those on the other side are good friends of mine. This house produces friendships that go deeper than the general public
Procedure and Organization understand. Even though we may be on opposite sides on vital and important issues, there is a bond of friendship that develops between many of us that is just as deep and real as any friendships we have in our lives.
As I look across the floor I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). I also see the government whip, a man whose performance in this house and reputation of loyalty to this country and what it represents are beyond question. I cannot help but wonder what is going on in the minds of these men tonight. We probably will never know. There are others who were here earlier tonight. I think of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux). Some of these men have served long years in this house and I know the respect in which they hold it. I know of their own dedication to democracy.
A great deal has been said about the minority governments that existed between the years of 1963 and 1968. There were many difficult hours and days in those parliaments. Even though those of us on the opposition side sometimes disagreed bitterly with the issues before us, we always felt the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, had respect for this house. When you can trust a man's motives, even though you may disagree with him, there will still be bonds of friendship and confidence. There will be the stability which democracy and this house need.
I am afraid when I watch the pattern of progress of this government. I think the government house leader and I entered Parliament at the same time. When I watch the action and reaction develop in some of the members who came to this house just a year ago, having had a pattern set by some of their own leaders such as the government house leader for this type of problem we are now facing, I fear for the parliament of Canada. The expression on the face of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon indicated his attitude. There was fear in my heart and soul because I could not see in him the respect and sense of value this institution, of which we are a part, deserves.
The other day I asked a simple question about whether the Prime Minister was going to stay in this house to take care of the ship during what I regarded as an important debate, this debate, or whether he was going to keep an announced appointment with the people in the west. He said the people in the west were more important than this "stupid
11490	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization members, to be able to meet the people. That is necessary to keep in touch with the people I represent in parliament, so as to always reflect their way of thinking and inform the government of the real problems existing in my area.
I endorse the views expressed by the leader of the N.D.P. (Mr. Douglas) as to the motion before us; he gave us a very good picture of the situation. It would be in the interest of the government to give greater consideration to the serious arguments in favour of the reference of the report to the committee, with instructions to remove section 75c, which is bound to lead us to dictatorship. Even if we do not like the word "dictatorship", we have to mention it and it could be that through our mentioning it, we shall call the attention of responsible people and of the public, in order to take a step backward if need be, precisely to avoid bringing about, without realizing it, a system that was not appreciated elsewhere and that should not be more appreciated in this country.
I shall conclude my remarks by quoting the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who concluded his speech on July 8 with those very words:
I should like to make clear to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) -
Who was at that time the spokesman for the Ralliement Creditiste-
-that I do not think his party should be criticized for having felt on a matter of principle that they had to take a long time in debating the omnibus Criminal Code bill.
I want to thank the President of the Privy Council for having on July 8, paid such compliment to the members of the Ralliement creditiste for he actually acknowledged that this debate had been useful and had been conducted in a fair spirit. I go on quoting his words:

What the house has to do is to make a provision that while hon. members may feel they have to take that time they can at least be relieved of that obligation by some kind of fair allocation of time order which will enable other matters to be dealt with.
I really do not expect hon. members to support this. On the other hand, I am sure they do not expect me to favour the system whereby a minority in this house controls the business of the house.
Now, these words I And rather objectionable, for there can be no question here of small or big groups. The people concerned are always members, representing the people, here in the house. Groups may well exist outside the house, but when it comes to

DEBATES	July 22, 1969
debating on the business of the house, members should always be considered as individuals and not as belonging to a group.
He went on saying:
However, I trust we will have a meaningful debate in this regard, and I hope that perhaps even at this late date we may reach a genuine agreement in the house as to some effective means of programming the business-
I have been expecting this eleventh hour for the past week, and even today, and even until the last minute, I believed in the efficiency of the eleventh hour, which would have made it possible to find an alternative other than that which has been announced to us and which will take place at 1 a.m. on Thursday.
The President of the Privy Council said further, and I quote:
-bearing in mind that section 49 of the BNA Act says that ultimately the decisions of the house have to be made by a majority of voices.
At the time, he explained to us what could be the result of the eleventh hour. Today, we can better understand the meaning of the warning he was giving us when referring to section 49 of the BNA Act.
I wish, as he does, that even at this late hour, we can come to a democratic agreement as a result of a useful debate and I hope that the government will not use its majority to impose a rule which would not do honour to parliament.
If our society has to be put in a straight-jacket as it develops, I do not believe that it could be described as progress. If, in order to expedite business, the members should be deprived of freedom of expression, I wonder where we are going.
It is most unfortunate that following the adoption of the official languages bill, the government should now impose upon this same parliament the extreme restriction on the use of language, which is the vehicle of the official languages.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, two days ago, on July 20, man reached the moon and the spirit of mankind spontaneously soared to new heigh'.s of hope and brotherhood. Today, on July 22, the Prime Minister, aided by the government house leader, moved to throttle free speech by invoking closure. The spirits of men accustomed to free speech in a parliamentary democracy, and after all parliament is the
July 22, 1969

We know that in the course of two world wars, Canadians were called upon to sacrifice their lives and to contribute financially in the name of freedom. Many of our relatives laid down their lives during both of these wars. Had they lived, they would certainly feel unhappy to see that freedom is now jeopardized instead of being encouraged.
Mr. Speaker, if the session is protracted, it is certainly not because we used the time of the house to discuss the fanning problems in eastern Canada. It is not either because we took too much time discussing the problems of the dairy industry and the government's dairy policy for 1969-70, since that item was not even put on the orders of the day by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), and yet, the situation is extremely serious. On the other hand, many problems have not been debated, although they would have interested the people of Canada. Those are certainly not the topics on which we dwelt most.
If my memory serves me well, Mr. Speaker, it was on May 24, 1967, that the farmers of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario organized a march on parliament hill. On that occasion, the farmers, respectful of law and order, came to express their grievances and ask for a little justice.
I recall that in front of the parliament buildings, TV cameras were focused on the crowd of marchers in order to broadcast the event all across Canada. The same evening, both the press and TV were reporting that the marchers had behaved extremely well because of their respect for order, and because their claims were justified and were expressed in a spirit not of destruction, but of co-operation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Even if a few windows gave way under the pressure of the crowd and were shattered, it was not intentional. Indeed, I was there and I remember that at the door of the parliament buildings the few windows which gave way were not broken out of malice by the marchers, but gave way under the pressure of the crowd who wanted to meet the ministers and talk to them. We did not want to deprive them of their right to speak, but we wanted to give them the right to speak to us.
Mr. Speaker, the government has no call to complain about the opposition, because during this session, the days allotted to the opposition under a standing order of the house
Procedure and Organization were not all used up to criticize the government, as is the opposition's right, in order to give the government more time to have the legislation it wanted to introduce in the house passed. That is co-operation, Mr. Speaker.
In my opinion, it would be advisable to try to improve the standing orders and I am sure it is in that spirit that all members wish to work, so as to adjust the standing orders to our present needs. Those rules which need to be amended, should be geared to our century of speed, but without giving up everything, especially our freedom of speech which would be taken away by a mere decision of a minister, under overly drastic standing orders.
I feel that we have made good progress by adding to rule order 75, rules 75a and 75b. Even if at the beginning, there seemed to be some disagreement about those new provisions, I think that after a thorough consideration of the merits of standing orders 75a and 75b, on the whole, all members accept them. In my opinion, we should have given rules 75a and 75b a fair trial in the next session, and if serious problems had cropped up during the trial period, the government could have applied standing order 33.
Because of the little experience I have acquired in thirty years of participation in various organizations, I can safely say that an agreement is always possible among people of good will.
Mr. Jean-Charles Bonenfant, librarian of the Quebec legislature said this:
Any reform of parliamentary work should aim at making it more efficient and at ensuring the freedom of participants. Nothing else must remain. What is useless, or cannot really contribute to expedite our proceedings must go.
If we gave a look at that, we could find out there are traditions and practices that it would be well for us to abandon. We would thus save time, which would be to the benefit of the House of Commons.
We must all be serious-minded enough, I think, to be able to understand each other and give our country the example of a parliament working to promote the best interests of all, while always taking into account the fact that it is the public that pays the opposition, the government and the government members. I am not more eager than anybody else to spend twelve months in session, while we could do the same work, and very well, in eight months. My constituency is a very large one and during the adjournment period, it would be very useful for me, as for all other
Procedure and Organization the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) who expressed really peaceful and logical opinions. I had such high hopes that I told myself that, during this week, the house could adjourn, after having come to an agreement.
I did not intend to take part in the debate, letting the hon. members who are more familiar than I am with the rules discuss, on its merits, the motion of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the house on June 20 last. But, as the report recommends that the rules be amended in order to insert, immediately after Standing Order 75, the new clauses 75a, 75b and 75c, I cannot accept that and I wish to humbly express my views.
Following the motion moved by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) proposed the following amendment:
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be referred back to the committee, with instructions to amend it by deleting therefrom proposed Standing Order 75c.
On the other hand, the government says that it needs rule 75c in order to get the legislation it introduces in parliament, adopted without delay, but that it will very seldom use it. I heartily wish it will be so.
Standing order 33 is still effective and at one time, I had thought it would have been adequate without having to resort to rule 75c.
The government seems determined to get rule 75c through so that it will be an integral part of the standing orders to use against what it calls the "small opposition parties".
Mr. Speaker, we have first been elected as members of parliament and I remember that during the first sittings of the house, several members who have been in the house for twenty years and yourself have stated on several occasions that all the members in this house have equal rights and similar privileges, no matter whether we are seated on a back or a front bench. I cannot understand therefore why a certain number of hon. members should be muzzled, only because according to the government the debates are unduly delayed.
Mr. Speaker, where are the government bills whose passage was delayed, on account of the bad faith of the opposition? I wonder. Some have suggested that such was the case at the report stage of Bill C-150, better known as the omnibus bill. Of course, consideration of this bill took more time than some

July 22, 1969
small bill, and this is understandable. There were in fact several amendments to the Criminal Code in a single bill, and it was the duty of hon. members to make a thorough study of it and to suggest amendments in line with the representations made by recognized organizations and public opinion. I think it was only normal that the opposition members repeat in this house all the representations of those who were against some parts of the omnibus bill. In my opinion that is the role of any hon. member in a democratic parliament.
The opposition should not be held responsible if the work of the house is not progressing according to the wishes of the government. The responsibility lies mainly with the standing committees, which do not always operate very quickly. As long as a bill is before a committee and has not returned to the house, how can the house finally pass it?
For instance, the language bill was given first reading on October 17, 1968, but was only passed by parliament late in June. Is such a slow pace due to the opposition parties?
In my opinion, committee work could be speeded up in order that the bills referred to committees be studied without delay, and the reports brought back before the house earlier. This would surely make for a better allotment of time as far as parliament is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I think that all members readily realized that with the number of hours spent considering various pieces of legislation, we could, I believe, with a little goodwill, expedite our business and report to the house a little more quickly, and this, in short, would enable every member who does not sit on committees to examine bills more thoroughly and to make a few suggestions if they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, how can it be explained that on the one hand, government members are boasting that a great many legislative measures have been passed during this session while on the other, it is intended to muzzle the opposition under the pretext that it delays the adoption of bills?
Mr. Speaker, we are here as members of parliament, not to destroy but to work at the development of Canada in every field, according to what we consider best for the people. I am aware that we have made an earnest contribution to the business of the house and that there is no reason for the goverment to complain to the extent of wanting to suppress freedom of speech in the house.

July 22, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address the Chair.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Since the hon. member spoke about me, I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has the floor.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise to a point of order since the hon. member referred to me. I ask him respectfully, through you Mr. Speaker, to observe some of the rules of debate in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: We all remember that the Solicitor General used to be house leader, but he exhibited such a lack of knowledge of the rules he was demoted from that position.
One thing that has been proven today, apart from the indication of insincerity on the part of the government and fascist tendencies on the part of the Prime Minister, apart from the indication that the Prime Minister and the government have somewhat less respect now for parliament than they had even a year ago, is that it is not possible any longer to trust the President of the Privy Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: It has been proven that it is also not possible to trust the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: It has been proven that it is not possible to trust members of the cabinet who are elastic enough in their principles to support a closure motion to stifle debate. Events today prove that the government reeks of political turpitude and would sacrifice any idea to impose its will upon parliament. It proved that the government is not content simply and only to control its servile backbenchers, that the Prime Minister is not happy enough simply to have a fawning and toadying group of followers. He now wants to take away any independence the opposition members may have and restrict the tenor of debate. He knows that he can call upon his minions to vote in any way in which he tells them. He asks himself: What do we need debate for if we have the assuredness of a
Procedure and Organization vote? With the Prime Minister's queer approach to politics, it seems to me that a long time will elapse before we can develop again the spirit of friendliness and co-operation that is so necessary in a democracy.
By being arrogant and unfeeling, the Prime Minister has done more today to harm parliamentary democracy than even Louis St. Laurent did. By applying closure during the pipe line debate the Liberals were simply selling out part of our economy; today, they are selling our parliamentary freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Let me say in closing that if the Liberals want to operate parliament by the rules of the jungle, then the only course open to us is to try to accommodate them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed by the events which have taken place today.
I can remember that, some years ago, while I was listening quietly to the radio and reading the papers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some hon. members are preventing the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) from being heard. He is speaking from the other end of the chamber. I think his speech is as important as the others, and the Chair should be given an opportunity to hear it.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, a few years ago, while quietly listening to the radio to hear about the proceedings of the parliament of my country, or quietly reading the newspapers to find out what was happening in the House of Commons, I learned that after a few days discussion, a motion for closure had been passed. At that time, I did not expect that in 1969, I would be here as a member to witness such an event repeat itself.
I had thought, during the last week, after listening to the very serious speeches that have been made, that we would have come to an agreement of some kind, especially after listening religiously to the speech made by
11486
Procedure and Organization caucus in order to get them to toe the line. This has happened in the past-


An hon. Member:: Here comes Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have just been apprised of the fact that the gauleiter has entered the chamber. Perhaps he heard me talking about what goes on in the Liberal caucus room and what pressures are brought to bear on Liberal backbenchers to make them toe the line.
Perhaps he is the guy who threatens to cut off the compaign funds if they do not vote as they are supposed to vote. Perhaps he is the fellow who tells the Liberal backbenchers that if they do not toe the line the Liberal party will run another candidate against them and kick them out at the next nominating convention, just as they did with Ralph Cowan.


An hon. Member:: Where is Ralph
Cowan now?


Frank Howard: Where is the element of democracy and governmental responsibility in the Liberal party? They could not stomach Ralph Cowan's criticism, so they got rid of him. He would not toe the line; he was not subservient to the dictates of the party as are the rest of them over there. I know that every member of the Liberal party does not fall into that category. In fact, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), whom I saw earlier but who is not there now, is probably extremely happy about the events today because he was chosen, as the chairman of the committee, to act as a pawn. He will soon see his work come to fruition with the assistance of the closure motion introduced by the government house leader.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I regret also that the honourable and empty barrell from Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) is not here because at one time, and this intrigues me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that even if hon. members take part in this debate with feeling and passion some respect for certain values should still be maintained. I am not sure that anything in particular the hon. member said is out of order, but much of it according to my humble standards-and my standards may be different from those of other hon. members-is not in accordance with my views as to how a debate should be

July 22, 1969
conducted in this chamber. But again I say, that I cannot put my finger on anything that is particularly or especially out of order or that is not parliamentary. But in what the hon. member said, if this is the kind of debate we are going to have today, tomorrow, on Thursday or on other days, I wonder how long the House of Commons will survive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with you. I wish you had some influence in the cabinet. I wish those who have brought all this about would heed your words, and would think on them overnight. I wish that last December the government house leader, who today proved that he was not very honest with parliament last December, had listened to your words then and would listen to them now. What the government house leader has done-and I say this with all respect to you and am not trying to be unparliamentary or offensive-has been to indicate how insincere he was last December with respect to rule 16a.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: He showed us today what is meant by programming because here was a seven months program to introduce an offensive rule change that would stifle debate and that would trample on the rights of the members of the opposition as well a government backbenchers, even though they may not care much about them. Everything leads up to the imposition of closure today and tomorrow in order to get another form of closure written into the rule book. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) proved to us today that these so-called negotiations to which he was referring were a sham, that he would accept nothing in the way of a compromise, and that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.


George James McIlraith: You were the ones who would accept nothing.


Frank Howard: I am glad to see that the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) has finally awakened and has injected himself into this debate after having been dealt with rather unkindly by the Prime Minister at some point, in my opinion. I would think that, of all the people in the cabinet, the Solicitor General would exhibit independence. I hope he will stand up tomorrow night and vote against closure. Will you do that, George? Where is your courage now?

July 22, 1969


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the day the Prime Minister of this country is accused of facism is a sorry day for the country. This is a fruitless tactic on the part of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether hon. members might control the volume of their voices. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has the floor.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the best thing I can do with the point of order raised, whoever raised it, is to ignore it because he, of all people-we know there are others like him-should know how governments with a majority operate. People like the hon. member know the extent of the control that exists within the Liberal party. They know it is impossible for a Liberal backbencher to speak when he has not been given permission to do so. This is even more the case now than it was in the past. Liberal backbenchers know they are not consulted about the legislation that will be brought forward by the government. They know, more than anyone else, the degree to which they are programmed. Today I read in the Globe and Mail that one Liberal backbencher was complaining of the fact his role here was valueless, except as a voting machine. They have to do what they are told. They vote yes or no when they are told to do so. Where is the element of individuality in members of the government party? I have talked to members of the Liberal party. This is a confidential matter and I shall not mention their names, but there are members sitting on the other side of the house who do no agree with the imposition of closure. They reject it because it is objectionable to their sense of parliamentary democracy. They object privately, but I am sure that when the vote comes tomorrow night not one of them will have the courage to stand up and vote as his conscience dictates.
They will not follow the dictates of their conscience because they are programmed by the Prime Minister to come up with a certain answer and vote as he tells them. Where is the individuality in the Liberal party? Where is the self-respect of those hon. members who have spoken with me and said they do not like closure? We will see where their self-respect is when the vote is taken tomorrow night.


An hon. Member:: Name them.

Procedure and Organization


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says, "Name them". I tell him that I do not consider myself to be a squealer or a tattler of private conversations. My friends in the Liberal party may be used to that sort of activity, but I am not. If they have not the courage to vote as their conscience dictates tomorrow night, it will prove to the people watching us that the faces may change, the names may change, but those faces are just masks to cover the finks who are underneath. The same old gang is over there, the same old crowd. They have two policies, two faces and two things to say on every issue. They speak one way and vote another.
It is not necessary for me to disclose who these individuals are, because within their hearts they know whether what I have said applies to them. They whimper and moan privately that they did not really support the idea, but they have to support the government. We know that this sort of quiet moaning will go on, and we do not worry about it. It will continue within the government caucus with respect to the manner of operating parliament. This situation is more prevalent since the present Prime Minister assumed office. The method of operation of the government does not allow backbenchers' opinions to be expressed in debate. We do not know what happens behind the closed doors of the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I was sitting here the other day listening to some of the catcalls coming from the other side of the chamber, and it reminded me of a piece of doggerel that I believe applies right now. It is this:
Hark-what is that we hear?
If 'tis a voice, 'tis not too clear.
But if 'tis a Liberal saying,
Then only 'tis an ass that's braying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor and should be allowed to continue his speech. He may have more poetry for the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for elevating that work to the realm of poetry. I would not have put it in that class. What is important in terms of considering proposed rule 75c and the matter of closure is how the government and its caucus operates. We do not know to what pressures members on the other side are subjected in
11484	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization There was great affection shown for him by thousands of people all across the nation, and there was a tremendous amount of almost love and certainly support. When the people went to the polls on election day, they expressed that hope and affection by electing the Prime Minister and his followers, and I cannot think of a more polite word to use than "followers" for most of them.
The internal shame that has developed results from the fact that many people in Canada feel they were taken in last June. They feel they have been seduced or sucked in by Liberal programs of propaganda. That is why they have regret and feel disaffected. They are sad that they were taken in and that the "Trudeaumania" has now turned into "Trudeauphobia". The hope the people had of electing a Saviour as Prime Minister has turned out to be a hope in vain because, as they have seen today, they elected a scalliwag instead. The people generally have expressed this feeling not only because of what has happened this afternoon but because of what has been developing. They see in the Prime Minister now a person who, is not truly honest.
Thousands of people see in this Prime Minister someone who has no time for parliament or democracy. They see someone who has no time for parliamentary debates and no tendency to listen to opinions. He is like someone with a head of concrete, well mixed and well set, with no time for the views of anybody else. In fact I think the people in Canada see, as they might have seen this afternoon, a Prime Minister with actual disdain and dislike for parliament and its processes. At the very moment the declaration was made on motions, following an indication by the house leader that he was going to impose closure, the Prime Minister got up and walked out.
What is significant is, I think probably for the first time in Canadian history, the Prime Minister was booed as he left the chamber. That is a regrettable thing to have happened.
I do not think members were booing him because he chose to leave the chamber, as he has done that many times. That is his prerogative, as it is the prerogative of other members. It was the manner he exhibited as he did leave which was booed. He appeared as a master leaving his servants; as someone flippant, sarcastic and arrogant leaving a place for which he has no use and in which he sees no purpose.

DEBATES	July 22, 1969
Not only was he booed, but he was cheered by those on the other side. This is to be expected from those who have no brains to understand what is happening. One of the things I do not like to do is make reference to individuals, especially when they are not in the chamber. That is not my decision, that is the decision of the Prime Minister. I will be happy to repeat in his presence anything I say about him. One of the other indications of his disdain and dislike for parliament and democracy has been shown every time someone made reference to the imposition of closure. He applauded this with his usual simpering smirk, which is a type of smile or smirk almost offensive and embarrassing.
The Prime Minister left the chamber, went outside into the foyer and spoke with newsmen there. On a number of occasions he said he wanted to program the work of parliament. This phrase was used by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. Macdonald) so eloquently a moment ago. The concept of programming is a concept that should not apply to a parliament, but rather to a computer. My colleague behind me has referred to a robot and I am sure he was looking at some of the backbenchers when that thought came to mind.
This reference to programming means that the Prime Minister wants to be in the position following the imposition of these rules to put a bill into parliament, punch the necessary buttons, have his lackeys and bootlickers stand up and vote without any independence or feeling, following the dictates of the Prime Minister. The measure, would then come out the other end of the computer the very same as he put it in. That is programming.
This concept indicates a disregard for the views of anybody else and a disregard for debate. This reminds us of a slogan used some years ago, "No debate, just obedience." This slogan was developed by a Fascist party. I have no hesitation in referring to the fact that I fully believe the Prime Minister has great Fascist tendencies because of the manner in which he has indicated he wants to run the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.
July 22, 1969

government concludes it is rules which make parliament work, we will soon work to rule and show them that attitude does not make sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: I have not been here for many years but I have learned one thing. I have learned that it is the attitude and willingness to work on all sides of the house which makes this parliament function. No amount of rule changes or additions to the rule book will provide a parliament of which we can be proud. If the government thinks it has contributed something worthwhile to this parliament this day, then they have been very sadly misled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think we must admit very sadly that the actions indicated by the government house leader today are a very real travesty of the potential purpose of this place. Members of the government have talked about the need for parliamentary reform. With that I wholeheartedly concur. Reform, however, does not start by bludgeoning minorities in this place. Reforms will not be achieved by suddenly reversing 700 years of parliamentary history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Reforms will not be achieved by souring the will of individual members of this house. What the government has arrived at quite frankly is a confused set of priorities which show very little understanding of this place. I should like to indicate briefly some of the priorities which need to be dealt with which have not yet been seriously looked at by this government. Surely, the basic question is how can we make this house more responsive to public thought and participation. Participatory democracy may be a slogan with little meaning for some people but behind that slogan there is the urgent need that parliament become more responsive or more sensitive to public opinion in this country. What is needed for this place is not less responsibility, as proposed by the government, but more.
In parliamentary reform there is a need for greater legislative initiative and responsibility but there has been little leadership from the government in this regard. One might speak of the need for more and better assistance for individual members and the need of a more creative role for them to play. One could also
Procedure and Organization talk about the need for more effective machinery by which to review the work done by departments and the whole administration. One could spend a good deal of time talking about the kind of committee system which would really work and be responsible. All these things are priorities, but not in the thinking of this government. Rather this government regards parliament as a nuisance and therefore would rather introduce government by dictatorship.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Behind all this I sense a tremendous danger for ourselves and for this country. One does not need to remind anyone in this chamber perhaps that there is still a very large amount of cynicism about, and alienation in respect of, the processes of government not only in our country but in many other countries. We know only too well the degree to which young people, particularly university students, have become disaffected with our system of self-government. What we have seen evidence of today is a widening of this gulf between the government and the people. We are not closing the gap if all of us, as members of this place, are not prepared to deal realistically with the situation, and if the name of the game is only a greater concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. That being the case, the answer will be altogether too obvious because there will be people in the streets, there will be a revolution and there will be a rejection not only of those institutions which have served us well in the past but of many of the individual rights and freedoms that each of us cherish.
I close by asking all members to think seriously about the step which has been proposed by this government. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon he talked about a great leap for mankind. We see here the potential initiation of a leap for this country which quite tragically will not be forward, but backward. This is something which all members must refuse to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like initially to express the feeling of regret and shame which has been developing over the last few months and which thousands of people in Canada have today. There is a feeling of regret and shame within people as a result of what took place a year ago in June. During the election campaign, as everyone knows, there was great admiration developed for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
July 22, 1969

Procedure and Organization believe 150 members of this house could accept as a good thing the fact that parliament must now be responsible to government rather than the reverse. Further, the government house leader surely has himself in a most inconsistent position. He has already told us he does not like certain elements of these rule changes as reported by the committee. In fact, on his own initiative he attempted to make changes in order to clarify the situation. Now, he tells us he really does not care that much, but if we can somehow bring this debate to a conclusion the government will accept the rule changes as recommended and perhaps at some later date they can do what they wanted to do in the first place. He is asking us to accept something which is unacceptable to members on all sides of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: How can he consider that we or anyone will believe he is acting in a rational or responsible manner when he tells us today he is now ready to accept something he was not prepared to accept a week ago.


Mr. Stanfield:: Drunk with power.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: One of the issues at stake seems to be that we want to make more meaningful what we do in this chamber. That, of course, means making our debates more meaningful. Yet under this proposal we will be forced to accept, in a little more than a day's time, a rule which will provide for a forum which will be not more meaningful but less meaningful because we will in effect be saying that debate no longer makes any difference. The important thing probably will be programming, so that everything will fall within a certain period of time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So we can sell more wheat.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The problem, for the government at least, seems to be that we have not been able to allocate and nail down in advance all the necessary time periods required to put through a certain series of legislation. How, if one really believes debate in this chamber is to be meaningful, can one come to that conclusion? That is not an invitation to dialogue but rather to monologue. When the government chooses to unilaterally determine cut-off time for debate and there is no agreement, then debate in that situation cannot be considered to be meaningfull.

The Prime Minister referred to this debate as being a stupid filibuster. Under the government's proposal, a debate on that basis will become a filibuster. That to my mind will do little to ennoble this place or make it function effectively as suggested by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Where is he?


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The government suggests that what is needed here is efficiency. They believe parliament has not been efficient.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.
Another hon. Member: We know you just want your vacation.


Mr. Bell:: Go to Florida.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am really
amazed to discover that apparently many people on the government side believe efficiency is the basic criterion for the proper functioning and effectiveness of this place. I suppose they make the equation that the number of bills passed directly equals how good the government is. I think that kind of reasoning is sophistic to say the least, and is highly fallacious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Naturally, this might be desirable in a totalitarian regime, but surely that is not what we want in this place.


An hon. Member:: One of the troika is over there.
Another hon. Member: The one with the big grin.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: One must conclude for one reason or another that the government really does not understand what parliament is. Not only that, although that is bad enough, but what makes it even worse-and I again refer to the suggestion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-is that one must assume they do not even understand what democracy is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is not really rules which make parliament work. If the
July 22, 1969	COMMONS
as some would have us believe, that we must somehow on occasion tolerate these minorities. We know what the results have been in countries where that has been attempted. If that is the attitude in this house, we shudder with fear at the results which could occur.
Minorities have been dreadfully important in many different cases in numerous countries for the effective survival of basic human rights. Minorities have a right to exist on their own terms. Surely, in parliament minorities are important. They offer a type of safeguard, independence and special vantage point that is never available to the majority, regardless of who forms that majority.
We have seen a callous disregard for those rights and the adoption by this government of a motto that "Might makes right". Why have they adopted this point of view? One is tempted to believe that perhaps the members opposite or those who are in control have been too long used to power. Their vision has become blurred as to what is really at stake, namely, the protection of the vital rights and privileges of this parliament. Perhaps they have even become a bit self-centred.
In the past the Prime Minister has expressed a fondness for authoritarian regimes, some perhaps idealistic, but authoritarian none the less. We are tempted to believe that he is trying to introduce some of that same philosophy into the workings of what up until now has been a relatively free parliament. In years to come, people will not look favourably on the backward step that has been proposed in this house today.
What is really at stake in dealing with this issue? Surely, one of the basic issues in this debate has been the continual erosion of legislative power and responsibility, with a build-up of responsibility to the point of irresponsibility in the executive branch. It makes one wonder what is really happening to the ultimate responsibility of parliament. We have accepted too easily the erosion of legislative responsibility.
The rule changes accepted last December were mentioned earlier today. One of the fundamental changes was the removal of something that had been with free parliaments since earliest day, 'the power of the purse'. This power was removed almost without a murmur. That is not the only thing that has happened to the attrition of the rights of parliament. Anyone who has sat in this house day after day knows that the government unilaterally decided it was sufficient for their purposes to have only part of the cabinet
Procedure and Organization present in the house each day during the question period. The government decided these few ministers could tell parliament all parliament needed to know about what the executive was doing. This downgrading of the question period was more evidence of the nuisance factor the government obviously considered parliament to be.
We have seen an increasingly rigid parliamentary discipline being imposed on government members, not only on questions of an economic or legal nature, but on issues that are highly personal, social and moral, on which the government has taken an absolutely rigid stand. In many ways we have seen the further erosion of legislative responsibility. This new evidence today surely will not surprise hon. members very much.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) referred earlier to the fact that it is the people who really count. I could not agree more. The people of Canada will realize what is being proposed here. It is not just a question of the limitation of the number of speeches that will be made on a certain bill, it is the limitation of the full and free representation that people expect when they elect a person to serve them in the parliament of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I find it difficult to believe that members opposite accepted with equanimity the proposition of the government house leader this afternoon. There are too many members in that party for whom I have respect; people who have served this country in other roles, such as deans of law and who have given leadership in other forums. If they examine closely the proposal before us, they will use every ounce of persuasion they have, both publicly and privately, to make sure we do not commit ourselves to what can only be a travesty on the dignity and validity of this house. I say, for the sake of the future functioning and effectiveness of this place, not only for its own sake but for the sake of the people of this country, in God's name let us not take this step.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am encouraged to think that the proposals of the government house leader this afternoon perhaps are more peevish, and maybe even a bit childish, than a serious examination of the steps he proposes to take. I would find it difficult to
Procedure and Organization men must accept unreasonable measures. And this is one measure our party will refuse to accept with all the strength in its power. Never before, in the few years I have been an hon. member of this chamber, have I witnessed anything approaching the travesty that the President of the Privy Council indicates he is about to perform.
In the 700 year history of parliaments, the free and honourable parliaments were those in which the government at all times was responsible to parliament. Today, the teachings of 700 years of history are to be reversed. No longer will the government be responsible to parliament; it seems that parliament now will be responsible to the government. This is something no free people can accept.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Let us be responsible to the people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Right. The minister has said the right thing.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Exactly. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) says we must be responsible to the people. He is absolutely right, and I hope he contributes to this debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: Let the minister stand up. Let us hear from him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And it has taken the government six months to appoint a commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister made his contribution from a sitting position, which he no doubt thought was appropriate. His suggestion is that parliament must be effective, and that is quite true. But what the minister, the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues are asking for is not an effective parliament; they want an emasculated parliament. Although this issue has not been in the nation's headlines in the last few weeks, it is nevertheless vitally important and is not a matter of housekeeping, as some would have our people believe. Basically the issue is, will our people continue to enjoy responsible government. That is possible only when you have a free and responsible parliament.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
One could spend a great deal of time thinking of the utter inconsistency of the government's position. We have made many worthwhile changes in the last year to make this

July 22, 1969
parliament relevant to this country and to this age. One worth-while change was the establishment of Your Honour's position as Speaker with the most complete kind of independence a Speaker has ever enjoyed in a Canadian parliament. I think it was a mark of great advance that all parties, and all party leaders agreed some months ago, in order that parliament would be free and all members could be responsible, that Your Honour's position would be given an even greater place of freedom from any kind of political pressure or control.
It was agreed by all parties, including the Liberal Party, that Your Honour should occupy that special role. We were told this would make parliament more effective and responsible because Your Honour's office and the rules Your Honour administers are the prerogatives, not of any one party or group, but of all members of this house. Suddenly, the government, by its action today, has indicated that they believe the rules are their prerogative to do with as they please.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This is something no member should be asked to accept. It has been said by the government house leader and others on that side that we must protect the rights of the majority. I have always had occasion to smile when people have suggested to me that we must be concerned about the rights of the majority. I have heard this phrase not only during this debate on rules, but also in connection with the debate on the official languages bill.
Some people have suggested the provisions contained in that legislation were going to endanger the position of the English speaking people of this country and the rights of the majority would somehow be downgraded. It was quite noticeable in that instance that no government member ever expressed that concern, and rightly so. I am still looking for an example which would indicate how the rights of the majority have been endangered. If we want to talk about an effective legislature in a free country where democracy is still operative, we do not look in the first instance to see how effectively the rights of the majority are being protected but we look at the rights of the minority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What we have seen today in this house has been a flagrant disregard for these rights. It is not a question,

July 22, 1969

Procedure and Organization
this country must govern with parliament and within parliament are now told that, to all intents and purposes, we will be governed without parliament. We in this party, Mr. Speaker, and members in all parties on this side of the house, refuse to accept and will refuse to accept this proposition for as long as we are here.
Those on the government benches who talked freely and fully not too many months ago of government by dialogue have now opted for government by monologue. I will take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I was indicating in a general way how shocked I and many others in this house were this afternoon to hear the announcement the government house leader made. What we are witnessing, quite likely, is part and parcel of the passing of a free parliament. The Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) role is that of an undertaker, and that of his cabinet colleagues of pall bearers. Tomorrow we shall see the last act played out, and we shall all be witnesses at the wake.
Many in the country have wondered what we have been doing for the past month. The attention of our people to a large measure, understandably, has been directed to the fantastic space achievement of the last few days. They noticed parliament and took note of this debate only a few days ago after the Prime Minister made the inadvertent suggestion that he had better things to do than listen to a stupid filibuster. Some hon. members at that point became disturbed at the idea that, in referring to this debate as a stupid filibuster, he was attributing a motive to some hon. members of the house. Although it may not be unparliamentary for the Prime Minister to call a filibuster stupid, I think we have discovered that his words were not really meant to refer to a filibuster as much as to parliament itself. We have seen very real evidence in this debate that this government has become tired of dealing with parliament and wishes to be done with it.
29180-725J
The government has talked about negotiation. After the government house leader received permission to revert to motions this afternoon, he spoke about the advances the government had made in working out some kind of solution. He seemed to think it strange that by today we had not come to some sort of agreement. Is that his understanding of reasonable negotiations? They were not initiated by him last Thursday but by other hon. members. If one can judge from the relatively small amount of time the government has been willing to spend on negotiations, it is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the government has been preparing for some time to carry out the action it announced today it will carry out.


Thomas Miller Bell: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The slogan we heard not too many months ago was "participatory democracy". All the available evidence shows that either the Prime Minister does not understand what participatory democracy is, or that he cannot be bothered with it. Time and again when important questions or important issues have been directed to him, he has resorted to the technique of posing other questions rather than giving answers. That may be an excellent classroom technique but does nothing to promote those useful exchanges that must take place between a leader and the people. Part of his classroom technique, and here the Prime Minister has demonstrated his debating skill, has been to reduce the matter before him to the point of reductio ad absurdum. He has set up straw men to be knocked down. This time he cannot be bothered going through these exercises. This time he wants to muzzle parliament.
Before the government house leader introduced the closure motion I had thought that he and the Prime Minister did not really understand what they meant when they talked about participatory democracy. Now, I save come to the sad conclusion that, instead of not understanding that term, they did not really mean it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: One of the hallmarks of an effective parliament down through the years has been the mutual respect with which hon. members on either side of the house have regarded each other. Surely, any reasonable leader realizes that men in this forum will act reasonably. Tonight the government is trying to say that reasonable.
July 22. 1969

Procedure and Organization
This year, Mr. Speaker, is a memorable, outstanding year for me-not only for me but for all the new members, and especially those of the Ralliement creditiste. This institution was, to our mind, the most respectable and respected body in Canada. To us parliament was the supreme institution where democratic rights could be fought for, where our points of view could be freely expressed, where we could attempt, through our own limited means, to improve the laws and represent the Canadian people with dignity; we were happy with our first experience.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on a very sad and melancholy note, because on the eve of the adjournment of the session, the very few rights we had left are snatched away from us. We shall not be able to call it a holiday because the government has decided this to give a rest to its own members who have been twiddling their thumbs since the beginning of the session.
Mr. Speaker, this year in the house has been a most enlightening experience which unfortunately is ending in a most inauspicious way. I would like to tell the government that new members are sorry that it decided to apply the rule of closure and to do so with a smile.
The government sank in the estimation of the Ralliement Creditiste, and the only thing to do is to disregard the Standing Orders entirely, since from now on governments will most probably assume rights they do not possess.
Not only does the government wish to force its views upon us, but it also want to control the business of the house and of the hon. members. But they would never be able to have under their thumb and to control the hon. members of the Ralliement Creditiste, because we are free agents. We shall stand up and be counted, in spite of the liberal dictatorship!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


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


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker; I am rising to speak in the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: We are on motions and I have to call orders of the day. When we return to the debate, the hon. member for Egmont will be recognized.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 18, 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).
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it does not give me any particular pleasure to speak in this house this afternoon, but perhaps it is typical that as 1 rise to speak on this issue, the most important issue to be raised in this house, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sees fit to absent himself. What is involved here is an issue so basic to the future of this parliament that one wonders whether it is possible for us to discuss this vital matter with passions fanned to the boiling point.
It is unfortunate that one of the high points of this era, the week than man descended upon the moon, will also be identified by Canadians as the week that the government chose to descend to dictatorship. As others have indicated this afternoon we have seen a parliament, in which rested the promise of great things, suddenly soured and now brought almost to the point of impotence as a result of the action of an insensitive and, one must conclude, unaware government. If I were a man of stronger language I would not merely talk of the souring of parliament, but of its contemplated rape. For what we have witnessed here during the last few minutes is, to my mind, the death knell of the just society.
From a phrase, "Come work with me", introduced little more than a year ago, we have reverted this afternoon to "Don't bother me". We have learned that a government, unable to sort out its priorities, now considers that the best way off the hook is frankly and blatantly to tell us that parliament is a supreme nuisance. Those with any knowledge of history know that democracy, at any period in time, can survive for only a generation or two without the support of the people. Those who sit on the government benches this afternoon, those who conclude that the majority has rights, have also now declared that minorities must have no rights. We who have been led to believe that a government in
July 22, 1969

members do not have the chance, the opportunity of carrying out their duty according to the wishes of their electors. Why? Because they are simply gagged by the government. And many things bear witness to the fact that it is exactly the same within committees.
Government members have been muzzled and with the imposition of Standing Order 75c, opposition members will also be muzzled. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the government party is afraid of the opposition, especially of the smaller parties, because we are not afraid to speak our own mind, because we are free, because we are not tied up to any special election funds, and because our leader leaves us free to speak, to do our duty, something you do not find on the government side.
Parliament, Mr. Speaker, must not be a test tube to be used for experiments by each minister and each government member. It should not be used either as a spring board for one's own publicity and I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is listening. It should be used either as a place to play hide and seek in order to deny information to members of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, the three points which I have just mentioned, namely that parliament is a test tube, a spring board and a hiding place, agree exactly with the conception held by the Prime Minister and his party since the beginning of this session.
As for us, we believe that parliament-and this is our earnest conviction-is a melting pot where positive business has to be carried out for the good of the people, where there can be some sober-second thoughts and where legislation is developed. To that end, we nust have available the tools necessary to study it seriously and it is not with this rule of closure that we achieve this.
Government members might think that the Creditistes want to impose their views on parliament or the government. This is not our intention. Hon. members might also think that we have refused to co-operate but I will point out to them that they are mistaken, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) as well as the members of the committee on which I had the privilege to sit, can testify to that.
On behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, I have suggested that Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c be put in effect for a period of one year even though they might have to be revised following a study of the consequences, either good or bad, of their implementation. I felt that request was reason-29180-725
Procedure and Organization able in the sense that before adopting a permanent rule, it is better to test it in order to determine whether it is actually in the best interests of parliament.
Now, the President of the Privy Council, on behalf of the Liberal party, turned down that proposal and imposed the closure rule because it serves the interests of his party rather than those of parliament and of the Canadian people.
We are willing to co-operate and to that effect,, we have made numerous proposals. The hon. member representing the Conservative party, the member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-whom I want to congratulate in particular-as well as the member for Winnipeg North Centre did a tremendous job, and nobody can say that they lack parliamentary experience. Indeed, they could even teach a thing or two to several members on the other side of the house.
As for me, I had the opportunity of getting better acquainted with the rules and to realize the important part a member can play in the house, in parliament. I had the honour of representing my party on this Committee.
The final result is a feeling of deep frustration. We were wrong to suggest negotiations, because we should have known that the government had already decided to impose closure. This has been obvious ever since this debate started.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring my remarks to close on that period. Indeed, I should like to tell the Prime Minister, as well as his government, that they will surely regret their decision to impose closure.
The government wants to give itself more authority to control its legislative program even more to schedule it more efficiently. They want to control parliament even more. We agree, Mr. Speaker, with making parliament, that supreme institution, more efficient, and to that end we offer once again-perhaps for the hundredth time-our co-operation to the government. But if they absolutely want to have more rope the better to hang themselves, we are willing to give it to them; the sooner they hang themselves the better, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to remind hon. members that this is my first mandate. This is my first session in this 28th Parliament. Roughly 50 per cent of hon. members, on both sides of this house, are in exactly the same position.
July 22, 1969

Procedure and Organization at the appropriate moment I shall raise a point of order against the motion, under Standing Order 51.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the first times that we see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his seat to participate in a debate, and he takes advantage of it to impose the closure rule. Having concluded his-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like your co-operation to call the clowns opposite to order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I notice with dismay, Mr. Speaker, that the first presence of the Prime Minister to participate in a debate of utmost importance, in relation to the very existence and good operation of parliament-the first institution of this country-is only to impose closure under another closure rule. In my opinion this is shameful. The members opposite who have been smiling and laughing since the unfortunate announcement of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) should have sat instead of the representatives of the several parties of the opposition at the meetings held since Thursday last, with a view to arriving at a compromise.
First, the government claims that the opposition is not really seeking a compromise. I shall point out that the proposal to find a compromise as a token of our good will, was put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Center (Mr. Knowles), who is a member of the opposition and not a government member.
This is the proof, Mr. Speaker, that all the members of the opposition agreed, not to fight stupidly against the government but remain as co-operative as they have been since the beginning of this session, in order to conclude this debate as a result of a parliamentary agreement.
Now the government, following friendly consultations and the almost superhuman attempt by the representatives of the various parties of the opposition which extended their co-operation, and submitted some proposals has shown the extent of its intelligence by sweetly stating that closure had to be put through, but I repeat that it is dictatorial and absolutely unacceptable.

The strangest thing I find, Mr. Speaker, is that among the government members there are veterans of the two World Wars who have fought dictatorship they are now party to.
Mr. Speaker, we, of the Ralliement credi-tiste, say "yes" to co-operation, "yes" to consultation, "yes" to agreement "yes" to understanding. We are prepared to listen to government proposals and to co-operate at any time. However, we are not prepared to sell ourselves or to be muzzled.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the famous Standing Order 75c was first imposed upon the Committee on Procedure and Organization. From there, it was imposed upon the special committee, which has just met. Negotiations have broken off because the government, at this meeting, has once again forcibly imposed upon us this Standing Order 75c. A third time, the government imposes it on the house. In my view, the government had decided a long time ago that it would use its dictatorial power, its majority, to impose its view upon parliament.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, may I point out that Parliament is not at the service of one cabinet or of one man, but of all the people of Canada. All hon. members are equal here; all have the right to speak and to propose amendments for the purpose of improving our laws, laws.
What is most odious, in my view, with regard to clause 75c is that, normally, members of Parliament are elected to examine legislative proposals, to read them, study them and to attempt to improve them.
But, under rule 75c, which the government has imposed, a time limit is fixed without any regard as to whether the opposition members have any amendments to submit or any points to bring forward. In consequence, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members do not have the freedom nor the instruments needed to improve legislation and do their job to the best of their ability because the government is able to control the primary factor, the conerstone of Parliament, that is the time factor.
The government, Mr. Speaker, has become the master of its own members, by muzzling and gagging them. The government now wants to become master of the third parties in the opposition, and in that it shall not succeed.
It has been recognized for a long time, Mr. Speaker, by all observers that government
July 22, 1969	COMMONS
agree to a time limitation on second and third readings, the important report stage or the committee of the whole stage, in the case of a bill that does not get debated at the report stage but only at the committee of the whole stage, should not be subject to any time limitation imposed unilaterally by the government.
I want to make it clear that this morning when we met I indicated that in spite of the strong stand we had taken across the board against 75c, and in spite of all the things we have said against time limitation under 75c at any stage, in the interest of expediting the work of parliament and of gearing our rules to the realities of the present debating process, we were prepared to accept limitation on second and third readings, but we asked that there be no unilateral limitation on the debate at the committee of the whole stage or at the report stage.
o (5:30 p.m.)
It is that proposition, which I submit stands up and is in keeping with a realistic philosophy of our legislative process, that the President of the Privy Council, the government house leader, has rejected. We submit that this rejection should not have taken place. The President of the Privy Council, said in his remarks a few minutes ago that in his view there was no value to the continuation of this debate. I think he said: The continuation of this debate would not be a useful exercise.
I admit that there are times when debate gets out of hand and takes too long; but when a government simply says that a debate on a matter as important as the rules of parliament is not a useful exercise, it is admitting that it does not know what parliament is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Parliament is not just a place where we make speeches, where enough time is allowed for us to speak and get on the record. If we were doing this, we would follow the advice of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and just put our speeches on the record in printed form. The whole theory of parliament is that the debate be carried on, and out of debate something is achieved; that the cut and thrust of debate is real and purposeful. We have had instances of that in this session. I submit that because of debate the official languages bill is a better bill than it otherwise would have been. I submit that
Procedure and Organization because of debate the omnibus Criminal Code bill is a better bill than it otherwise would
have been.
I could name instances by the dozen where in the past legislation has been improved because of debate. But this government says: Debate is not necessary. We will let these boys, elected to parliament at a cost of $18,000 a year, sit here and make speeches now and then, but we do not intend that the debating process shall be one that results in the making of decisions. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this attitude illustrates a complete failure to recognize the purpose of parliament and the importance of parliamentary debate. There will be other occasions on which to raise points with regard to what debate is all about and what our rules are. I shall indicate in a moment the heading under which I may do it.
I regret that the government house leader has stood in his place and said that the continuation of debate on the rules of parliament is not a useful exercise. There is nothing more important to us, and nothing that is a more useful exercise. The government house leader says he will use the old 1913 closure rule and bring the debate to a conclusion at one o'clock Thursday morning, even though in the process some of the changes he has put forward are not accepted and some of the things we have agreed upon are sent down the drain.
I submit that this is a shameful way of proceeding. It is not a good day for parliament. The very real tragedy is that it need not have happened at all, because we have demonstrated in six months of parliamentary practice that we can make the House of Commons an effective chamber for the practising of participatory democracy. However, Mr. Speaker, this government does not want that. The government wants to be the master of the house. It has no awareness of the fact that we all come here as equals, with equal right to freedom of speech, that we have the right to freedom of speech unless we voluntarily give it up. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for parliament.
The only other thing I want to say is that in my view the effort to put through the third report of the standing committee, which as everyone knows did not have the support of any member of the opposition, is contrary to the rules, traditions and practices of this House of Commons. There is a Standing Order that has something to say about this matter. I should like to give notice now that
July 22, 1989

Procedure and Organization


Mr. Baldwin:: Something new; rape by closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that for the past six months, at least up until June 20, we have had a regime regarding house procedure that has been a pleasure. We have been able to reach all kinds of agreements. We have had only two instances during this six months period when we could not reach agreement. I submit it does not do parliament any harm to have two debates in the course of six months during which the feelings people have are fully and freely expressed. It was good for parliament to have these two lively and contentious debates. This was good for the country and good for democracy. Having had those, during the rest of the time we got along on the basis of consent and consultation.
I thought that after my motion of last Thursday for the adjournment of the house, which led to the meetings we have been having, we were getting back to the proposition that negotiation is better than standing off at arm's length, and that consultation is better than confrontation. Apparently this whole attempt to negotiate in the last four or five days has been an exercise which has now been proven futile. I must not impute motives. I am the last person in the house to do that, but I am wondering what kind of negotiations we have been having that we have reached the point at which we now find ourselves.
The result of this decision, if it is carried through, is as clear as can be. Proceedings during the next session of parliament will not be of the kind that they have been during this session. There will be confrontation and frustration. There will be work to rule, no more participating democracy. I appeal to the government even at this late hour to reconsider its position if it wants to retain the respect of the Canadian people who, as I say, believe in democracy.
The President of the Privy Council made reference to the proposals that the government placed before us during the course of our negotiations. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated the proposals made by his party during the same negotiations. There was agreement among us on some of these points. The particular position I put forward on behalf of this party was a very clear and direct one. My hon. friends opposite, at least through their house leader, were not prepared to accept it.

I think I have the right to state that we in this parliament did a good job last December. The job was not all done then, but it was an accumulation of four or five years' work. When we organized our legislative process the particular things we did were to downgrade slightly the importance of second reading and upgrade the importance of third reading, and to take the committee stage off the floor of the house and put it into standing committees. I think this was good and I think it has worked well. One of the reasons it has worked well is that we brought in something new, namely, the report stage at which it is possible to zero in on the points at issue and the points of contention.
I assert that one of the things which made the effect of new rules regarding the legislative process work was that the report stage included the right of all members to put down amendments to clauses of a bill that had been considered by a standing committee, or a committee of the whole. I think the experience we have had during the past six months demonstrates that this was a good rule.
The proposal now is that what we have achieved by our own common consent is to be frustrated and truncated and taken away by a rule that says no matter how many amendments there are it is within the power of the government to limit the debate on the entire report stage to two minutes and one day. I shall indicate in a moment or two what I intend to say about this through another point.
Let me make the point here that in our view one has to look at this legislative process in its broad perspective. One has to realize that second and third readings are important but not as important as they used to be, and that the report stage is supremely important. Therefore we proposed, and I did this at the meeting of the house leaders this morning with the full endorsation of the N.D.P. members of this house, that we would be willing to accept a time limitation even under some kind of a 75c on second and third readings. We suggested that the time limitation should not be less than three days at each of these stages. I think this is a pretty real offer for an opposition party to make.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hear my hon. friends laugh over there. They do not know what this is all about.
Relating this to the philosophy of our legislative process we said, having been willing to
July 22, 1969

of acting on the basis of consultation and consensus, we are now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
hon. friends can laugh, but it is a fact. I have been here as long as most people in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Be quiet over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: During the past six months we have had more dealing with parliamentary business by consensus and consultation than in all the years I have been here.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that way of doing things is being destroyed by the action the government is now taking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: would point out, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has said, that during the past several days we have had a number of meetings, five or six I believe. During the course of those meetings we have laid our various propositions on the table. Sometimes the discussion has been a bit tight, but most of the time it has been quite civilized. We agreed to a number of things. For example there was agreement among all of us that it does not make sense to apply 75c to the standing or special committee stage of a bill. Now we are being told that 75a, 75b and 75c are to be put through in their present form, and that 75c will apply to the standing or special committee stage of a bill.
Under this provision it will be possible to send a major or most important bill to a standing committee and give that committee one day in which to deal with it. This is being proposed by a government that has traded on the phrase "participatory democracy".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Disgraceful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
whole theme of this parliament has been the upgrading of the work of our committees so that they can do a better job, and give all members of all parties a chance to participate in the legislative process by the upgrading of the work of the committees. Now we are
Procedure and Organization being asked to put through, under the old 1913 closure rule, another closure rule which can be invoked to limit the debate in committees to one day. They talk of participatory democracy-this is not democracy at all.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I say to you, Sir, and to other members of the house, that there were a number of other things agreed upon in our discussions since four o'clock last Thursday afternoon. We agreed that perhaps one day's debate on second reading was not enough, and that perhaps one day on the report stage was not enough. This is what is possible under 75c, but we did reach an agreement to modify this position. Some of us wanted more than the government was willing to give, but the government was willing to move a bit. Now that is all down the drain. Negotiations are over. Negotiations have been broken off by a government decision announced to us about 40 minutes ago, with the government coming in here and indicating that what is before us has to be put through under the old 1913 rule of closure.
They tell us over there to get up to date, get with it and live in the 1960's and 1970's. Yet they are going to employ a rule that was brought in in 1913 in the midst of a debate that the Liberals were filibustering. They complained at the time that the thing that was wrong with the rule was that it was brought in in the middle of a debate and then used to put a stop to a debate which had started under a different set of rules.
That is what is going to happen now. We started this debate, on a motion to adopt the third report of the committee, under certain rules of debate. We are now being told there is no more of that, and no more participatory democracy and no more freedom of speech. By one a.m. tomorrow night, or in other words in the early hours of Thursday, July 24, the will of the government will be voted on in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: hope Hansard will note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet, most of whom are here for this occasion, are applauding the fact that at one a.m. on Thursday, July 24, the government, with the support of its backbenchers, will get its will, which is the use of closure to invoke a further rule of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Procedure and Organization


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You will be in orbit soon enough.


Gerald William Baldwin: Some of the proposals of the government obviously have been brought back from the moon. We made it plain that 30 days, in a country as widespread geographically as Canada is, with a diversity of problems, should be acceptable so that there would be 30 calendar days from the start of a debate until all questions were put on third reading. We proposed this to the government. It was rejected.
We also say to the government that if it is possible to arrive at some form of arrangement, then so far as the adoption of 75c is concerned it must be on a temporary basis, or on a provisional basis. We are prepared to discuss the period of time which would be established for the working of this proviso. During the course of the last session of parliament the government, in particular during the debate in December, was given more power and more authority than any opposition has given any previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are now in a position to know beyond any doubt that supply will be granted to them by a certain date. They know beyond any doubt that the estimates of government departments will be discussed, not in committee of supply but in the standing committees. During the course of the session members of this party, and of all opposition parties for that matter, have engaged in very, very reasonable co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: In fact, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Pipeline debate again.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please?


Gerald William Baldwin: I call upon the record to substantiate my statement. Not only have we cooperated, but in many instances members of the parties in opposition have initiated steps to bring to a conclusion debate on measures which the government indicated it considered to be essential for the proper governing of 
July 22, 1969
this country. No government has ever had greater co-operation from an opposition than have hon. gentlemen opposite-


An hon. Member:: Honourable?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am compelled by the usage of the house to say "honourable", Mr. Speaker. Another conditions we propose in respect of the government's 75c, with its changes, are that there must be before each stage of a debate, subject to the allocation of the tm>
rule, one day's debate, and that there should be no right to initiate proceedings under the allocation of time rule until there has been one day's debate. We would then be in what in effect would be closure proceedings. This would be the proper way for the government to meet its responsibilities.
This would apply to the second reading stage, the report stage and third reading stage. If the government then should be of the opinion that the circumstances warranted their moving to what in effect would be closure, they would have the right to move the motion at the conclusion of that day's debate. We say there must also be an over-all limitation of 30 days so that the country can be apprised of the issues and the circumstances so that if necessary that great weapon, public opinion, might be brought to bear on the government.
Finally we said that it must be tried on a temporary basis. We said that if it can be demonstrated that it is essential that it work, there will be every co-operation by this party to make sure that the rule, or an adaptation of it, will become practicable. Instead of this the government have rejected our offer and pursued the path of a bulldozer rather than the path of reason. Mr. Speaker, we will meet them on their battleground.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the first thing to say is that the government today has achieved a genuine first. Without taking the trouble to read all the pages of Hansard I can be sure that this is the first time in the history of the House of Commons closure has been invoked to impose further closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what has been imposed today. Instead
July 22, 1969	COMMONS
There seems to be some measure of agreement that the continuation of the debate would not be a useful exercise. In addition it is the view of the government that it would be in the best interest both of arrangements for planning the business of the next session, and of members themselves, and indeed in the interest of the house staff that the house should adjourn for this part of the session. But the government also feels some progress in achieving a procedure for programming house business should be the result of the past two weeks' debate even if it is not possible at this point to incorporate in the rules the changes which I have proposed and which have not been accepted.
In our view, if it is desirable to make amendments to the proposed standing orders in the future, these could be brought forward at a later date. In the meantime we feel that the house should move ahead and take a decision on the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
It is for this purpose, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 33, that at the next sitting of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: -immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming the debate on the motion, "That the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be concurred in", and on any amendment or amendment in amendment proposed thereto, I will move that the said debate shall not be further adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We hope in this way, Mr. Speaker, to be able to bring the debate to an end and to have some opportunity to reflect on the Standing Orders. As I have said, if it be considered desirable at a later time to amend the Standing Orders, we would then have an opportunity to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is
obvious, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), realizing that the very reasonable alternative proposals advanced on this side of the house were going to be rejected, prepared what he was going to say today, as was his right.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!

Procedure and Organization


Gerald William Baldwin: 
Mr. Pepin:: -reaching for the moon,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion matter toward as a question of privilege. He may have a grievance and feel that the answers received were not those he would have liked to receive. Merely because the hon. member is not satisfied with the answers given by the minister does not mean that there is a question of privilege, and the matter cannot be raised in this way as a question of privilege.
I suggest there is no point in allowing the minister to reply to the point raised by the hon. member. That would merely bring on debate.
Since there is an order of the house that we should now rise until the call of the bells at five o'clock, we might continue discussing the question of privilege when we return. The hon. member may do that if he still feels it is worth pursuing the matter further. However I think it is the desire of hon. members that we rise at this time.

Pursuant to an order of the house, the sitting is suspended until five o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 3.10 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended pursuant to special order.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Combines-Drugs-Price	fixing
by B.C. pharmacists; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-Agriculture- Eggs-Request for steps to protect Canadian producers against imports; the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins)-Sports- Trotting Races-Refusal to licence lady drivers.

July 22, 1369



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have general consent to revert to motions to make a statement about the discussions on the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and also about the business of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house having reverted to the order for motions:


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As Your Honour and hon. members know, negotiations have been going on since Thursday last in the hope of arriving at a compromise which would enable the government to discharge its responsibilities for programming the business of the house,, but also taking into account some of the points made in this debate by opposition members.
Specifically we proposed to the opposition parties a number of amendments in addition to those proposed in government order No. 99, which together seemed to us to offer hope of a reasonable compromise. Briefly, these are as follows:
1.	To remove the standing or special committee stage of public bills from operation of proposed standing order 75C;
2.	To provide that at second reading and report stage one full-day's debate must take place before application may be made for an order, that is in addition to the minimum of a full-day's debate which must be provided in the order;
3.	To permit the Speaker to extend the time for debate on allocated days for an additional two hours, and on report stage to extend it up to a maximum of two additional days;
4.	Where there is an order in effect, to reduce the time limit on speeches to twenty minutes.
After consultations I am advised that those amendments would not enable hon. members opposite to withdraw their opposition to the proposed standing orders. We must, therefore, consider what arrangements should be made for completing the business before the house.

July 22, 1969



EXTERNAL AID


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs have yet received an answer to representations made to Nigeria and Biafra with respect to mounting an effective daylight relief operation and utilizing the services of people from our country to act as inspectors in this relief operation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I checked quite recently and we have had no such acceptance. Possibly there is some later news. If there is, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be able to inform the house about it when he is here.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it his intention to give a report to the house on his recent tour of western Canada. Also, does he intend to report about any policy he may have arrived at as a result of his tour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that depends on how long we sit around.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How long do we have to sit around before the Prime Minister can make up his mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not very long, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question that is supplementary to the one I asked a few minutes ago. Could the Prime Minister possibly undertake to make a statement to the house tomorrow with respect to his trip to western Canada?



STUDENT LOANS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether, in view
Inquiries of the Ministry of the great unemployment among students, he has any plans to increase the size of student loans. The minister implied that the question ought to be directed to the attention of the Minister of Finance today. Has he any plans to increase student loans in view of the difficulties many students will have in paying for their next session's tuition?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter involving a change in the statute. There is no intention to change the statute during the present session.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is he now in a position to announce government policy with respect to self-government for the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not ready at this time, but I hope that we will be in a position to do so before the end of the summer.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is related to the misleading way the minister has answered our questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: My question of privilege relates to the manner he has answered questions of this nature both recently and in the past. For example, on January 21, 1969, the minister said, as reported on page 4551 of Hansard:
-I have taken a decision on this matter and submitted a proposal to the cabinet. I hope it will receive approval within the next weeks and I expect to be in the Northwest Territories, to announce the new policy, in early February.
When asked similar questions on other occasions his answer has been "soon", "fairly quickly", and so on. I submit that the minister has been misleading the house by making answers of that kind with respect to self-government for the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I can rule fairly briefly on the question of privilege. I do not think the hon. member can bring this
11468	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry They have been at their disposal for some considerable time and they will continue to be at their disposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With what result?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's statement that there will be an injection of $250 million into the western economy and in view of the government's professed intention to fight inflation, does the Prime Minister consider that this injection will be inflationary in itself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is not in order.



FINANCE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the policy of the chartered banks of applying interest rate increases to outstanding demand loans as well as to new loans, would the minister consider approaching the chartered banks and urging them to desist from this practice?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as explained by the governor of the Bank of Canada, the banks themselves have to determine their own interest rates chargeable on loans. I did make that quite clear. I would also point out to hon. members opposite that my so-called pious wish of last week still stands, and I am still hopeful that the banks which have not increased their prime rate will refrain from doing so.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks are applying these interest rate increases to outstanding demand loans even though a set time period for repayment has been set down on paper. I have here three letters I received recently stating that this is the case.


Edgar John Benson: If there is a set time period for repayment, then it cannot be a demand loan.

DEBATES	July 22, 1969



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since a substantial lay-off of men at the Churchill Falls project is pending because the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway is not transporting fuel supplies, etc., and since severe inconvenience is being suffered by residents of Labrador City and Wabush because of the embargo on the transportation of automobiles, will the minister consult the Canadian Transport Commission with a view to having its recent order extended to include the transport of supplies to Churchill Falls and the transport of private automobiles to and from Wabush and Labrador City?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport not only will; he has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell us when this action took place and what the result of his consultations is?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in fairly constant consultation with the C.T.C. ever since this strike started and fuel supplies into Labrador Ctiy were delivered, I think, earlier this week. Now we are casting about to find ways of taking care of the matters to which the hon. member has referred. Of course, the simplest way to get the matter resolved is to get the strike settled, and I hope the parties will do that as quickly as possible.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the minister doing to bring the two parties together in order that they may settle the strike?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is put them on the train.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish the minister would think more about box cars for wheat.
July 22, 1969



WATER RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF WATER ACT Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of resources. My question relates to the long awaited water act which he expected to introduce in mid-July. May I ask the minister whether there is any possibility that this act will surface this summer?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, mid-July was the hon. member's expression. The end of July was my expression, and it remains my expression.


Mr. Aiken:: A supplementary question. May I take it from the series of answers that have been given that the government is waiting for the house to adjourn before introducing this legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Victoria-Haliburton.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the hon. member's question but as asked I do not think it is in order.



FINANCE


Mr. W. C. Scoif (Vicioria-Haliburion):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the Department of Finance considered the possible inflationary effects of a rate increase being granted to Bell Canada of the extent that is now being sought? If so, what conclusions have been drawn by the department?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a hypothetical question; the hearings are not finished.



TOURISM


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it relates to tourism. Will the minister advise whether Canada's trade and tourist advertising programs are now under specific review?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. The decisions that need to be made are made with respect to the publicity program of the Canadian Travel Bureau.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has been able to make any progress in selecting a new chairman for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Can he also inform the house when he expects to be in a position to announce the appointment of a chairman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have made some progress but I am not in a position to make any announcement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister give the house the assurance that he will give this task very high priority? I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that any substantial delay in filling that office might very well prejudice the work of the corporation as it affects the communities concerned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do agree with the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, and we are giving the matter high priority.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Kelvina-tor Company of Canada plant in London has now been closed, putting about 300 employees out of work,, and also in view of the fact that on February 10 the Minister of Labour assured the house on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that this minister's department would seek to prevent these lay-offs or, alternatively, help these men find other employment, what is now being done for the 90 per cent of the men who are without jobs?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisfer of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the full facilities of the department are at the disposal of the employer and the employees.

July 22, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the numerous suggestions made in the debate yesterday and that have been made by organizations outside the house for the solution of this problem and in view of the fact that almost half of the shipping points are not yet on the five-bushel quota, can the minister advise us whether the Canadian Wheat Board or the minister is prepared either to recommend the extension of the crop year or to allow the country elevators to store grain wherever they wish, including outside, in order to complete the delivery of the five-bushel quota by July 31?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that storing outside is not a cautious measure to take, but I took notice last night of the several suggestions made by the hon. member during the debate yesterday. I had them passed along to the Wheat Board this morning. I was able to confirm that I had answered correctly two or three of the questions regarding the use of gondola cars, the renting of extra cars from the Canadian Railways and of cars from the United States. These are some measures that have already been taken by the Wheat Board to cope with the present difficulties.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister had a statement from the railway companies indicating that they will not be able to provide sufficient box cars in order to take away the five-bushel quota at country elevator points?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no such statement from the railways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether or not authority to suspend the allocation of cars to shipping points where the five-bushel quota has been achieved lies with the Canadian Wheat Board or with the railways? If it lies with the railways, will the minister investigate allegations that cars are being withdrawn from shipping points before the five bushel quota has been reached


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have received many representations on this general subject. Some farmers feel that they are not being as well treated as others. I regularly take these observations to the Wheat Board officials and

they try to solve any problems in co-operation with the railways. Again, the Wheat Board commissioner told me this morning that he was receiving maximum support from the railways in these difficult times.



WHEAT-STABILIZATION OF MINIMUM PRICES UNDER INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the announced wheat price cuts established by the Canadian Wheat Board at the opening of trading on Monday of some two to seven cents a bushel on most grades, has the minister any reliable information that I.G.A. minimum prices will now stabilize within that range?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I did say yesterday in the debate that I could give no such assurance. It will all depend upon the reaction of other countries, like Australia and the European Economic Community members, to the United States move. I also said yesterday in the debate that I was very much hoping that prices would level off at a new plateau as a result of the United States and Canadian adjustments.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary
question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that to some extent we are now reviving the debate that took place all daj yesterday and last night. I appreciate that the questions hon. members are asking are important, but in view of the fact that the question period is running short of time we might pass on to another subject. However, I believe there are two members with supple-mentaries who might be recognized.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the minister's answer to my last question, are further meetings of the nature of the Washington meeting contemplated? In other words, are the exporting countries prepared to meet continuously until they arrive at some stabilization of the minimum prices?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, a meeting of the working group to which I referred when I came back from Washington is planned for next week.
July 22, 1969

Lasalle in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In view of the fact that the length of the present session is somewhat uncertain, would he give an assurance to the house that a meeting of that committee will be held before the house adjourns to deal with the matter involving the Great Slave Lake Railway?


Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle):: If it is the
wish of the committee, I am willing to call a meeting.



WHEAT-ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF BOX CARS- ABILITY OF PRODUCERS TO DELIVER

['First of all, I want to thank the minister for having sent us the French version of his statement.\nI also want to congratulate the government and the minister for what they are doing to secure summer employment for students, at the urging of hon. members.\nI also want to take this opportunity to praise several manpower centers that are doing commendable work to cope with the endemic state of unemployment, particularly in Quebec. Let us hope that those efforts will one day serve to render financially feasible what is physically possible.\nI was sorry to hear that some students had refused employment on farms. Young university students like them could learn a whole lot of practical things, because even in university it is necessary to know that cows are milked twice a day. It is not necessary to wait until one becomes prime minister to learn that.\nEvery week, I draw the attention of the house to the problem of unemployment. As many other members, I receive a number of requests for employment from people between 35 and 50 years of age, who are unable to get any kind of work and are sometimes replaced by students. This problem should be considered seriously.\nFinally, Mr. Speaker, let us hope that with all the people of good will, we will work together in order to find a solution to the unemployment problem. Otherwise, socialism will take hold in Canada and I would fear that this would inevitably lead us to communism.']
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Earlier I asked the minister whether there would be an assurance from the railways that adequate box cars would be supplied to all country delivery points so that at least a minimum five-bushel quota could be delivered. Can the minister bring us up to date on what are the hopes for the supply of box cars by the railways inasmuch as there are only a few days left before the end of the crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch with the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board just a few minutes ago. He assured me that maximum efforts are being made by the railways in order to reach the objective which is the five-bushel quota level. I may say in passing that 940 stations are now on a five-bushel quota, 709 are now on a four-bushel quota and 167 on three bushels. So there is progress every-day. It is still considered physically possible to reach the objective, but I must add immediately that difficulties have arisen in recent days because of unusually large offerings by producers as a result of circumstances with which the hon. member is familiar.


Stanley James Korchinski: In view of the fact that there are only a few more days left, would the Wheat Board immediately open up the remaining delivery points to the five-bushel quota and concentrate on the delivery of a sufficient number of box cars?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hope I understand the hon. member well. If he has in mind the opening up of all delivery points and telling everybody that they should be on the five-bushel quota, this would not do much in reality to
Inquiries of the Ministry bring about the objective which we have in mind.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as there are only eight days left in the crop year and in view of the figure he gave as to the number of points on a four-bushel quota, did I understand him correctly that he is seriously informing the house he expects the producers to be able to deliver a five-bushel quota in the current crop year?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is clearly argumentative. Perhaps it might be asked in other terms.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I rephrase it? Is the
minister informing the house that producers will be able to deliver a five-bushel quota in the current crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was very careful in the choice of my words. I said that this was still the objective but I also said that the realization of the objective was made more difficult every day because of the number of requests for delivery that are made. Many people who did not have wheat to deliver a few days ago seem to have found some to deliver now.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: May I ask
the minister whether he would give consideration to recommending changes in Wheat Board regulations to allow deliveries to elevators with space that now have a five-bushel quota by those people who cannot deliver to points that have no space and are only on a four-bushel quota, so that at the end of the crop year all the available elevator space will be utilized?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon Souris):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the block system of grain movement recently introduced by the Canadian Wheat Board and referred to by the Minister without Portfolio last evening as one of the government's solutions to this problem assist in a major way in ensuring the delivery of the five-bushel quota at all delivery points? If not, what other emergency plan has the government in mind to deal with this problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was informed the other day that this system was of assistance in the limited number of districts where it was operative. I was also informed that the block system would be implemented everywhere by the end of this year. Consequently it will help even more next year.

July 22, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
should indicate that the Department of National Defence has always maintained the friendliest possible relations with the unions, and we intend to continue this. In his question the hon. member referred to a Canadian union. We are faced here with an over-all exercise in command and control and in urban control, as well as all sorts of other things in which Canadian Forces have to participate elsewhere. There was a scenario in which a mythical union in a mythical place, not in Canada, acted out a part. There was an exercise in which a political problem was involved in which a union formed a political party, and that is again a mythical situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: This is the type of exercise that went on, and it was explained repeatedly by the P.R.O. in the region to the local newspapers. First of all, there was no intention to be injurious to the labour unions. If that were the case, I would have to conclude that the Canadian Forces are probably better at peacekeeping than at acting.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: You
are getting better than Paul Martin.


Mr. Broadbenl:: I find the minister's answer totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker__


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Yewchulc:: In light of reports quoting the same gentleman as saying that Canada has also failed to seek Formosan markets for Canadian lumber-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question directly, not quote from the statements to which he is now referring.


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question. Will the minister undertake to investigate also the possibilities for sales of Canadian lumber, machinery and heavy water nuclear reactors to Formosa?



Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the United States has a permanent wheat selling office and representatives in Taipei and that Canada has no direct sales representative there, either through the government or through the Wheat Board, will the minister take steps toward establishing some type of sales contact for the potential sales that are awaiting Canadian wheat there?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence which arises from an earlier answer he gave. Is the house correct in assuming that since the Canadian Armed Forces are now being trained in counter-insurgency activities, the insurgency is expected to come from our civilian population?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.


WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF SALES TO NATIONALIST CHINA
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the statement attributed to the minister of economic affairs of Nationalist China that that country wants Canadian wheat but Canadian officials have not tried to sell wheat to Formosa, will the minister undertake to have a mission sent immediately to Nationalist China, and will he explain why Canada has not tried to open markets in Formosa?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As a general policy the Canadian government allows Canadians to make sales to Taiwan. There is no problem about that.


Robert Norman Thompson: Through whom?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the usual way.


Robert Norman Thompson: There are no representatives there.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said I would look into that aspect. There is probably a question of price competition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to make a reply to the hon. member.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for
July 22, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Finance look at the situation and discuss with the chartered banks whether money is still being advanced to big industry in order to assist it while small business is being cut off because of the tight money supply in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the allegation made by the hon. member is correct. However, I should point out in fairness to the banking system that lines of credit are granted in advance for a period of time and it is very difficult for the banking system to contract these lines of credit unilaterally and immediately. Therefore it takes some time for the tightness in the money supply to work through the system and to apply exactly to those people to whom one wants it to apply.


SWAP DEPOSITS-EFFECT OF REQUEST OF GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance in a position to say whether his hopes and those of the Governor of the Bank of Canada have been realized in regard to the restriction placed upon the banks in respect of swap arrangements? Has it had the effect of adequately controlling the outflow of capital from Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I shall not know the results of the request of the Governor of the Bank of Canada until the end of the week when statistics are available. But I am sure the banks and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are anxious to co-operate with the government and indeed all members of the house in doing the best they can to fight inflation in this country and guard our exchange reserves.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there have been a few lengthy exchanges of notes between SACEUR and the Department of National Defence. One must remember that a new SACEUR was appointed to take over as of July 1 and therefore there has been some impediment to the conclusion of our negotiations. But it can be expected that these negotiations will be accelerated in the near future.


GAGETOWN, N.B.-EXERCISE ALLEGEDLY REFLECTING ON LABOUR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Canadian forces base at Gagetown, New Brunswick, is reported to have had recently an exercise in which a supposed labour leader led a supposed insurrection in Canada, and in view of the fact that Donald MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has rightly protested to the minister about this insult to two million Canadian trade unionists, would the minister investigate this matter and report to the house at the earliest possible date?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have already investigated this problem. In order to do justice to the question I have a rather lengthy answer. Perhaps it could be printed in Hansard; otherwise, I could not read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The difficulty is that the statement cannot be made at this time unless we revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: In fact, there are many
members who are anxious to ask questions. Does the minister have leave to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question may be directed to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence. On April 3 the Prime Minister spoke of a planned and phased reduction of the size of Canadian forces in Europe in consultation with our allies. Have the consultations been concluded and can the house expect to receive a detailed statement of what these reductions are to be?


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement. Perhaps the minister might communicate with the hon. member later.


John Edward Broadbent: In light of the serious nature of the question and the insult felt by many Canadians, can the minister make a very brief statement at this time?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I could speak generally on the report I had. First of all, I

July 22, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker. The minister did not get around to answering the second part of my question. Does the minister intend to impose a daily limit on sports fishermen with respect to the number of fish that may be caught?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, there is a limit on the number of fish any particular angler may take in any one day. That is the only limit imposed on them and the only limit we intend to impose on them this year.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alfcerni):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister may have partially answered it. In view of the situation the minister has described with regard to the cohoe salmon run, is he considering a reduction in the daily allowable catch for sports fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


OFFSHORE BANKS-CONSERVATION CONTROLS -INQUIRY AS TO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the statement made by Mr. Roy Jackson to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization meeting in Halifax that there is a pressing need for global studies as a prelude to some form of international management of deep sea fishing, can the minister indicate whether any progress has been made toward establishing an international conference at which the question of conservation controls on our offshore banks can be discussed?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, considerable progress has been made recently through the International North Atlantic Fisheries Commission toward the establishment of over-all quotas for fishing of the various stocks in the north Atlantic. We are hopeful that these can be applied in the next few years.


SEALS-DISCUSSIONS REGARDING CONSERVATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to report to the house the results of the discussions at ICNAF with regard to the conservation of the seal herd off the front of Labrador?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been holding discussions in this respect. I think the major developments for 1970 will be within our own control and as a result of our discussions with the Norwegians.


FINANCE
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Char-lotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister said recently that priority would be given to areas of lesser development and to small businesses in respect of the lending of funds. Can the minister advise the house what agreement or arrangements have been made to ensure that small businesses have adequate and immediate access to credit? Also, can he say how successful these arrangements have been?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I made this submission to the banks as did the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and I understand this is the policy being followed by the banks.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister examine a question which has been raised in some areas outside our large cities, namely, that the house building industry is suffering because of the failure of the banks to provide interim financing?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is an
interesting question that has not been brought to my attention. I will, of course, look into the matter. It is true that the restrictions being placed upon the monetary system in Canada for the purpose of fighting inflation will prevent some people getting all the money they want.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the minister's answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. Apart from his general impressions, would the minister be prepared to make a statement to the house on motions, if we are still in session, or table a report on this matter so we may know to what extent the banks have participated in the program?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take up this matter with the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
July 22, 1969

of the National Indian Brotherhood on Thursday. The necessary announcements will be made in due course.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, would it be reasonable to conclude from the minister's remarks that this rejection of the proposition put forward by the National Indian Brotherhood is simply another way of saying that the government is going to impose its policy regardless of the feelings of these people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member-

That the question as asked is argumentative.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite important to let the people know we are not imposing anything of that kind. I will not let go insinuations like the hon. member put forward, after he tried last month to get the paternity of the policy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could comment in respect of the point of order raised.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that would be in order. The hon. member might perhaps have risen on a question of privilege, but I would have to rule that there is neither a question of privilege nor a point of order. I do not think it would be in order to comment. The hon. member may have a supplementary question later but for the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Churchill who has a question.


Frank Howard: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I was trying to draw your attention to. It is obvious from the apoplectic reply of the minister that we have drawn blood.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the house that in appointing the commissioner consideration will be given to appointing a person of Indian ancestry?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly appoint the most competent man we can find, and if he is an Indian, we will be most happy.


FISHERIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry with respect to the restrictions placed upon commercial salmon fishing in British Columbia. The notice sent to the fishermen by the minister's department, dated July 9, reads in part as follows:
The foregoing action is being taken in order to provide for a more equitable distribution between the sport and commercial fisheries of stocks of salmon available for capture in the Strait of Georgia area.
Is that the reason for the restriction being placed upon commercial fishermen, rather than the reason the minister previously gave the house, namely, that there is a shortage of available salmon stocks?


John (Jack) Davis: There is a shortage, Mr. Speaker. The run of cohoe, salmon, our best sports fish, is the lowest in years; therefore, there is concern about supply. There are on the waters of the west coast at any one time, roughly 3,000 anglers and 200 commercial fishermen. The commercial fishermen's take however has amounted to 90 per cent of the total and therefore a more equitable distribution of the catch appears to me to be in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are sports fishermen being required to secure licences, as are commercial fishermen, and is the minister's department imposing a daily limit on the number of fish a sports fisherman may catch?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, no licence is required by sports fishermen on the west coast. Sports fishing is one of the few things that are free in our part of the world at the present time. On the other hand, commercial fishermen are required to have licences, as they sell their fish to earn a living.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question,

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: First of all, I want to thank the minister for having sent us the French version of his statement.
I also want to congratulate the government and the minister for what they are doing to secure summer employment for students, at the urging of hon. members.
I also want to take this opportunity to praise several manpower centers that are doing commendable work to cope with the endemic state of unemployment, particularly in Quebec. Let us hope that those efforts will one day serve to render financially feasible what is physically possible.
I was sorry to hear that some students had refused employment on farms. Young university students like them could learn a whole lot of practical things, because even in university it is necessary to know that cows are milked twice a day. It is not necessary to wait until one becomes prime minister to learn that.
Every week, I draw the attention of the house to the problem of unemployment. As many other members, I receive a number of requests for employment from people between 35 and 50 years of age, who are unable to get any kind of work and are sometimes replaced by students. This problem should be considered seriously.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us hope that with all the people of good will, we will work together in order to find a solution to the unemployment problem. Otherwise, socialism will take hold in Canada and I would fear that this would inevitably lead us to communism.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question arising out of the renewed request of the National Indian Brotherhood for funds to allow an independent investigation by Indians of treaty and aboriginal rights following the announcement of the position taken by the minister. Bearing this in mind, is the minister prepared to 
July 22, 1969
review his position and consider the renewed request of the Indian people through the Brotherhood as opposed to leaving the matter to the unappointed commissioner and the department as the minister had in mind?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly stated that the government intended to supply funds to the National Indian Brotherhood to help them establish this research committee on Indian rights and treaties.
We shall carry out that intention. We have said that the funds will be provided through the commissioner who is to be appointed. At any rate, whether the funds come directly from the government or through the commissioner, the Indians will be free to carry out the investigations required to throw light on the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister does not seem to think it makes very much difference whether the funds go directly to the Indian people or through the commissioner, is he not prepared to meet the wishes of the Indian people in order to provide funds directly so they will feel they are in a position to cope with the kind of negotiations and arrangements the minister has in mind?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the commissioner, once appointed, will be able to work in co-operation with the Indian people and also that the system we have suggested is adequate. Any way, Thursday morning, I believe, I am supposed to meet, with the president of the National Indian Brotherhood, Mr. Deiter, and I shall discuss the matter with him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the minister please bear in mind the importance of what he has launched getting off to a good start and consequently consider very urgently the direct provision of these funds as requested by the Indian people rather than leaving them in a state of uncertainty for some time until the commissioner is appointed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can discuss all those problems with the president
July 22, 1969

be involved if high school students were also taken into consideration.
Employment of young people between 20 and 24 years of age increased by 53,000 during the months of May and June. This is very good. But when we set alongside that figure the fact that there are 252,000 university students in Canada, the majority of whom are looking for employment, it is evident we are still just scratching the surface of the tremendous need, whether it be government or industry that should assume the responsibility of providing summer employment to our student population.
I bring these points to the attention of the minister because I believe there is an even greater need than we realize from this report to continue in an accelerated way to do even more to provide summer employment for our young people, particularly those who are involved in their educational process and need summer employment to help them to remain in school. I want again to express appreciation to the minister for all that he and the department are doing. I trust they will continue their effort not only through the reports to which he referred in preparation for next year but also by a greater concentration of effort this year, along with a greater degree of participation by the private sector as well.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to keep in mind your directive that we should not be too long at this stage.
I am sorry I cannot join the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) in congratulating the minister on anything he has stated to the house in his report. The statistics he gave are, in my view, extremely misleading. To make a sample study of Ottawa students is about as irrelevant to the situation across Canada as can be imagined. With the government and its various agencies in Ottawa, obviously students looking for work in this city are in the preferred place in Canada. This is an example of the kind of ill thought-out way in which this problem has been pursued by the minister and his department. They think they can satisfy parliament and the people by taking a sample of student employment in the one place where student employment is necessarily much easier to obtain. This is clearly misleading as to the true picture across Canada.
While some of the things undertaken by the department are obviously useful, as I have said on other occasions I am at a loss to know why these things take so long to implement.
Student Employment
It did not take a genius to know last winter that the problem of summer employment would be very serious this summer. It did not require a genius to know, in light of the policies pursued in a deliberate attempt to slow down the economy, there would be a general increase in unemployment and therefore more difficulties for students in the summer. Yet it was months before the minister could be persuaded to institute the inadequate program he has outlined today.
e (2:20 p.m.)
Therefore I cannot congratulate him or his department, although I am sure the officials are doing their best.
I also want to say I am getting thoroughly fed up with the attitude of ministers whenever any problem arises of emphasizing the fact that it is not their sole responsibility. We know that. No one in this house is unaware of the fact that there are things that have to be done by all parts of our society, both governmental and non-governmental. But the fact is that the Department of Manpower and Immigration is the only department of the federal government and the only over-all department of any government in Canada with the machinery to tackle the kind of problem that unemployment presents. It is nonsense to say, "It is not our sole responsibility". I wish ministers would stop singing this song as if it were a broken record. We know this government cannot do everything, but we also know that the responsibilities which are responsibilities of this government must be lived up to. The government cannot excuse itself by pointing out that other people have to do something as well.
I can only express the hope that the minister and the department will make a genuine, effective and nation-wide study of this problem so that if the government continues its policy of increasing unemployment generally the students will not be hurt even more than others. Even though students ought not to get any special consideration, surely we are dealing with a generation in this country which obviously represents our future technological and scientific progress and future leadership. Therefore the students at university and high school levels obviously need our attention, and in my opinion the government has failed to give them the kind of attention they deserve. I only hope that as a result of the department's studies somebody will wake up in the future a little earlier than the eleventh hour.

July 22, 1969
Student Employment
Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia; the surveys will be based on a sampling of 250 students in each region.
Members will also be interested in another survey-a much more extensive one-which we plan for this fall. We are currently arranging to have some 18,000 students from 38 universities and community colleges questioned on their summer employment and jobhunting experiences. The sampling will represent approximately 5 per cent of Canada's post-secondary student population, and I am confident the results of this survey will be most helpful in developing future programs to find summer jobs for students.
As far as high school students are concerned, 102,768 have so far registered at Canada Manpower Centres; as these students have only just become available for employment I cannot at this point give any reliable statistics on placements.
Another aspect of our student summer employment program has been to intensify efforts to encourage farmers to hire students for available agricultural jobs and to alert students to these job opportunities. Many farmers have responded positively to our canvassing but 1 must note that some students are still reluctant to take this type of work.
By the end of June, some 6,937 students had been placed in farm jobs, the majority being pre or secondary level students; at the same time there were 2,653 active or deferred vacancies for farm jobs recorded in our C.M.C. files. Up to June 30, approximately 3,000 students had refused summer jobs in agriculture.
I am hopeful, though, particularly this month and in August, that students who have not found jobs will accept summer employment in agriculture. In this connection members will recall that this year I have reduced by 50 per cent the number of foreign students coming to Canada to work on farms; this was done so that more of the jobs could be filled by Canadian students.
I assure hon. members of my concern about the student summer employment situation in Canada, always bearing in mind two important considerations. One is that any federal program of this kind must be studied in relation to resources and that services for one group of individuals-in this case, students- must not be disproportionate to services expected by other Canadian citizens who have employment difficulties.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
The second is the fact that the governmenl of Canada cannot accept sole responsibility for the employment of students during the summer months. Other levels of governmenl and interested groups such as educatior authorities, unions, industries, and students themselves must share this responsibility anc be involved in initiatives and activities which help provide financially and socially meaningful summer jobs for this particular segmenl of our population.
The problem cannot be solved this summer or in the years to come, by governments alone, but only through the joint efforts oi everyone concerned-employers, voluntary agencies, educational bodies and the students themselves. As I indicated earlier, my department will be evaluating this year's prograir and experiences throughout the summer, anc I will be in a better position in the late fall tc give a more complete and detailed report or the success of the program and the extent oi the problem this summer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr
Speaker, we are grateful to the Minister o: Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEacheh for making a statement about student summei employment. To be fair, we must comment the minister and the department for their efforts not only in finding more jobs for students in agencies of government but ii taking the lead in encouraging private industry to take a greater interest in our younj people and to display a greater sense of responsibility toward them. I know the minister thinks, as I do, that we have a responsibilitj to our young people who, at this most impor tant time of their lives, are endeavouring t< further their education. Many student depend on the money they earn from summer jobs to pay for the following year's education We owe it to our young people to encourage private industry and departments of govern ment to make as many summer jobs availabli as possible.
The statistics the minister brought to ou attention this afternoon are deserving of a fev comments. They point out, it seems to me that we need a better system to show statisti cally what is actually happening. I say thi because, in spite of what the minister said according to the figures I have from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics relating ti employment and unemployment, there an still 144,000 teenagers out of work. These sta tistics are as at the end of June; therefor they do not really include all those who migh

Tuesday, July 22, 19G9